A Prospective Observational Study on the Structuring Process and Implementation of a Large Regional, Inter-hospital, Virtual Multidisciplinary Tumor Board on Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: At present, multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTB) are considered best practice in oncology. However, web-based virtualization of MDTB may increase participation in meetings, the number of cases discussed, and adherence to guidelines, deliver better treatment, and eventually improve outcomes for patients with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is an observational study focused on exploring the structuring process and implementing a multi-institutional virtual MDTB in Sicily, Italy. Other endpoints included the analysis of cooperation between participants, adherence to guidelines, patient outcomes, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall, 126 patients were referred to the virtual MDTB for a total of 302 cases discussed in an 18-month period. Nearly 45% of cases were referred from general hospitals or tertiary centers, 38% from comprehensive cancer centers, and only 17% from academic ones. Most health professional participants (95%) reported eliminating geographical barriers and consequently reducing costs and saving time as key advantages of virtual meetings over face-to-face ones. Using a specifically designed platform for virtual MDTBs was another excellent point, especially to geolocate clinical trials and time-lapse data storage. The majority of referred patients had stage T 3-4 prostate cancer (79%). Overall, 71% of proposals discussed were approved unchanged, while 19% changed after the virtual MDTB discussion. Debated points were mostly radiologic, surgical, medical, or radiation treatment-related issues. In particular, the prescriptive appropriateness of positron emission tomography with 68Ga-prostatic specific membrane antigen, newer drugs, radiation versus surgical approach, stage T3-4 cases, and adjuvant therapy represented the most debated issues. The proposed diagnostic and/or therapeutic options were controlled for adherence to the guidelines and/or updated scientific evidence. Overall, 98% of approved proposals and changes were in line with the guidelines. Overall, most participants felt virtual MDTB was very useful and case discussions led to a major change of strategy in 19% of cases. CONCLUSION: Virtual MDTBs are a very useful way to achieve best management of prostate cancer while saving time and fostering cooperation.

High rate of hematological responses to sorafenib in FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukemia relapsed after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Relapse represents the most significant cause of failure of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for FLT3-ITD-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and available therapies are largely unsatisfactory. In this study, we retrospectively collected data on the off-label use of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib, either alone or in association with hypomethylating agents and adoptive immunotherapy, in 13 patients with post-transplantation FLT3-ITD-positive AML relapses. Hematological response was documented in 12 of 13 patients (92%), and five of 13 (38%) achieved complete bone marrow remission. Treatment was overall manageable in the outpatient setting, although all patients experienced significant adverse events, especially severe cytopenias (requiring a donor stem cell boost in five patients) and typical hand-foot syndrome. None of the patients developed graft-vs.-host disease following sorafenib alone, whereas this was frequently observed when this was given in association with donor T-cell infusions. Six patients are alive and in remission at the last follow-up, and four could be bridged to a second allogeneic HSCT, configuring a 65 ± 14% overall survival at 100 d from relapse. Taken together, our data suggest that sorafenib might represent a valid treatment option for patients with FLT3-ITD-positive post-transplantation relapses, manageable also in combination with other therapeutic strategies.

Phase II escalation study of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have been previously treated with anti-angiogenic treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess both clinical and biological efficacy and toxicity of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with an anti-angiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor. METHODS: Sorafenib is an orally active multikinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of mRCC. Drug-focused translational research on tissues (i.e. B-RAF) and plasma (VEGFR-α, circulating endothelial cells, endothelial progenitor cells) was performed to define biological predictive and prognostic markers and their related kinetics. Patients with mRCC pretreated with an anti-angiogenic treatment, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-2 and adequate organ function were eligible. Patients received sorafenib 400 mg twice a day continuously in 4-week cycles. Patients with no progressive disease at 12 weeks continued to receive sorafenib at the standard dose, whereas progressing patients received an increased dose (600 mg twice a day) with early disease restaging after 4 weeks. Patients who progressed at 600 mg twice a day went off study. Efficacy (overall tumour control) was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. RESULTS: In all, 19 patients were entered. The baseline characteristics were as follows: ECOG PS 0-1 94.8%; median (range) age 62 (41-81) years; nephrectomy 100%; surgery for metastatic disease 26.4%; clear cell 79.1%; papillary cell 15.7%; sarcomatoid/high grade 5.2%; two or more metastatic sites 84%. Overall, 11 patients (58%) had disease control at 6 months without significant correlation between response to prior therapy and hypertension. Progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.3 months was observed. Of six patients for whom the dose was escalated due to early progression, three benefitted with PFS of >3 months. Three (15.7%) of 19 patients had a V600E mutation and one had a K601E mutation; PFS appeared to be substantially shorter in these patients compared with 15 patients with wild-type B-RAF (2.5 vs 9.1 month, P < 0.05). The most common toxicity (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, NCIC 3.0, all patients) was grade ≥1 diarrhoea and grade 2-3 hand-foot syndrome in 11 patients. Grade 3 mucositis was observed in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib at doses of 400-600 mg twice a day continuously results in acceptable and well tolerated salvage treatment after VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor failure. In progressive patients, treatment with a higher dose could be a valid option and B-RAF mutations may be an interesting predictive marker to be studied in a larger randomized trial.