Safety and efficacy of abiraterone acetate in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an Italian multicenter "real life" study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of abiraterone acetate (AA) in the "real life" clinical practice for men with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients with mCRPC in 9 Italian tertiary centres treated with AA was collected. Demographics, clinical parameters, treatment outcomes and toxicity were recorded. The Brief Pain Inventory scale Q3 was tracked and patient treatment satisfaction was evaluated. Survival curves were estimated by the method of Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression and compared by the log-rank test statistic. RESULTS: We included 145 patients (mean age 76.5y). All patients were on androgen deprivation therapy. Patients had prior radiotherapy, radical prostatectomy, both treatments or exclusive androgen deprivation therapy in 17%, 33%, 9% and 40%, respectively. 57% of the patients had a Gleason score higher more than 7 at diagnosis. 62% were asymptomatic patients. The median serum total PSA at AA start was 17 ng/mL (range 0,4-2100). The median exposure to AA was 10 months (range 1-35). The proportion of patients achieving a PSA decline ≥50% at 12 weeks was 49%. Distribution of patient satisfaction was 32% "greatly improved", 38% "improved", 24% "not changed", 5.5% "worsened". Grade 3 and 4 toxicity was recorded in 17/145 patients 11.7% (70% cardiovascular events, 30% critical elevation of AST/ALT levels). At the last follow-up, median progression free and overall survival were 17 and 26.5 months, respectively. Both outcomes significantly correlated with the presence of pain, patient satisfaction, PSA baseline and PSA decline. CONCLUSIONS: The AA is effective and well tolerated in asymptomatic or slightly symptomatic mCRPC in a "real life" setting. The survival outcomes are influenced by the presence of pain, patient satisfaction, baseline PSA and PSA decline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered at ISRCTN as DOI: 10.1186/ISRCTN 52513758 in date April the 30th 2016.

Inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer patients: a comparison between open and video endoscopic approach in a multicenter setting.

OBJECTIVES: To compare differences of operative outcomes, post-operative complications and survival outcomes between open and laparoscopic cases in a multicenter study. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study performed at three European centers from September 2011 to January 2019. The surgeon decision to perform open inguinal lymphadenectomy (OIL) or video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) was done in each hospital after patient counselling. Inclusion criteria regarded a minimum follow-up of 9 months since the inguinal lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients with proven squamous cell penile cancer underwent inguinal lymphadenectomy. 26 of them underwent OIL, while 29 patients underwent VEIL. For the OIL and VEIL groups, the mean operative time was 2.5 vs. 3.4 h (p=0.129), respectively. Hospital stays were lower in the VEIL group with 4 vs. 8 days in OIL patients (p=0.053) while number of days requiring drains to remain in situ was 3 vs. 6 days (p=0.024). The VEIL group reported a lower incidence of major complications compared to the OIL group (2 vs. 17%, p=0.0067) while minor complications were comparable in both groups. In a median follow-up period of 60 months, the overall survival was 65.5 and 84.6% in OIL and VEIL groups, respectively (p=0.105). CONCLUSIONS: VEIL is comparable to OIL regarding safety, overall survival and post-operative outcomes.

Radical penectomy, a compromise for life: results from the PECAD study.

BACKGROUND: The use of organ sparing strategies to treat penile cancer (PC) is currently supported by evidence that has indicated the safety, efficacy and benefit of this surgery. However, radical penectomy still represents up to 15-20% of primary tumor treatments in PC patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate efficacy in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of radical penectomy in PC patients. METHODS: Data from a retrospective multicenter study (PEnile Cancer ADherence study, PECAD Study) on PC patients treated at 13 European and American urological centers (Hospital "Sant'Andrea", Sapienza University, Roma, Italy; "G.D'Annunzio" University, Chieti and ASL 2 Abruzzo, Hospital "S. Pio da Pietrelcina", Vasto, Italy; Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA; Hospital of Budapest, Hungary; Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Urology and Andrology Unit II, University of Bari, Italy; Hospital "Spedali Civili", Brescia, Italy; Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; University of Modena & Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain; Ceara Cancer Institute, Fortaleza, Brazil; Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece; Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Warsaw, Poland) between 2010 and 2016 were used. Medical records of patients who specifically underwent radical penectomy were reviewed to identify main clinical and pathological variables. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 1- and 5-year OS and DFS. RESULTS: Of the entire cohort of 425 patients, 72 patients (16.9%) treated with radical penectomy were extracted and were considered for the analysis. The median age was 64.5 (IQR, 57.5-73.2) years. Of all, 41 (56.9%) patients had pT3/pT4 and 31 (43.1%) pT1/pT2. Moreover, 36 (50.0%) were classified as pN1-3 and 5 (6.9%) M1. Furthermore, 61 (84.7%) had a high grade (G2-G3) with 6 (8.3%) positive surgical margins. The 1- and 5-year OS rates were respectively 73.3% and 59.9%, while the 1- and 5-year DFS rates were respectively 67.3% and 35.1%. CONCLUSIONS: PC is an aggressive cancer particularly in more advanced stage. Overall, more than a third of patients do not survive at 5 years and more than 60% report a disease recurrence, despite the use of a radical treatment.

Abiraterone Acetate for Treatment of Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer in Chemotherapy-naive Patients: An Italian Analysis of Patients' Satisfaction.

INTRODUCTION: Abiraterone acetate (AA) gives a significant improvement in survival for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) before and after chemotherapy and has a favorable effect on patients' health-related quality of life and pain. Only a few studies have investigated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in AA treatment for mCRPC. The aim of this study was to investigate patients' satisfaction in men affected by mCRPC treated with AA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a database of consecutive chemonaive patients with progressive mCRPC. Patients were treated with AA until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity. Evaluation was performed at baseline and every 4 weeks by means of physical examination and laboratory studies. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, pain symptoms, treatment-related toxicity, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and overall and progression-free survival were recorded. Satisfaction with treatment was investigated at 6 months by means of a 4-point arbitrary scale. RESULTS: One-hundred twenty-eight patients were enrolled. Patients' satisfaction with treatment was "greatly improved" in 36.1% of patients and "improved" in 32.4% of them. Patients with higher satisfaction had lower baseline and final PSA values (P < .05), lower PSA levels at 12 weeks (P = .080), and less pain symptoms and lower Brief Pain Inventory scores (P = .001). Satisfaction with treatment was significantly correlated with baseline PSA level (P = .018), presence of pain (P = .007), duration of androgen deprivation therapy >12 months (P = .025), and number of hormonal manipulations (P = .051). Progression-free survival significantly correlated with patient satisfaction (P < .001). CONCLUSION: AA is safe and well tolerated in chemonaive mCRPC patients, ensures good oncological and PROs. Patient's satisfaction is a predictor of progression-free survival.