RESUMEN
In recent years, various aspects of prostate cancer (PC) management have undergone significant changes, including the implementation of therapeutic strategies such as the use of new hormonal agents like abiraterone, apalutamide, enzalutamide or darolutamide and the incorporation of next generation imaging techniques (NGI). However, the evidence regarding the role of NGI and the therapeutic decision-making based on their findings is not solid. Following the methodology of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC), a multidisciplinary expert consensus was developed to address controversial questions concerning the use of NGI and clinical management in four priority scenarios: localized PC, PC after radical prostatectomy, PC after radiotherapy with curative intent, and metastatic hormone-sensitive PC. This consensus represents the opinions of medical oncology, radiation oncology and urology physicians and provides useful recommendations for clinical practice.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This article describes and compares approved targeted therapies and the newer immunotherapy agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article especially performs an in-depth review of currently available data for tivozanib, explaining its mechanism of action, its safety profile and its role as an efficacy drug in the management of renal cancer. RESULTS: Despite the fact that the treatment of advanced RCC has been dramatically modified in recent years, durable remissions are scarce and it remains a lethal disease. For first- and second-line therapy, there is now growing evidence to guide the selection of the appropriate treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Several TKIs are standard of care at different settings. Among those approved TKIs, tivozanib has similar efficacy than others with a better safety profile. The use of prognostic factors is critical to the selection of optimal therapy.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Células Renales/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renales/tratamiento farmacológico , Compuestos de Fenilurea/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de Proteínas Quinasas/uso terapéutico , Quinolinas/uso terapéutico , Receptores de Factores de Crecimiento Endotelial Vascular/antagonistas & inhibidores , Carcinoma de Células Renales/genética , Carcinoma de Células Renales/metabolismo , Carcinoma de Células Renales/patología , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Consenso , Humanos , Neoplasias Renales/genética , Neoplasias Renales/metabolismo , Neoplasias Renales/patología , Metástasis de la NeoplasiaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite the advent of immunotherapy in urothelial cancer, there is still a need to find effective cytotoxic agents beyond first and second lines. Vinflunine is the only treatment approved in this setting by the European Medicines Agency and taxanes are also widely used in second line. Cabazitaxel is a taxane with activity in docetaxel-refractory cancers. A randomized study was conducted to compare its efficacy versus vinflunine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II/III study, following a Simon's optimal method with stopping rules based on an interim futility analysis and a formal efficacy analysis at the end of the phase II. ECOG Performance Status, anaemia and liver metastases were stratification factors. Primary objectives were overall response rate for the phase II and overall survival for the phase III. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included in the phase II across 19 institutions in Europe. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. Three patients (13%) obtained a partial response on cabazitaxel (95% CI 2.7-32.4) and six patients (30%) in the vinflunine arm (95% CI 11.9-54.3). Median progression-free survival for cabazitaxel was 1.9 versus 2.9 months for vinflunine (P = 0.039). The study did not proceed to phase III since the futility analysis showed a lack of efficacy of cabazitaxel. A trend for overall survival benefit was found favouring vinflunine (median 7.6 versus 5.5 months). Grade 3- to 4-related adverse events were seen in 41% patients with no difference between the two arms. CONCLUSION: This phase II/III second line bladder study comparing cabazitaxel with vinflunine was closed when the phase II showed a lack of efficacy of the cabazitaxel arm. Vinflunine results were consistent with those known previously. TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01830231.
Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Carcinoma de Células Transicionales/tratamiento farmacológico , Taxoides/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria/tratamiento farmacológico , Urotelio/efectos de los fármacos , Vinblastina/análogos & derivados , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Antineoplásicos/efectos adversos , Carcinoma de Células Transicionales/mortalidad , Carcinoma de Células Transicionales/secundario , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Supervivencia sin Enfermedad , Europa (Continente) , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias Hepáticas/secundario , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Análisis de Supervivencia , Taxoides/efectos adversos , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria/mortalidad , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria/patología , Urotelio/patología , Vinblastina/efectos adversos , Vinblastina/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
Lynch syndrome (LS) is caused by germline mutations in one of the four mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Defects in this pathway lead to microsatellite instability (MSI) in DNA tumors, which constitutes the molecular hallmark of this disease. Selection of patients for genetic testing in LS is usually based on fulfillment of diagnostic clinical criteria (i.e. Amsterdam criteria or the revised Bethesda guidelines). However, following these criteria PMS2 mutations have probably been underestimated as their penetrances appear to be lower than those of the other MMR genes. The use of universal MMR study-based strategies, using MSI testing and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining, is being one proposed alternative. Besides, germline mutation detection in PMS2 is complicated by the presence of highly homologous pseudogenes. Nevertheless, specific amplification of PMS2 by long-range polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the improvement of the analysis of large deletions/duplications by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) overcome this difficulty. By using both approaches, we analyzed 19 PMS2-suspected carriers who have been selected by clinical or universal strategies and found five large deletions and one frameshift mutation in PMS2 in six patients (31%). Owing to the high incidence of large deletions found in our cohort, we recommend MLPA analysis as the first-line method for searching germline mutations in PMS2.
Asunto(s)
Adenosina Trifosfatasas/genética , Secuencia de Bases , Neoplasias Colorrectales Hereditarias sin Poliposis/genética , Enzimas Reparadoras del ADN/genética , Proteínas de Unión al ADN/genética , Eliminación de Secuencia , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Neoplasias Colorrectales Hereditarias sin Poliposis/patología , Exones , Femenino , Mutación del Sistema de Lectura , Pruebas Genéticas , Inestabilidad Genómica , Mutación de Línea Germinal , Humanos , Repeticiones de Microsatélite , Persona de Mediana Edad , Endonucleasa PMS2 de Reparación del Emparejamiento Incorrecto , Datos de Secuencia Molecular , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa Multiplex , Tasa de Mutación , EspañaRESUMEN
Bone metastases are a common complication of advanced prostate cancer and while they are less common in non-prostate genitourinary (GU) malignances, they have been reported in up to 35 % of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and bladder cancer. Furthermore, they may occur in more than two-thirds of those patients with bladder cancer who develop distant metastases. In the absence of bone-targeted therapies, approximately 50 % of all patients with metastatic bone disease from GU cancers experience at least one skeletal-related event within their lifetime. Zoledronic acid is a bisphosphonate that has been shown to delay or prevent the development of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases and reduce bone pain in these patients. Furthermore, zoledronic acid has also demonstrated the ability to prevent osteopenia, which may occur with the prolonged use of some pharmacological interventions in patients with cancer (AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias de la Próstata/inducido químicamente , Neoplasias de la Próstata/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/mortalidad , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Neoplasias de la Próstata/complicaciones , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria/patologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Owing to the limited validity of clinical data on the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) and bone metastases, biochemical markers are a promising tool for predicting survival, disease progression and skeletal-related events (SREs) in these patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive capacity of biochemical markers of bone turnover for mortality risk, disease progression and SREs in patients with PCa and bone metastases undergoing treatment with zoledronic acid (ZA). METHODS: This was an observational, prospective and multicenter study in which ninety-eight patients were included. Patients were treated with ZA (4 mg every 4 weeks for 18 months). Data were collected at baseline and 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 months after the beginning of treatment. Serum levels of bone alkaline phosphtase (BALP), aminoterminal propeptide of procollagen type I (P1NP) and beta-isomer of carboxiterminal telopeptide of collagen I (ß-CTX) were analysed at all points in the study. Data on disease progression, SREs development and survival were recorded. RESULTS: Cox regression models with clinical data and bone markers showed that the levels of the three markers studied were predictive of survival time, with ß-CTX being especially powerful, in which a lack of normalisation in visit 1 (3 months after the beginning of treatment) showed a 6.3-times more risk for death than in normalised patients. Levels of these markers were also predictive for SREs, although in this case BALP and P1NP proved to be better predictors. We did not find any relationship between bone markers and disease progression. CONCLUSION: In patients with PCa and bone metastases treated with ZA, ß-CTX and P1NP can be considered suitable predictors for mortality risk, while BALP and P1NP are appropriate for SREs. The levels of these biomarkers 3 months after the beginning of treatment are especially important.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Óseas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Óseas/secundario , Remodelación Ósea , Difosfonatos/uso terapéutico , Imidazoles/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/mortalidad , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Biomarcadores/análisis , Biomarcadores/sangre , Biomarcadores/metabolismo , Conservadores de la Densidad Ósea/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias Óseas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Óseas/mortalidad , Remodelación Ósea/efectos de los fármacos , Remodelación Ósea/fisiología , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Pronóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/tratamiento farmacológico , Factores de Riesgo , Análisis de Supervivencia , Ácido ZoledrónicoRESUMEN
We performed a literature search that shed light on the signaling pathways involved in the sorafenib activity as first- or subsequent-line treatment, taking into account its toxicity profile. Sorafenib appears to have better tolerability when compared with other agents in the same indication. Cross-resistance between tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) may be limited, even after failure with a previous VEGFR inhibitor, but the optimal sequence with TKIs remains to be determined. Randomized trials of second-line treatment options have showed either modest or no differences in terms of progression-free and overall survival (OS). Direct comparison between sorafenib and axitinib demonstrated differences in terms of PFS in favor of axitinib, but not in terms of OS as second-line treatment. In contrast, a phase III study showed a benefit in OS, favoring sorafenib when compared with temsirolimus. In conclusion, after using other VEGF inhibitor such as sunitinib, sorafenib is active and safe for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic RCC (AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Proteínas Tirosina Quinasas/administración & dosificación , Proteínas Tirosina Quinasas/deficiencia , Proteínas Tirosina Quinasas/historia , Proteínas Tirosina Quinasas/metabolismo , Proteínas Tirosina Quinasas/análisis , Proteínas Tirosina Quinasas/síntesis química , Relación Cintura-Cadera/métodosRESUMEN
Bone metastases are a common complication of advanced prostate cancer and while they are less common in non-prostate genitourinary (GU) malignances, they have been reported in up to 35 % of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and bladder cancer. Furthermore, they may occur in more than two-thirds of those patients with bladder cancer who develop distant metastases. In the absence of bone-targeted therapies, approximately 50 % of all patients with metastatic bone disease from GU cancers experience at least one skeletal-related event within their lifetime. Zoledronic acid is a bisphosphonate that has been shown to delay or prevent the development of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases and reduce bone pain in these patients. Furthermore, zoledronic acid has also demonstrated the ability to prevent osteopenia, which may occur with the prolonged use of some pharmacological interventions in patients with cancer.
Asunto(s)
Conservadores de la Densidad Ósea/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias Óseas/tratamiento farmacológico , Difosfonatos/uso terapéutico , Imidazoles/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias Urogenitales/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Óseas/secundario , Humanos , Calidad de Vida , Neoplasias Urogenitales/patología , Ácido ZoledrónicoRESUMEN
We performed a literature search that shed light on the signaling pathways involved in the sorafenib activity as first- or subsequent-line treatment, taking into account its toxicity profile. Sorafenib appears to have better tolerability when compared with other agents in the same indication. Cross-resistance between tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) may be limited, even after failure with a previous VEGFR inhibitor, but the optimal sequence with TKIs remains to be determined. Randomized trials of second-line treatment options have showed either modest or no differences in terms of progression-free and overall survival (OS). Direct comparison between sorafenib and axitinib demonstrated differences in terms of PFS in favor of axitinib, but not in terms of OS as second-line treatment. In contrast, a phase III study showed a benefit in OS, favoring sorafenib when compared with temsirolimus. In conclusion, after using other VEGF inhibitor such as sunitinib, sorafenib is active and safe for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic RCC.