Tolerability of Olaparib Combined with Abiraterone in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Further Results from the Phase 3 PROpel Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROpel study (NCT03732820) demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting, irrespective of homologous recombination repair mutation status. OBJECTIVE: We report additional safety analyses from PROpel to increase clinical understanding of the adverse-event (AE) profiles of olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 126 centres in 17 countries (October 2018-January 2020). Patients had mCRPC and no prior systemic mCRPC treatment. INTERVENTION: Olaparib (300 mg bid) or placebo with abiraterone (1000 mg od) plus prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg bid). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The data cut-off date was July 30, 2021. Safety was assessed by AE reporting (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03) and analysed descriptively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common AEs (all grades) for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone were anaemia (46.0% vs 16.4%), nausea (28.1% vs 12.6%), and fatigue (27.9% vs 18.9%). Grade ≥3 anaemia occurred in 15.1% versus 3.3% of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone arm. The incidences of the most common AEs for olaparib plus abiraterone peaked early, within 2 mo, and were managed typically by dose modifications or standard medical practice. Overall, 13.8% versus 7.8% of patients discontinued treatment with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone because of an AE; 3.8% versus 0.8% of patients discontinued because of anaemia. More venous thromboembolism events were observed in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 7.3%; grade ≥3, 6.8%) than in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 3.3%; grade ≥3, 2.0%), most commonly pulmonary embolism (6.5% vs 1.8% for olaparib plus abiraterone vs placebo plus abiraterone). CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus abiraterone has a manageable and predictable safety profile. PATIENT SUMMARY: The PROpel trial showed that in patients who had not received any previous treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, olaparib combined with abiraterone was more effective in delaying progression of the disease than abiraterone alone. Most side effects caused by combining olaparib with abiraterone could be managed with supportive care methods, by pausing olaparib administration for a short period of time and/or by reducing the dose of olaparib.

Phase II trial of afatinib in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma with genetic alterations in ERBB1-3 (LUX-Bladder 1).

BACKGROUND: Preclinical and early clinical data suggest that the irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib may be effective in urothelial cancers harbouring ERBB mutations. METHODS: This open-label, phase II, single-arm trial (LUX-Bladder 1, NCT02780687) assessed the efficacy and safety of second-line afatinib 40 mg/d in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with ERBB1-3 alterations. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6) (cohort A); other endpoints included ORR, PFS, OS, DCR and safety (cohorts A and B). Cohort A was planned to have two stages: stage 2 enrolment was based on observed antitumour activity. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were enroled into cohort A and eight into cohort B. In cohorts A/B, PFS6 was 11.8%/12.5%, ORR was 5.9%/12.5%, DCR was 50.0%/25.0%, median PFS was 9.8/7.8 weeks and median OS was 30.1/29.6 weeks. Three patients (two ERBB2-amplified [cohort A]; one EGFR-amplified [cohort B]) achieved partial responses. Stage 2 for cohort A did not proceed. All patients experienced adverse events (AEs), most commonly (any/grade 3) diarrhoea (76.2%/9.5%). Two patients (4.8%) discontinued due to AEs and one fatal AE was observed (acute coronary syndrome; not considered treatment-related). CONCLUSIONS: An exploratory biomarker analysis suggested that basal-squamous tumours and ERBB2 amplification were associated with superior response to afatinib. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02780687.

Cardiovascular toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors: review of associated toxicity and design of the Spanish Immunotherapy Registry of Cardiovascular Toxicity

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have changed the prognosis of many tumors. However, concerning associated cardiotoxicity has been reported. Little is known about the real-life incidence-specific surveillance protocols or the translational correlation between the underlying mechanisms and the clinical presentation of ICI-induced cardiotoxicity. The lack of data from prospective studies led us to review the current knowledge and to present the creation of the Spanish Immunotherapy Registry of Cardiovascular Toxicity (SIR-CVT), a prospective registry of patients receiving ICI that aims to examine the role of hsa-miR-Chr8:96, (a specific serum biomarker of myocarditis) in the early diagnosis of ICI-induced myocarditis. An exhaustive prospective cardiac imaging study will be performed before and during the first 12 months of treatment. The correlation between clinical, imaging, and immunologic parameters may improve our understanding of ICI-induced cardiotoxicity and enable simpler surveillance protocols. We assess ICI-induced cardiovascular toxicity and describe the rationale of the SIR-CVT (AU)

What do patients and oncologists think about the evaluation and management of cancer-related anorexia-cachexia? The Quasar_SEOM study.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients often suffer from malnutrition and early detection and raising awareness of nutritional issues is crucial in this population. METHODS: The Spanish Oncology Society (SEOM) conducted the Quasar_SEOM study to investigate the current impact of the Anorexia-Cachexia Syndrome (ACS). The study employed questionnaires and the Delphi method to gather input from both cancer patients and oncologists on key issues related to early detection and treatment of ACS. A total of 134 patients and 34 medical oncologists were surveyed about their experiences with ACS. The Delphi methodology was used to evaluate oncologists' perspectives of ACS management, ultimately leading to a consensus on the most critical issues. RESULTS: Despite widespread acknowledgement of malnutrition in cancer as a significant issue by 94% of oncologists, the study revealed deficiencies in knowledge and protocol implementation. A mere 65% of physicians reported being trained to identify and treat these patients, with 53% failing to address ACS in a timely manner, 30% not monitoring weight, and 59% not adhering to any clinical guidelines. The lack of experience was identified as the primary hindrance to the use of orexigens in 18% of cases. Furthermore, patients reported concerns and a perception of inadequate attention to malnutrition-related issues from their physicians. CONCLUSION: The results of this study point to a gap in the care of this syndrome and a need to improve education and follow-up of cancer patients with anorexia-cachexia.

Cardiovascular toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors: review of associated toxicity and design of the Spanish Immunotherapy Registry of Cardiovascular Toxicity.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have changed the prognosis of many tumors. However, concerning associated cardiotoxicity has been reported. Little is known about the real-life incidence-specific surveillance protocols or the translational correlation between the underlying mechanisms and the clinical presentation of ICI-induced cardiotoxicity. The lack of data from prospective studies led us to review the current knowledge and to present the creation of the Spanish Immunotherapy Registry of Cardiovascular Toxicity (SIR-CVT), a prospective registry of patients receiving ICI that aims to examine the role of hsa-miR-Chr8:96, (a specific serum biomarker of myocarditis) in the early diagnosis of ICI-induced myocarditis. An exhaustive prospective cardiac imaging study will be performed before and during the first 12 months of treatment. The correlation between clinical, imaging, and immunologic parameters may improve our understanding of ICI-induced cardiotoxicity and enable simpler surveillance protocols. We assess ICI-induced cardiovascular toxicity and describe the rationale of the SIR-CVT.

Quality of life with palbociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with endocrine-sensitive hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: patient-reported outcomes from the FLIPPER trial.

Background: In the FLIPPER trial, palbociclib/fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo/fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). Objective: We assessed health-related quality of life (QoL) using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Design and methods: In this phase II double-blinded study, PROs were assessed at baseline after every three cycles and at the end of the treatment using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration (TTD) in global health status (GHS)/QoL was defined as a decrease of ⩾10 points. Changes from baseline (CFB) and TTD were analysed using linear mixed-effect and Cox regression models, respectively. Results: Of the 189 randomised (1:1) patients, 178 (94%) completed ⩾1 post-baseline assessment; 50% received ⩾22 cycles of study treatment, with a questionnaire compliance >90%. Mean baseline scores were comparable between arms. GHS/QoL scores were maintained throughout the palbociclib/fulvestrant treatment. CFB showed significant differences for GHS/QoL, appetite loss, constipation and systemic therapy side effect scores favouring placebo/fulvestrant. TTD in GHS/QoL was delayed in placebo/fulvestrant versus palbociclib/fulvestrant [30.3 versus 11.1 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.57, 95% CI: 1.03-2.39, p = 0.036]; this difference was not significant in patients with progressive disease (aHR: 1.2, 95% CI: 0.6-2.2, p = 0.658). No statistically significant differences in TTD were found for the other QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 scales. Conclusions: Although TTD in GHS/QoL was prolonged with placebo/fulvestrant, no differences were observed on other functional or symptom scales. This finding and the improvement in PFS support the combination of palbociclib/fulvestrant as a beneficial therapeutic option for HR+/HER2- ABC. Trial registration number: Sponsor Study Code: GEICAM/2014-12EudraCT Number: 2015-002437-21ClinTrials.gov reference: NCT02690480.

Good practice recommendations to better coordinate the management of oncological pain: a Delphi survey.

Treatment of oncological pain is complex and requires a multidisciplinary management approach between oncology services and pain units. Although significant improvements have been achieved in the treatment and overall survival of cancer patients, the management of oncological pain has not followed the same directions. Many patients are not referred to pain units even though they could benefit from it. The purpose of this Delphi survey was to map the current situation in the management of cancer pain, identify barriers and propose recommendations to improve its management by emphasizing the importance of collaboration and coordination between oncology services and pain units. A survey among members with recognized experience in the management of oncology patients and oncological pain was held based on the Delphi method principles. The experts were asked to vote preselected statements on cancer pain management in two rounds and conclusions and recommendations were formulated based on the consensus reached for each statement. Barriers and areas for improvement were identified: need of multidisciplinary management approach, effective communication between oncology services and pain units, timely referral of cancer patients to pain units, training of health care professionals dealing with cancer aspects and identification of those patients that could benefit from a multidisciplinary management of their oncological disease. The experts issued recommendations targeting the identified barriers and areas for improvement by defining the service requirements of hospital and units treating cancer pain patients, establishing referral pathways necessities and adopted measures to improve the care of cancer patients.

A Delphi Study on the Management of Neuropathic Cancer Pain in Spain: The DOLNEO Study.

Purpose: The objectives of this project were to assess the current situation and management of cancer-related neuropathic pain (CRNP) in Spain and to provide specific recommendations for the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of CRNP using a Delphi methodology. Methods: This was a qualitative study that followed a Delphi methodology using a questionnaire with 56 statements that were grouped into 5 areas related to CRNP: prevalence and impact, pathophysiology, assessment and diagnosis, specific syndromes, treatment, and multidisciplinary approach. Based on the responses, the scientific committee prepared an algorithm and a recommended pathway for the management of CRNP. Results: Seventy-nine physicians attended the meeting and completed the questionnaire. Consensus was reached for all statements relating to the prevalence and impact of CRNP. However, the perceptions of specialists from palliative care of the frequency and impact of CRNP differed from those of other specialists. A high degree of consensus was reached for all statements concerning the assessment and diagnosis of CRNP. Regarding specific syndromes, the only statement with a lack of consensus was that on the frequency of NP in patients undergoing radiotherapy. There were some disagreements regarding the multidisciplinary approach and referral criteria for the management of NP. Conclusion: Our results show a large degree of agreement on the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of cancer-related neuropathic pain among the specialists involved in its management. There were, however, some disagreements regarding the multidisciplinary approach and referral criteria for the management of neuropathic pain.

Correction to: SEOM Clinical Guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (2021)

In this article the title was incorrectly given as “SEOM clinical guideline emesis (2021)” but should have been “SEOM Clinical Guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (2021).”The original article has been corrected.

Molecular Biomarkers of Prognosis in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated With Pazopanib Plus Interferon Alpha (INF-2A) in a Phase I/II Study by the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group.

INTRODUCTION: The therapeutic repertoire available for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), including tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immunotherapy, required for molecular biomarkers for response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a phase I to II trial on the combination of pazopanib with interferon-alpha (INF-2A) as first-line treatment for advanced RCC. The primary endpoint was recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and efficacy in terms of objective response rate (ORR, RECIST 1.1 criteria). Secondary endpoints included safety and a translational study of molecular biomarkers in serum and exosomes from peripheral blood samples at three-time points: baseline, 8 weeks of treatment, and progression of the disease. RESULTS: Between July 2011 and July 2017, 53 eligible patients were treated and followed up (I, n = 20; II, n = 33). Pazopanib 800 mg + INF-2A 3 MIUs showed a manageable safety profile; therefore, it was selected for dose expansion. Overall, grade 3/4 toxicities were reported in 24 (72.7%) patients. The ORR was 27.2%. The 12-month OS rate was 83.6% (median not reached), and after 30.9 months of follow-up, 24 (72.7%) patients were still alive. CCL2, IL8, TNF-α, and PD-L1 were significantly overexpressed after treatment initiation, while TGF-ß1 and CCL5 were significantly decreased. TNF-α, endoglin, and PD-L1 expression are correlated with the response after treatment initiation. CONCLUSION: The trial did not reach its pre-specified target ORR. However, OS was longer than expected with pazopanib monotherapy. Changes in the molecular profile suggest a crucial role of vascular remodeling and inflammatory-mediated immune cell infiltration in optimal response to pazopanib plus INF-2A.

SEOM Clinical Guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (2021)

Among the side effects of anticancer treatment, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared given its high prevalence, affecting up to 40% of patients. It can impair patient’s quality of life and provoke low adherence to cancer treatment or chemotherapy dose reductions that can comprise treatment efficacy. Suffering CINV depends on factors related to the intrinsic emetogenicity of antineoplastic drugs and on patient characteristics. CINV can appear at different times regarding the administration of antitumor treatment and the variability of risk according to the different antitumor regimens has, as a consequence, the need for a different and adapted antiemetic treatment prophylaxis to achieve the desired objective of complete protection of the patient in the acute phase, in the late phase and in the global phase of emesis. As a basis for the recommendations, the level of emetogenicity of anticancer treatment is considered and they are classified as high, moderate, low and minimal emetogenicity and these recommendations are based on the use of antiemetic drugs with a high therapeutic index: anti 5-HT, anti-NK and steroids. Despite having highly effective treatments, clinical reality shows that they are not applied enough, so evidence-based recommendations are needed to show the best options and help in decision-making. To cover all the antiemetic prophylaxis options, we have also included recommendations for oral treatments, multiday regimens and radiation-induced emesis prevention.

SEOM clinical guideline emesis (2021).

Among the side effects of anticancer treatment, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared given its high prevalence, affecting up to 40% of patients. It can impair patient's quality of life and provoke low adherence to cancer treatment or chemotherapy dose reductions that can comprise treatment efficacy. Suffering CINV depends on factors related to the intrinsic emetogenicity of antineoplastic drugs and on patient characteristics. CINV can appear at different times regarding the administration of antitumor treatment and the variability of risk according to the different antitumor regimens has, as a consequence, the need for a different and adapted antiemetic treatment prophylaxis to achieve the desired objective of complete protection of the patient in the acute phase, in the late phase and in the global phase of emesis. As a basis for the recommendations, the level of emetogenicity of anticancer treatment is considered and they are classified as high, moderate, low and minimal emetogenicity and these recommendations are based on the use of antiemetic drugs with a high therapeutic index: anti 5-HT, anti-NK and steroids. Despite having highly effective treatments, clinical reality shows that they are not applied enough, so evidence-based recommendations are needed to show the best options and help in decision-making. To cover all the antiemetic prophylaxis options, we have also included recommendations for oral treatments, multiday regimens and radiation-induced emesis prevention.

Abiraterone and Olaparib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Abiraterone and Olaparib for Metastatic Prostate CancerPatients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, regardless of homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, received either abiraterone and olaparib or abiraterone and placebo in the first-line setting. Imaging-based progression-free survival was 24.8 months for patients treated with abiraterone and olaparib versus 16.6 months for those receiving abiraterone alone.

Estratificación, monitorización y control del riesgo cardiovascular en pacientes con cáncer. Documento de consenso de SEC, FEC, SEOM, SEOR, SEHH, SEMG, AEEMT, AEEC y AECC / Stratification and management of cardiovascular risk in cancer patients. A consensus document of the SEC, FEC, SEOM, SEOR, SEHH, SEMG, AEEMT, AEEC, and AECC

El incremento de la supervivencia del enfermo con cáncer, junto con el desarrollo de nuevas terapias antitumorales, han puesto de relieve el impacto negativo que las complicaciones vasculares asociadas con el tratamiento oncohematológico tienen en la salud cardiovascular del paciente con cáncer. El objetivo de este documento de consenso, promovido por el Grupo de Trabajo de Cardio-oncología de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología (SEC) y elaborado conjuntamente con diferentes áreas de conocimiento de la SEC junto con la Sociedad Española de Hematología y Hemoterapia (SEHH), la Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica (SEOM), la Sociedad Española de Oncología Radioterápica (SEOR), la Sociedad Española de Médicos Generales y de Familia (SEMG), la Asociación Española de Especialistas en Medicina del Trabajo (AEEMT), la Asociación Española de Enfermería Cardiovascular (AEEC), la Fundación Española del Corazón (FEC) y la Asociación Española contra el Cáncer (AECC), es proporcionar un enfoque coordinado, multidisciplinar y práctico para la estratificación, la monitorización y el tratamiento del riesgo cardiovascular de los pacientes con cáncer. (AU)

Both cancer treatment and survival have significantly improved, but these advances have highlighted the deleterious effects of vascular complications associated with anticancer therapy. This consensus document aims to provide a coordinated, multidisciplinary and practical approach to the stratification, monitoring and treatment of cardiovascular risk in cancer patients. The document is promoted by the Working Group on Cardio Oncology of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC) and was drafted in collaboration with experts from distinct areas of expertise of the SEC and the Spanish Society of Hematology and Hemotherapy (SEHH), the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR), the Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians (SEMG), the Spanish Association of Specialists in Occupational Medicine (AEEMT), the Spanish Association of Cardiovascular Nursing (AEEC), the Spanish Heart Foundation (FEC), and the Spanish Cancer Association (AECC). (AU)

Stratification and management of cardiovascular risk in cancer patients. A consensus document of the SEC, FEC, SEOM, SEOR, SEHH, SEMG, AEEMT, AEEC, and AECC.

Both cancer treatment and survival have significantly improved, but these advances have highlighted the deleterious effects of vascular complications associated with anticancer therapy. This consensus document aims to provide a coordinated, multidisciplinary and practical approach to the stratification, monitoring and treatment of cardiovascular risk in cancer patients. The document is promoted by the Working Group on Cardio Oncology of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC) and was drafted in collaboration with experts from distinct areas of expertise of the SEC and the Spanish Society of Hematology and Hemotherapy (SEHH), the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR), the Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians (SEMG), the Spanish Association of Specialists in Occupational Medicine (AEEMT), the Spanish Association of Cardiovascular Nursing (AEEC), the Spanish Heart Foundation (FEC), and the Spanish Cancer Association (AECC).

Development of a Multicriteria Decision Analysis Framework for Evaluating and Positioning Oncologic Treatments in Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Several frameworks have been developed to define and quantify the value of oncologic therapies and to support decision making; however, they define treatment value mainly in terms of clinical benefit. As part of its mission to improve oncologic care, the ECO Foundation (Excellence and Quality in Oncology) directed this pilot study aimed at developing a reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA)-based framework for evaluating and positioning oncologic drugs in the clinical setting. METHODS: The framework was developed following Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision-Making methodology, and literature was reviewed to identify relevant criteria. The selected criteria were then presented to a group of experts composed of 9 clinical oncologists who assessed each criterion for inclusion in the framework and suggested modifications in their definition and/or response scale. The framework was tested in 2 case studies (abemaciclib for advanced or metastatic hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer and TAS-102 for metastatic colorectal cancer) to validate the proposed framework; this was followed by a discussion of the results. RESULTS: Eight of the 15 criteria presented to the experts were included in the framework: disease severity, unmet needs, comparative efficacy, comparative safety/tolerability, treatment intent, comparative treatment cost, comparative other medical costs, and quality of evidence. Framework validation in 2 drug cases resulted in similar value scores, although they were based on different contributing criteria and resulted in different clinical recommendations. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated a reflective MCDA framework for the assessment and positioning of oncologic therapies in Spain. Additional work is needed to create a manual for practical decision making in the clinical setting.

Ribociclib plus letrozole versus chemotherapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, luminal B breast cancer (CORALLEEN): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early stage breast cancer, cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibition in combination with endocrine therapy could represent an alternative to multiagent chemotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the biological and clinical activity of neoadjuvant ribociclib plus letrozole in the luminal B subtype of early stage breast cancer. METHODS: CORALLEEN is a parallel-arm, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial completed across 21 hospitals in Spain. We recruited postmenopausal women (≥18 years) with stage I-IIIA hormone receptor-positive, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-1, HER2-negative breast cancer and luminal B by PAM50 with histologically confirmed, operable primary tumour size of at least 2 cm in diameter as measured by MRI. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based system and permuted blocks of 25 to receive either six 28-days cycles of ribociclib (oral 600 mg once daily for 3 weeks on, 1 week off) plus daily letrozole (oral 2·5 mg/day) or four cycles of doxorubicin (intravenous 60 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (intravenous 600 mg/m2) every 21 days followed by weekly paclitaxel (intravenous 80 mg/m2) for 12 weeks. The total duration of the neoadjuvant therapy was 24 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by tumour size and nodal involvement. Samples were prospectively collected at baseline (day 0), day 15, and surgery. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the proportion of patients with PAM50 low-risk-of-relapse (ROR) disease at surgery in the modified intention-to-treat population including all randomly assigned patients who received study drug and had a baseline and at least one post-baseline measurement of ROR score. The PAM50 ROR risk class integrated gene expression data, tumour size, and nodal status to define prognosis. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03248427. FINDINGS: Between July 27, 2017 to Dec 7, 2018, 106 patients were enrolled. At baseline, of the 106 patients, 92 (87%) patients had high ROR disease (44 [85%] of 52 in the ribociclib and letrozole group and 48 [89%] of 54 in the chemotherapy group) and 14 (13%) patients had intermediate-ROR disease (eight [15%] and six [11%]). Median follow-up was 200·0 days (IQR 191·2-206·0). At surgery, 23 (46·9%; 95% CI 32·5-61·7) of 49 patients in the ribociclib plus letrozole group and 24 (46·1%; 32·9-61·5) of 52 patients in the chemotherapy group were low-ROR. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the ribociclib plus letrozole group were neutropenia (22 [43%] of 51 patients) and elevated alanine aminotransferase concentrations (ten [20%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the chemotherapy group were neutropenia (31 [60%] of 52 patients) and febrile neutropenia (seven [13%]). No deaths were observed during the study in either group. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that some patients with high-risk, early stage, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer could achieve molecular downstaging of their disease with CDK4/6 inhibitor and endocrine therapy. FUNDING: Novartis, Nanostring, Breast Cancer Research Foundation-AACR Career Development Award.

The Challenge of Managing Bladder Cancer and Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Review with Treatment Recommendations from the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group (SOGUG).

Bladder cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men and the ninth most common in women in the Western world. The management of bladder carcinoma requires a multidisciplinary approach. Optimal treatment depends on several factors, including histology, stage, patient status, and possible comorbidities. Here we review recent findings on the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma, advanced urothelial carcinoma, upper tract urothelial carcinoma, non-urothelial carcinoma, and urologic complications arising from the disease or treatment. In addition, we present the recommendations of the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group for the treatment of these diseases, based on a focused analysis of clinical management and the potential of current research, including recent findings on the potential benefit of immunotherapy. In recent years, whole-genome approaches have provided new predictive biomarkers and promising molecular targets that could lead to precision medicine in bladder cancer. Moreover, the involvement of other specialists in addition to urologists will ensure not only appropriate therapeutic decisions but also adequate follow-up for response evaluation and management of complications. It is crucial, however, to apply recent molecular findings and implement clinical guidelines as soon as possible in order to maximize therapeutic gains and improve patient prognosis.