Advanced renal cell carcinoma management: the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG) consensus update.

PURPOSE: Renal cell carcinoma is an aggressive disease with a high mortality rate. Management has drastically changed with the new era of immunotherapy, and novel strategies are being developed; however, identifying systemic treatments is still challenging. This paper presents an update of the expert panel consensus from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group on advanced renal cell carcinoma management in Brazil. METHODS: A panel of 34 oncologists and experts in renal cell carcinoma discussed and voted on the best options for managing advanced disease in Brazil, including systemic treatment of early and metastatic renal cell carcinoma as well as nonclear cell tumours. The results were compared with the literature and graded according to the level of evidence. RESULTS: Adjuvant treatments benefit patients with a high risk of recurrence after surgery, and the agents used are pembrolizumab and sunitinib, with a preference for pembrolizumab. Neoadjuvant treatment is exceptional, even in initially unresectable cases. First-line treatment is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the choice of treatment is based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMCD) risk score. Patients at favourable risk receive ICIs in combination with TKIs. Patients classified as intermediate or poor risk receive ICIs, without preference for ICI + ICIs or ICI + TKIs. Data on nonclear cell renal cancer treatment are limited. Active surveillance has a place in treating favourable-risk patients. Either denosumab or zoledronic acid can be used for treating metastatic bone disease. CONCLUSION: Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are the standards of care for advanced disease. The utilization and sequencing of these therapeutic agents hinge upon individual risk scores and responses to previous treatments. This consensus reflects a commitment to informed decision-making, drawn from professional expertise and evidence in the medical literature.

An assessment of legislative responses to cancer in Brazil's House of Representatives.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a public health issue in Brazil. To mitigate exposure to risk factors, change habits and ensure access to cancer care, an increasing number of bills are presented every year. This article analyzes the changes proposed in these bills, portraying how the representatives perceive and respond to the challenges imposed by cancer on the healthcare system and society. METHODS: Through a systematic search on the Brazilian House of Representatives website, this exploratory study examines cancer-related bills presented up to 2022. RESULTS: Of 1311 bills identified, 310 met the inclusion criteria and were categorized based on their content. The increasing annual number of cancer bills reflects the interest of representatives on the topic. The cancer types addressed correspond to the most prevalent ones, except for the colorectal. The most common strategy is primary prevention (n: 129), proposing the reduction of risk factors exposure or the promotion of protective ones, followed by tertiary (n: 106) and secondary (n: 36) strategies, targeting, respectively, cancer treatment/management and its early diagnosis/detection. On the nature of proposed changes, most seek to implement increased healthcare access (n: 125), production/sale (dis)incentives for goods containing carcinogens (n: 60), and fiscal/financial (dis)incentives (n: 53). CONCLUSION: The identified gaps - such as the limited use of data and evidence to support what is proposed, overlapping but fragmented efforts with previous bills, scarce efforts directly addressing the determinants of health, and the low rate of conversion to law - entails opportunities to advance the Legislative propositions. POLICY SUMMARY: To effectively respond to cancer-related challenges, is essential that the Legislative branch takes into account what is already being proposed or being left out, inputs from society, real-world data, and the results produced by the multisectoral policies in place.

Management of patients with recurrent/metastatic endometrial cancer: Consensus recommendations from an expert panel from Brazil.

Background: Endometrial cancer is of increasing concern in several countries, including Brazil, in part because of an ageing population, declines in fertility, and the increasing prevalence of obesity. Although endometrial tumors had lagged behind other cancer types in terms of treatment improvements, molecular characterization of these tumors is paving the way for novel therapies and an expansion of the therapeutic arsenal. We aimed to help medical oncologists who manage patients with recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer in the Brazilian healthcare setting. Methods: The panel, composed of 20 medical oncologists, convened in November 2021 to address 50 multiple-choice questions on molecular testing and treatment choices. We classified the level of agreement among panelists as (1) consensus (≥75% choosing the same answer), (2) majority vote (50% to <75%), or (3) less than majority vote (<50%). Results: Consensus was present for 25 of the 50 questions, whereas majority vote was present for an additional 23 questions. Key recommendations include molecular testing for every patient with recurrent/metastatic endometrial cancer; choice of first-line treatment according to microsatellite instability and HER2, with the addition of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and hormone receptors (HRs) for second-line therapy; carboplatin and paclitaxel as the preferred option in first-line treatment of HER2-negative disease, with the addition of trastuzumab in HER2-positive disease; pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a key option in second line, regardless of HER2, PD-L1 or HRs; and various recommendations regarding treatment choice for patients with distinct comorbidities. Conclusion: Despite the existing gaps in the current literature, the vast majority of issues addressed by the panel provided a level of agreement sufficient to inform clinical practice in Brazil and in other countries with similar healthcare environments.

Recommendations for the treatment of vulvar cancer in settings with limited resources: Report from the International Gynecological Cancer Society consensus meeting.

Introduction: Due to scant literature and the absence of high-level evidence, the treatment of vulvar cancer is even more challenging in countries facing limited resources, where direct application of international guidelines is difficult. Recommendations from a panel of experts convened to address some of these challenges were developed. Methods: The panel met in Rio de Janeiro in September 2019 during the International Gynecological Cancer Society congress and was composed of specialists from countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. The panel addressed 62 questions and provided recommendations for the management of early, locally advanced, recurrent, and/or metastatic vulvar cancer. Consensus was defined as at least 75% of the voting members selecting a particular recommendation, whereas a majority vote was considered when one option garnered between 50.0% and 74.9% of votes. Resource limitation was defined as any issues limiting access to qualified surgeons, contemporary imaging or radiation-oncology techniques, antineoplastic drugs, or funding for the provision of contemporary medical care. Results: Consensus was reached for nine of 62 (14.5%) questions presented to the panel, whereas a majority vote was reached for 29 (46.7%) additional questions. For the remaining questions, there was considerable heterogeneity in the recommendations. Conclusion: The development of guidelines focusing on areas of the world facing more severe resource limitations may improve medical practice and patient care.

Recommendations for the prevention, screening, diagnosis, staging, and management of cervical cancer in areas with limited resources: Report from the International Gynecological Cancer Society consensus meeting.

Introduction: Nearly 85% of cervical cancer new cases are diagnosed in limited resources countries. Although several strategies have been proposed to reduce the disease burden, challenges remain to provide the best possible care. We report recommendations from an expert consensus meeting convened to address from prevention to management of cervical cancer in limited resources countries. Methods: The expert panel, composed by invited specialists from 38 developing countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East, convened in Rio de Janeiro in September 2019, during the Global Meeting of the International Gynecological Cancer Society (IGCS). Panel members considered the published scientific evidence and their practical experience on the topics, as well as the perceived cost-effectiveness of, and access to, the available interventions. The focus of the recommendations was on geographic regions rather than entire countries because medical practice varies considerably in the countries represented. Resource limitation was qualified as limited access to qualified surgeons, contemporary imaging or radiation-oncology techniques, antineoplastic drugs, or overall funding for provision of state-of-the-art care. Consensus was defined as at least 75% of the voting members selecting a particular answer of the multiple-choice questionnaire, whereas the majority vote was considered as 50% to 74.9%. Results: Consensus was reached for 25 of the 121 (20.7%) questions, whereas for 54 (44.6%) questions there was one option garnering between 50% to 74.9% of votes (majority votes). For the remaining questions, considerable heterogeneity in responses was observed. Discussion: The implementation of international guidelines is challenging in countries with resource limitations or unique health-care landscapes. The development of guidelines by the health care providers in those regions is more reflective of the reality on the ground and may improve medical practice and patient care. However, challenges remain toward achieving that goal at political, economic, social, and medical levels.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of active surveillance in prostate cancer among urologists: a real-life survey from Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred treatment for patients with very low-and low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but it is underperformed worldwide. This study aimed to report knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of AS for PCa among urologists in Brazil. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a questionnaire with 50 questions divided into participant characteristics, knowledge regarding inclusion criteria for AS, follow-up, intervention triggers, acceptance, and practice for an index patient. Data analysis comprises absolute and relative frequencies of the variables. After that, a logistic regression was performed in order to verify possible patterns of answers provided by the respondents in the index patient questionnaire. RESULTS: Questionnaires were sent through the SurveyMonkey® platform to 5,015 urologists using email addresses and through social media. A total of 600 (12%) questionnaires returned and 413 (8.2%) were completed and included in the analysis. Only 53% of urologists adopt AS for low- and very-low-risk PCa. Inclusion criteria were patients with age > 50 years (32.2%), prostate specific antigen (PSA) < 10 ng/mL (87.2%), T1 clinical stage (80.4%), Biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6, positive cores ≤ 2 (44.3%), positive core involvement < 50% (45.3%), and magnetic resonance imaging findings (38.7%). The PSA doubling time was still used by 60.3%. Confirmatory biopsy (55.9%), PSA level (36.6%), and digital rectal examination (34.4%) were considered by most urologists for follow-ups. Patient preference (85.7%), upgrade of Gleason score (73.4%), and increased number of positive cores (66.8%) were associated with conversion to definitive treatment. In an index patient, non-acceptance and active treatment request were the most cited reasons for not performing AS. CONCLUSION: There is significant variability in the KAP of AS in Brazil, which indicates the need to reinforce AS, its inclusion and follow-up criteria, and the benefits for physicians and the general population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Consensus on the Treatment and Follow-Up for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Report From the First Global Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC).

PURPOSE: To present a summary of the recommendations for the treatment and follow-up for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as acquired through a questionnaire administered to 99 physicians working in the field of prostate cancer in developing countries who attended the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries. METHODS: A total of 106 questions out of more than 300 questions addressed the use of imaging in staging mCRPC, treatment recommendations across availability and response to prior drug treatments, appropriate drug treatments, and follow-up, and those same scenarios when limited resources needed to be considered. Responses were compiled and the percentages were presented by clinicians to support each response. Most questions had five to seven relevant options for response including abstain and/or unqualified to answer, or in the case of yes or no questions, the option to abstain was offered. RESULTS: Most of the recommendations from this panel were in line with prior consensus, including the preference of a new antiandrogen for first-line therapy of mCRPC. Important aspects highlighted in the scenario of limited resources included the option of docetaxel as treatment preference as first-line treatment in several scenarios, docetaxel retreatment, consideration for reduced doses of abiraterone, and alternative schedules of an osteoclast-targeted therapy. CONCLUSION: There was wide-ranging consensus in the treatment for men with mCRPC in both optimal and limited resource settings.

Treatment of Localized and Locally Advanced, High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Report From the First Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries.

PURPOSE: To generate and present survey results on important issues relevant to treatment and follow-up of localized and locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) focusing on developing countries. METHODS: A panel of 99 PCa experts developed more than 300 survey questions of which 67 questions concern the main areas of interest of this article: treatment and follow-up of localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in developing countries. A larger panel of 99 international multidisciplinary cancer experts voted on these questions to create the recommendations for treatment and follow-up of localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in areas of limited resources discussed in this article. RESULTS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. Each question was deemed consensus if 75% or more of the full panel had selected a particular answer. These answers are based on panelist opinion and not on a literature review or meta-analysis. For questions that refer to an area of limited resources, the recommendations considered cost-effectiveness as well as the possible therapies with easier and greater access. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two nonanswers. Results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSION: The voting results and recommendations presented in this article can guide physicians managing localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data; however, as guidelines for treatment of localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in developing countries have not been defined, this article will serve as a point of reference when confronted with this disease.

Consensus for Treatment of Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Report From the First Global Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC).

PURPOSE: International guideline recommendations may not always be extrapolated to developing countries where access to resources is limited. In metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), there have been successful drug and imaging advancements that were addressed in the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries for best-practice and limited-resource scenarios. METHODS: A total of 24 out of 300 questions addressed staging, treatment, and follow-up for patients with mCSPC both in best-practice settings and resource-limited settings. Responses were compiled and presented in percentage of clinicians supporting each response. Questions had 4-8 options for response. RESULTS: Recommendations for staging in mCSPC were split but there was consensus that chest x-ray, abdominal and pelvic computed tomography, and bone scan should be used where resources are limited. In both de novo and relapsed low-volume mCSPC, orchiectomy alone in limited resources was favored and in relapsed high-volume disease, androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel in limited resources and androgen deprivation therapy plus abiraterone in high-resource settings were consensus. A 3-weekly regimen of docetaxel was consensus among voters. When using abiraterone, a regimen of 1,000 mg plus prednisone 5 mg/d is optimal, but in limited-resource settings, half the panel agreed that abiraterone 250 mg with fatty foods plus prednisone 5 mg/d is acceptable. The panel recommended against the use of osteoclast-targeted therapy to prevent osseous complications. There was consensus that monitoring of patients undergoing systemic treatment should only be conducted in case of prostate-specific antigen elevation or progression-suggestive symptoms. CONCLUSION: The treatment recommendations for most topics addressed differed between the best-practice setting and resource-limited setting, accentuating the need for high-quality evidence that contemplates the effect of limited resources on the management of mCSPC.

Advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) management: an expert panel recommendation from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG).

PURPOSE: The outcome of RCC has improved considerably in the last few years, and the treatment options have increased. LACOG-GU and LARCG held a consensus meeting to develop guidelines to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of RCC patients. METHODS: Eighty questions addressing relevant advanced RCC treatments were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. Consensus was determined as 75% agreement. For questions with less than 75% agreement, a new discussion was held, and consensus was determined by the majority of votes after the second voting session. RESULTS: The recommendations were based on the highest level of scientific evidence or by the opinion of the RCC experts when no relevant research data were available. CONCLUSION: This manuscript provides guidance for advanced RCC treatment according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG expert recommendations.

First-line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Immuno-oncology Era: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Combination treatments with immuno-oncology (IO) agents and IO agents plus a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI) have been approved for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). No direct comparisons have been performed among these treatment options. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare and rank the available regimens for first-line treatment in terms of survival benefit and efficacy. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review statement, a systematic search of reported studies was performed in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE up to May 31, 2019. Network meta-analysis models were adjusted using the Bayesian method. Four randomized clinical trials, with a total of 3758 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Considering systemic therapy, 1880 patients had received sunitinib and 550, 432, 442, and 454 patients had received ipilimumab plus nivolumab (ipi + nivo), pembrolizumab plus axitinib (pembro + axi), avelumab plus axitinib (avelu + axi), and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo + bev). No difference was found in overall survival between ipi + nivo and pembro + axi for the intention to treat population (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.92-1.97). No difference was found in progression-free survival among the treatments. The overall response rate (ORR) was superior with pembro + axi and avelu + axi compared with the ORR with the other treatments (atezo + bev vs. pembro + axi: HR, 0.66; 95% CrI, 0.52-0.84; ipi + nivo vs. pembro + axi: HR, 0.73; 95% CrI, 0.59-0.90; atezo + bev vs. avelu + axi: HR, 0.55; 95% CrI, 0.43-0.71; avelu + axi vs. ipi + nivo: HR, 1.66; 95% CrI, 1.31-2.12), with no differences across them (HR, 1.21; 95% CrI, 0.95-1.53). In the present indirect comparison, for an intention to treat population, we found no survival differences between pembro + axi and ipi + nivo. All treatments showed better progression-free survival compared with sunitinib that was similar among them. The combination of an IO agent (pembrolizumab or avelumab) and axitinib seemed to be the most effective therapy for the ORR.

The impact of metastatic sites in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies.

The real impact of specific sites of metastasis on prognosis of metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) is unknown. To evaluate the association of specific metastatic sites and survival outcomes in MPC a systematic literature review was performed including prospective randomized trials of systemic treatments in metastatic pancreatic cancer indexed in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Data regarding systemic treatment regimens, progression free survival and overall survival were extracted. The outcomes were compared using a random effects model. The index I2 and the graphs of funnel plot were used for the interpretation of the data. Of 1,052 abstracts, 7 randomized trials were considered eligible with a combined sample size of 2,975 MPC patients. Combining the studies with meta-analysis, we could see that patients with liver metastasis had a HR for death of 1.53 with 95% CI of 1.15 to 2.02 (p-value 0.003) and HR for risk of progression of 1.96 with 95% CI of 1.28 to 2.99 (p-value 0.002), without significant heterogeneity. Having two or more sites of metastasis comparing to one site did not have impact on overall survival; RR of 1.05 with 95% CI 0.91 to 1.23 (p-value 0.493). In conclusion, liver metastasis confers worse outcomes among patients with MPC. Apparently, multiple metastatic sites do not present worse prognosis when compared with only one organ involved, therefore, demonstrating the severity of this disease. Prospective studies evaluating other treatments are necessary to address the impact of local treatments in liver metastasis in MPC.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of docetaxel perioperative chemotherapy regimens in gastric and esophagogastric tumors.

FLOT regimen became the standard perioperative treatment in several centers around the world for esophagogastric tumors despite concerns about toxicity. In addition, FLOT has never been compared with other docetaxel-based regimens. To address this question, we conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science including prospective or retrospective studies of docetaxel based perioperative regimen in gastric and esophagogastric tumors. Data regarding chemotherapy regimens, efficacy and toxicity were extracted. Outcomes were compared using a random effects model. Of 548 abstracts, 16 were considered eligible. Comparing the studies with meta-analysis we can see that the regimens are similar in terms of pathological complete response, resection rate, progression free survival and overall survival in one year, without significant heterogeneity. The meta-regression of docetaxel dose failed to show any association with dose ranging between 120-450 mg/m². Regarding the toxicity of the regimens it is noted that the regimens are quite toxic (up to 50-70% of grade 3-4 neutropenia). The results of this meta-analysis with a combined sample size of more than 1,000 patients suggest that docetaxel perioperative regimens are equivalent in outcomes. Prospective trials addressing modified regimens should be performed to provide less toxic strategies and be applicable to all patients.

Renal cell cancer treatment: an expert panel recommendation from the Latin American cooperative group-genitourinary and the Latin American renal cancer group: focus on surgery.

BACKGROUND: Renal cell cancer (RCC) is one of the 10 most common cancers in the world, and its incidence is increasing, whereas mortality is declining only in developed countries. Therefore, two collaborative groups, The Latin American Oncology Cooperative Group-Genitourinary Section (LACOG-GU) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG), held a consensus meeting to develop this guideline. METHODS: Issues (134) related to the treatment of RCC were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists (urologists and medical oncologists) from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. A consensus was reached if 75% agreement was achieved. If there was less concordance, a new discussion was undertaken, and a consensus was determined by the most votes after a second voting session. RESULTS: The expert meeting provided recommendations that were in line with the global literature; 75.0% of the recommendations made by the panel of experts were evidence-based level A, 22.5% of the recommendations were level B, and 2.5% of the recommendations were level D. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests recommendations for the surgical treatment of RCC according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG experts.

Second brazilian consensus on the treatment of advanced prostate cancer: a SBOC-SBU-SBRT panel review

ABSTRACT Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer deaths. In Brazil, it is likewise the second most common cancer among men, second only to non-melanoma skin cancers. The aim of this consensus is to align different opinions and interpretations of the medical literature in a practical and patient-oriented approach. The first Brazilian Consensus on the Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer was published in 2017, with the goal of reducing the heterogeneity of therapeutic conduct in Brazilian patients with metastatic prostate cancer. We acknowledge that in Brazil the incorporation of different technologies is a big challenge, especially in the Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), which allows for the disparity in the options available to patients treated in different institutions. In order to update the recommendations and to make them objective and easily accessible, once more a panel of specialists was formed in order to discuss and elaborate a new Brazilian Consensus on Advanced Prostate Cancer. This Consensus was written through a joint initiative of the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC) and the Brazilian Society of Urology (SBU) to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of patients with prostate cancer.

The LACOG-0415 phase II trial: abiraterone acetate and ADT versus apalutamide versus abiraterone acetate and apalutamide in patients with advanced prostate cancer with non-castration testosterone levels.

BACKGROUND: Testosterone suppression is the standard treatment for advanced prostate cancer, and it is associated with side-effects that impair patients' quality of life, like sexual dysfunction, osteoporosis, weight gain, and increased cardiovascular risk. We hypothesized that abiraterone acetate with prednisone (AAP) and apalutamide, alone or in combination, can be an effective hormonal therapy also possibly decreasing castration-associated side effects. METHODS: Phase II, open-label, randomized, efficacy trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) and Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) versus apalutamide versus the combination of AAP (without ADT) and apalutamide. Key eligibility criteria are confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; biochemical relapse after definitive treatment (PSA ≥ 4 ng/ml and doubling time less than 10 months, or PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml); newly diagnosed locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer; asymptomatic to moderately symptomatic regarding bone symptoms. Patients with other histology besides adenocarcinoma or previous use of hormonal therapy or chemotherapy were excluded. DISCUSSION: There is an urgent need to study and validate regimens such as new hormonal agents that may add benefit to castration with an acceptable safety profile. We aim to evaluate if apalutamide in monotherapy or in combination with AAP is an effective and safety hormonal treatment that can spare patients of androgen deprivation therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on October 16, 2017, under Identifier: NCT02867020.

Second brazilian consensus on the treatment of advanced prostate cancer - a SBOC-SBU-SBRT panel review.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer and the fi fth leading cause of cancer deaths. In Brazil, it is likewise the second most common cancer among men, second only to non-melanoma skin cancers. The aim of this consensus is to align different opinions and interpretations of the medical literature in a practical and patient-oriented approach. The fi rst Brazilian Consensus on the Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer was published in 2017, with the goal of reducing the heterogeneity of therapeutic conduct in Brazilian patients with metastatic prostate cancer. We acknowledge that in Brazil the incorporation of different technologies is a big challenge, especially in the Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), which allows for the disparity in the options available to patients treated in different institutions. In order to update the recommendations and to make them objective and easily accessible, once more a panel of specialists was formed in order to discuss and elaborate a new Brazilian Consensus on Advanced Prostate Cancer. This Consensus was written through a joint initiative of the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC) and the Brazilian Society of Urology (SBU) to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of patients with prostate cancer.

Signet ring cell component, not the Lauren subtype, predicts poor survival: an analysis of 198 cases of gastric cancer.

AIM: Prognostic differences between major histologic gastric cancer groups, intestinal and diffuse are uncertain, since cellular components in each of them possibly have different behaviors. MATERIALS & METHODS: We reviewed 198 gastric cancer patients charts diagnosed from January 2003 to December 2015 in a tertiary hospital. Multivariate Cox proportional survival models were used to evaluate the impact of histologic groups on overall survival. RESULTS: About a third had the signet-ring cell carcinoma (SRCC). In a comparison of the different histologic subtypes, SRCC had the worst prognosis of all. The median durations of survival for patients with stage III and stage IV were 19.7 and 7.7 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Signet-ring cell component seem to have a relevant role in defining prognosis for gastric cancer.

Response to pembrolizumab in a heavily treated patient with metastatic ovarian carcinosarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian carcinosarcoma is a rare malignancy associated with a high rate of cancer-related mortality even at early stages. Guidelines for systemic treatment have been difficult to establish because the disease is commonly excluded from prospective clinical trials. Ovarian carcinosarcoma is usually managed as high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer despite major histologic differences. Owing to the rarity and poor prognosis of ovarian carcinosarcoma, salvage treatments and their efficacy have been poorly described. CASE PRESENTATION: A patient heavily treated for ovarian carcinosarcoma showed an objective response to an immune checkpoint inhibitor, pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab in this patient appeared to provide tumor control in multifocal metastatic sites. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab should be evaluated in prospective trials for the treatment of ovarian carcinosarcoma and further work is needed to identify patients most likely to respond to this type of intervention.