Rethinking prognostic factors in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the immune checkpoint blockade era: a multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-(L)1 antibodies in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in daily clinical practice. Knowledge about the influence of baseline clinical and analytical factors on therapy outcomes is scarce. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study involving 119 previously treated or untreated mUC patients under anti-PD-(L)1 therapy in a real-world scenario. The objectives of this study were to confirm the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy and to identify pretreatment factors influencing therapy outcomes. In addition, an independent prognostic model for overall survival (OS) was developed and internally validated. RESULTS: Median OS was 7.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.4-10.4], median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.80 months (95% CI, 2.4-3.4), disease control rate (DCR) was 40% (95% CI, 31-49), and overall response rate (ORR) was 24% (95% CI, 15-31). Presence of peritoneal metastases was associated with poor OS [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.40, 95% CI, 1.08-5.33; P = 0.03]. Use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) was associated with poor OS (HR = 1.83, 95% CI, 1.11-3.02; P = 0.02) and PFS (HR = 1.94, 95% CI, 1.22-3.09; P = 0.005), and lower DCR (OR = 0.38, 95% CI, 0.17-0.89; P = 0.03) and ORR (OR = 0.18, 95% CI, 0.02-1.60; P = 0.002). The three risk category prognostic model developed included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, PPI use, albumin level, presence of liver metastases, and presence of peritoneal metastases variables and was associated with higher risk of death (HR = 3.00, 95% CI, 1.97-4.56; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy as a safe and effective treatment option in daily clinical practice for mUC patients. It also describes the presence of peritoneal metastases as an independent prognostic factor for OS and underlines the association between PPI use and worse therapeutic outcomes. Finally, it proposes a new easy-to-use risk-assessment model for OS prediction.

A new scenario in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a SOG-GU consensus.

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.

Chemotherapy management for unfit patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Administration of chemotherapy in prostate cancer depends on patient fitness. In unfit patients, physiological impairment determines the optimum treatment. Although no consensus on assessing patient fitness currently exists, this article proposes an algorithm combining the available information for administering chemotherapy, and in particular docetaxel, in unfit patients. It was constructed by reviewing factors that can influence treatment, such as performance status, taxane-related comorbidities and nutritional status. Geriatric scales for prostate cancer patients and alternative treatment regimens for this population are also reviewed. In summary, patients require overall assessment to optimise treatment. Use of docetaxel should be restricted in unfit patients, and other options must be evaluated, because of high toxicity and low efficacy.

Natural killer cells in acute myeloid leukemia patients: from phenotype to transcriptomic analysis.

Chemotherapies allow complete remission in more than 50 % of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), however, with frequent relapse. This suggests that residual leukemic cells may escape to chemotherapy and immune system. Natural killer (NK) cells from AML patients (AML-NK) have a weaker natural cytotoxicity-activating receptors (NCRs) expression than NK cells from healthy donors (HD-NK). Coding genes for NCR1/NKp46, NCR2/NKp44 and NCR3/NKp30 are located at different loci on two different chromosomes; however, their expression is tightly coordinated. Most NK cells express either high (NCRbright) or low levels (NCRdull) of all three NCRs. This suggests the existence of negative/positive regulation factor(s) common to the three receptors. In order to find transcription factor(s) or pathway(s) involved in NCRs co-regulation, this study compared the transcriptomic signature of HD-NK and AML-NK cells, before and after in vitro NK cells culture. Microarrays analysis revealed a specific NK cells transcriptomic signature in patients with AML. However, in vitro NK cells expansion erased this signature and up-regulated expression of central molecules of NK functions, such as NCR, NKG2D and also ETS-1, regardless of their origin, i.e., AML-NK vs HD-NK. ETS-1 transcription factor was shown to bind to a specific and common region in the NCRs promoters, thus appearing as a good candidate to explain the coordinated regulation of three NCRs. Such results are encouraging regarding in vitro AML-NK cytotoxicity restoration and provide a new conceptual support for innovative cellular therapy based on in vitro NK cells expansion before their reinfusion in AML patients.