Real-world treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in the USA, Europe and Asia.

Aim: To characterize real-world patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and treating physicians and evaluate treatment trends and baseline concordance versus guidelines internationally. Materials & methods: Retrospective, cross-sectional data from the Ipsos Global Oncology Monitor database 2018-2020 were used for descriptive analysis of mHSPC patients, treating physicians and treatment utilization. Results: Among the 6198 mHSPC patients from five countries, the most common treatment was either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) monotherapy or first-generation androgen receptor inhibitor + ADT. Second-generation androgen receptor inhibitor use was only initiating but increasing over the study period. Conclusion: Despite contemporaneous guidelines recommending treatment intensification of ADT in combination with novel antihormonals or docetaxel, 76.1% of reported mHSPC patients received non-guideline-concordant care.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer among men worldwide and a leading cause of cancer-related death globally. Metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) refers to the stage of prostate cancer where it has spread to other parts of the body ('metastatic') but still responds to hormonal therapy ('hormone-sensitive'), such as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Treatment guidelines around the world for men with mHSPC have changed over time, but there remains a lack of understanding of how well guidelines are followed in real-world practice. Consequently, this study analyzes real-world data from five countries between 2018 and 2020 to understand treatment patterns, baseline concordance versus guidelines and potential drivers of treatment trends. The study found prevalent use of ADT monotherapy and older antihormonal agents, and only marginal but increasing use of novel antihormonals in real-world practice. These practices deviate from guidelines from the study period, which generally recommended ADT combination with either newer antihormonal agents or docetaxel for patients with mHSPC. Overall, the proportion of the 6198 patients treated with non­guideline-concordant therapies was 76.1%. Since guideline-recommended care is associated with better outcomes, this baselining finding highlights the need for appropriate treatment selection and intensification for mHSPC patients.

Sunitinib for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Real-World Data from the STAR-TOR Registry and Detailed Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the effectiveness and safety profile of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (a/mRCC) in a real-world setting. METHODS: We analyzed data of adult a/mRCC patients treated with sunitinib. Data were derived from the German non-interventional post-approval multicenter STAR-TOR registry (NCT00700258). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated using descriptive statistics and survival analyses for the entire cohort and patient subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 116 study sites recruited 702 patients treated with sunitinib (73.1% male; median age 68.0 years; median Karnofsky index 90%) between November 2010 and May 2020. The most frequent histological subtype was clear cell RCC (81.6%). Sunitinib was administered as first-line treatment in 83.5%, as second line in 11.7%, and as third line or beyond in 4.8% of the patients. Drug-related AEs and serious AEs were reported in 66.3% and 13.9% of the patients, respectively (most common AE: gastrointestinal disorders; 39.7% of all patients). CONCLUSIONS: This study adds further real-world evidence of the persisting relevance of sunitinib for patients with a/mRCC who cannot receive or tolerate immune checkpoint inhibitors. The study population includes a high proportion of patients with unfavorable MSKCC poor-risk score, but shows still good PFS and OS results, while the drug demonstrates a favorable safety profile. The STAR-TOR registry is also registered in the database of US library of medicine (NCT00700258).

Potential of an mRNA-Based Urine Assay (Xpert® Bladder Cancer Detection1) in Hematuria Patients - Results from a Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Assessment of patients with hematuria (aH) remains a challenge in urological practice, balancing the benefits of diagnosing a potentially underlying bladder cancer (UCa) against the risks of possibly unnecessary diagnostic interventions. This study analyzes the potential of an mRNA-based urine assay, the Xpert® Bladder Cancer Detection- CE-IVD (Xpert BC-D), in patients with hematuria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 368 patients with newly observed painless hematuria and no history of UCa were included in this observational study. Patients received urological workup, including urethrocystoscopy (WLC), upper tract imaging, urine cytology and Xpert BC-D. Patients with positive WLC were recommended to undergo tumor resection (TUR-B). RESULTS: After excluding non-assessable cases, 324 patients were considered for analysis (188 males, 136 females; median age: 61 years). Eight of twenty-eight patients with a positive TUR-B had Ta low grade (LG) tumors; the others were diagnosed with high grade (HG) lesions (Ta: 4, CIS: 2, T1:11, > T1:3). The Xpert BC-D was more sensitive than urine cytology (96% vs. 61%) (p = 0.002). Increased risk ratios (RR) were observed for gross hematuria, gender, urine cytology, and positive Xpert BC-D (all p < 0.05). Age and positive Xpert BC-D remained independent predictors of UCa in multivariate analysis. Simulating a triage with WLC restricted to patients with positive Xpert BC-D could have saved 240 (74.1%) assessments at the cost of missing one pTa LG tumor. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest a potential role for Xpert BC-D in preselecting patients with hematuria for either further invasive diagnosis or an alternate diagnostic procedure.

Simulation of the effects of molecular urine markers in follow-up of patients with high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

A plethora of urine markers for the management of patients with bladder cancer has been developed and studied in the past. However, the clinical impact of urine testing on patient management remains obscure. The goal of this manuscript is to identify scenarios for the potential use of molecular urine markers in the follow-up of patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive BC (NMIBC) and estimate potential risks and benefits. Information on the course of disease of patients with high-risk NMIBC and performance data of a point-of-care test (UBC rapid™), an MCM-5 directed ELISA (ADXBLADDER™), and 2 additional novel assays targeting alterations of mRNA expression and DNA methylation (Xpert bladder cancer monitor™, Epicheck™) were retrieved from high-quality trials and/or meta-analyses. In addition, the sensitivity of white light cystoscopy (WLC) and the impact of a urine marker result on the performance of WLC were estimated based on fluorescence cystoscopy data and information from the CeFub trial. This information was applied to different scenarios in patient follow-up and sensitivity, estimated number of cystoscopies, and the numbers needed to diagnose were calculated. The sensitivity of guideline-based regular follow-up (SOC) at 1 year was calculated at 96%. For different marker-supported strategies sensitivities ranging from 77% to 97.9% were estimated. Calculations suggest that several strategies are effective for the SOC. While for the SOC 24.6 WLCs were required to diagnose 1 tumor recurrence (NND), this NND dropped below 5 in some marker-supported strategies. Based on the results of this simulation, a marker-supported follow-up of patients with HR NMIBC is safe and offers the option to significantly reduce the number of WLCs. Further research focusing on prospective randomized trials is needed to finally find a way to implement urine markers into clinical decision-making.

Sensitivity and Specificity in Urine Bladder Cancer Markers - Is it that Simple?

Marker research, and in particular urine bladder cancer marker research throughout the past three decades, devours enormous scientific resources in terms of manpower (not to mention time spent on reviewing and editorial efforts) and financial resources, finally generating large numbers of manuscripts without affecting clinical decision making. This is mirrored by the fact that current guidelines do not recommend marker use due to missing level 1 evidence. Although we recognize the problems and obstacles, the authors of this commentary feel that the time has come to abandon the current procedures and move on to prospective trial designs implementing marker results into clinical decision making. Our thoughts and concerns are summarized in this comment.