The Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) classification on cancer staging, jointly developed by the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) and the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), has been ...updated to its 8th edition with two contemporaneous versions published by the AJCC and UICC. While the goal of the AJCC and UICC is to have identical TNM staging systems, differences exist between these two publications including in the staging of urologic cancers. Among several new facets in the AJCC staging manual, a select few of greater import include an expanded section on imaging, presentation of levels of evidence for significant changes, and endorsement of risk assessment models that pass the AJCC quality criteria such as in prostate cancer. The updates for urologic cancers in the AJCC stage categories can be grouped into: (1) newly defined TNM categories and prognostic stage groupings, (2) clarifications and refinements of previously defined categories, and (3) more systematic and expanded presentation of prognostic factors. Changes are harmonized with the current reporting and treatment guidelines. Contributions from genitourinary pathology are evident in the AJCC classification from many of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conferences on prostate, kidney, testicular, and penile neoplasms that addressed staging issues and the timely publication of the 4th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of urinary and male genital organ tumors. New grading approaches for penile (WHO/ISUP grade), prostate (Grade group), and kidney (WHO/ISUP nucleolar grade) cancers were adopted in the AJCC system. Many of these updates in the AJCC staging manual are also included in the 8th UICC TNM edition. In an effort to achieve the optimal staging recommendations for urologic cancers, updates in the 8th TNM edition were generated through the acquisition of best evidences, tapping interdisciplinary resources including consensus recommendations, and enhanced data analysis.
In this report, we explain the seminal changes in the 8th edition of the Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging system for urologic cancers. Major stage category definitional changes are in Tumor-Node-Metastasis classifications of testicular, penile, and prostate cancer which improve patient stratification for prognosis and management.
Refining the standards that provide the best possible staging system is a never-ending process. The 8th edition continues in that tradition with a more focused attempt to incorporate nonanatomic factors into staging. This approach is most evident in staging of prostate cancers where nonanatomic factors including grade of tumor and serum prostate specific antigen levels significantly impact American Joint Committee on Cancer prognostic stage group assignment whereby which even some organ-confined cancers may be classified as stage III cancer.
No interest, no conflict Stadler, Walter M.
Cancer,
August 15, 2020, Letnik:
126, Številka:
16
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Financial conflicts of interest undoubtedly impact National Comprehensive Cancer Network and other guideline committee recommendations. Could a guideline committee rating system address not only ...biased recommendations but also the pragmatic issue that the most expert individuals are not likely to be free of conflicts?
Summary Background Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to ...compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Methods We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01108445. Findings Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months 80% CI 5·8–11·4 vs 5·6 months 5·5–6·0; hazard ratio 1·41 80% CI 1·03–1·92; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (12 24% of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one 2% of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six 12% vs four 7%), diarrhoea (five 10% vs one 2%), pneumonitis (none vs five 9%), stomatitis (none vs five 9%), and hand-foot syndrome (four 8% vs none). Interpretation In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors. Funding Novartis and Pfizer.
A randomized, placebo-controlled study based on preclinical and clinical data that supports the potential role of vascular endothelial growth factor in prostate cancer was performed to evaluate the ...addition of bevacizumab to standard docetaxel and prednisone therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Patients with chemotherapy-naive progressive mCRPC with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) over 1 hour for 21 days plus prednisone 5 mg orally twice per day (DP) with either bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks (DP + B) or placebo. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), 50% decline in prostate-specific antigen, objective response (OR), and toxicity.
In total, 1,050 patients were randomly assigned. The median OS for patients given DP + B was 22.6 months compared with 21.5 months for patients treated with DP (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.05; stratified log-rank P = .181). The median PFS time was superior in the DP + B arm (9.9 v 7.5 months, stratified log-rank P < .001) as was the proportion of patients with OR (49.4% v 35.5%; P = .0013). Grade 3 or greater treatment-related toxicity was more common with DP + B (75.4% v 56.2%; P ≤ .001), as was the number of treatment-related deaths (4.0% v 1.2%; P = .005).
Despite an improvement in PFS and OR, the addition of bevacizumab to docetaxel and prednisone did not improve OS in men with mCRPC and was associated with greater toxicity.
Bevacizumab is an antibody that binds vascular endothelial growth factor and has activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Interferon alfa (IFN-alpha) is the historic standard initial ...treatment for RCC. A prospective, randomized, phase III trial of bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha versus IFN-alpha monotherapy was conducted.
Patients with previously untreated, metastatic clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to receive either bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus IFN-alpha (9 million units subcutaneously three times weekly) or the same dose and schedule of IFN-alpha monotherapy in a multicenter phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and safety.
Seven hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled. The median OS time was 18.3 months (95% CI, 16.5 to 22.5 months) for bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha and 17.4 months (95% CI, 14.4 to 20.0 months) for IFN-alpha monotherapy (unstratified log-rank P = .097). Adjusting on stratification factors, the hazard ratio was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.01; stratified log-rank P = .069) favoring bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha. There was significantly more grade 3 to 4 hypertension (HTN), anorexia, fatigue, and proteinuria for bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha. Patients who developed HTN on bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha had a significantly improved PFS and OS versus patients without HTN.
OS favored the bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha arm but did not meet the predefined criteria for significance. HTN may be a biomarker of outcome with bevacizumab plus IFN-alpha.
Purpose To determine whether cotargeting poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 plus androgen receptor is superior to androgen receptor inhibition in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) ...and whether ETS fusions predict response. Patients and Methods Patients underwent metastatic site biopsy and were stratified by ETS status and randomly assigned to abiraterone plus prednisone without (arm A) or with veliparib (arm B). Primary objectives were: confirmed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (RR) and whether ETS fusions predicted response. Secondary objectives were: safety, measurable disease RR (mRR), progression-free survival (PFS), and molecular biomarker analysis. A total of 148 patients were randomly assigned to detect a 20% PSA RR improvement. Results A total of 148 patients with mCRPC were randomly assigned: arm A, n = 72; arm B, n = 76. There were no differences in PSA RR (63.9% v 72.4%; P = .27), mRR (45.0% v 52.2%; P = .51), or median PFS (10.1 v 11 months; P = .99). ETS fusions did not predict response. Exploratory analysis of tumor sequencing (80 patients) revealed: 41 patients (51%) were ETS positive, 20 (25%) had DNA-damage repair defect (DRD), 41 (51%) had AR amplification or copy gain, 34 (43%) had PTEN mutation, 33 (41%) had TP53 mutation, 39 (49%) had PIK3CA pathway activation, and 12 (15%) had WNT pathway alteration. Patients with DRD had significantly higher PSA RR (90% v 56.7%; P = .007) and mRR (87.5% v 38.6%; P = .001), PSA decline ≥ 90% (75% v 25%; P = .001), and longer median PFS (14.5 v 8.1 months; P = .025) versus those with wild-type tumors. Median PFS was longer in patients with normal PTEN (13.5 v 6.7 months; P = .02), TP53 (13.5 v 7.7 months; P = .01), and PIK3CA (13.8 v 8.3 months; P = .03) versus those with mutation or activation. In multivariable analysis adjusting for clinical covariates, DRD association with PFS remained significant. Conclusion Veliparib and ETS status did not affect response. Exploratory analysis identified a novel DRD association with mCRPC outcomes.
Progression free survival as a primary endpoint for comparative trials does not fully capture the therapeutic risk/benefit ratio. Additionally, summarization of the treatment effect via a hazard ...ratio is problematic when the proportional hazards assumption is violated. Restricted mean survival time metrics may address these challenges but have other limitations.
Mature survival data and evaluation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as a prognostic biomarker from the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) study in ...patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported.
Nine hundred three previously treated patients were randomly assigned to receive sorafenib versus placebo. On demonstration of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with sorafenib, patients assigned to placebo were offered sorafenib. Overall survival (OS) was determined at two planned interim analyses and one final analysis, with a secondary OS analysis conducted by censoring placebo patients who crossed over to sorafenib. The relationships between baseline VEGF level and prognosis and efficacy were evaluated.
The final OS of patients receiving sorafenib was comparable with that of patients receiving placebo (17.8 v 15.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio HR = 0.88; P = .146); however, when post-cross-over placebo survival data were censored, the difference became significant (17.8 v 14.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.78; P = .029). Adverse events at 16 months after cross over were similar to those previously reported. Baseline VEGF levels correlated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P < .0001), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center score (P < .0001), and PFS and OS in univariate (PFS, P = .0013; OS, P = .0009) and multivariate (PFS, P = .0231; OS, P = .0416) analyses of placebo patients and with short OS by multivariate analysis of patients receiving sorafenib (P = .0145). Both high-VEGF (P < .01) and low-VEGF (P < .01) groups benefited from sorafenib.
Although an OS benefit was not seen on a primary intent-to-treat analysis, results of a secondary OS analysis censoring placebo patients demonstrated a survival advantage for those receiving sorafenib, suggesting an important cross-over effect. VEGF levels are prognostic for PFS and OS in RCC. The results of TARGET establish the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in advanced RCC.
A phase 2 trial showed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who express programmed death-ligand 1 ...(PD-L1). Here, we report results of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, patients with a component of clear cell or sarcomatoid histology and who were previously untreated, were recruited from 152 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 21 countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. A permuted-block randomisation (block size of 4) was applied to obtain a balanced assignment to each treatment group with respect to the stratification factors. Study investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. Patients, investigators, independent radiology committee members, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the PD-L1 positive population and overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02420821.
Of 915 patients enrolled between May 20, 2015, and Oct 12, 2016, 454 were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunitinib group. 362 (40%) of 915 patients had PD-L1 positive disease. Median follow-up was 15 months at the primary progression-free survival analysis and 24 months at the overall survival interim analysis. In the PD-L1 positive population, the median progression-free survival was 11·2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7·7 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio HR 0·74 95% CI 0·57–0·96; p=0·0217). In the ITT population, median overall survival had an HR of 0·93 (0·76–1·14) and the results did not cross the significance boundary at the interim analysis. 182 (40%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446 patients in the sunitinib group had treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the sunitinib group had treatment-related all-grade adverse events, which led to treatment-regimen discontinuation.
Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free survival versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and showed a favourable safety profile. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to establish whether a survival benefit will emerge. These study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment option for selected patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.
F Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd and Genentech Inc.
PDF
