Urachal carcinoma: a large retrospective multicentric study from the French Genito-Urinary Tumor Group

Introduction

Urachal cancer (UrC) is a rare, non-urothelial malignancy. Its natural history and management are poorly understood. Although localized to the bladder dome, the most common histological subtype of UrC is adenocarcinoma. UrC develops from an embryonic remnant, and is frequently diagnosed in advanced stage with poor prognosis. The treatment is not standardized, and based only on case reports and small series. This large retrospective multicentric study was conducted by the French Genito-Urinary Tumor Group to gain a better understanding of UrC.

Material and Methods

data has been collected retrospectively on 97 patients treated at 22 French Cancer Centers between 1996 and 2020.

Results

The median follow-up was 59 months (range 44-96). The median age at diagnosis was 53 years (range 20-86), 45% were females and 23% had tobacco exposure. For patients with localized disease (Mayo I-II, n=46) and with lymph-node invasion (Mayo III, n=13) median progression-free-survival (mPFS) was 31 months (95% CI: 20-67) and 7 months (95% CI: 6-not reached (NR)), and median overall survival (mOS) was 73 months (95% CI: 57-NR) and 22 months (95% CI: 21-NR) respectively. For 45 patients with Mayo I-III had secondary metastatic progression, and 20 patients were metastatic at diagnosis. Metastatic localization was peritoneal for 54% of patients. Most patients with localized tumor were treated with partial cystectomy, with mPFS of 20 months (95% CI: 14-49), and only 12 patients received adjuvant therapy. Metastatic patients (Mayo IV) had a mOS of 23 months (95% CI: 19-33) and 69% received a platin-fluorouracil combination treatment.

Conclusion

UrC is a rare tumor of the bladder where patients are younger with a higher number of females, and a lower tobacco exposure than in standard urothelial carcinoma. For localized tumor, partial cystectomy is recommended. The mOS and mPFS were low, notably for patients with lymph node invasion. For metastatic patients the prognosis is poor and standard therapy is not well-defined. Further clinical and biological knowledge are needed.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment of a first cancer is associated with a decreased incidence of second primary cancer

Background

Second primary cancers (SPCs) are diagnosed in over 5% of patients after a first primary cancer (FPC). We explore here the impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) given for an FPC on the risk of SPC in different age groups, cancer types and treatments.

Patients and methods

The files of the 46 829 patients diagnosed with an FPC in the Centre Léon Bérard from 2013 to 2018 were analyzed. Structured data were extracted and electronic patient records were screened using a natural language processing tool, with validation using manual screening of 2818 files of patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the incidence of SPC according to patient characteristics and treatment were conducted.

Results

Among the 46 829 patients, 1830 (3.9%) had a diagnosis of SPC with a median interval of 11.1 months (range 0-78 months); 18 128 (38.7%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy (CC) and 1163 (2.5%) received ICIs for the treatment of the FPC in this period. SPCs were observed in 7/1163 (0.6%) patients who had received ICIs for their FPC versus 437/16 997 (2.6%) patients receiving CC and no ICIs for the FPC versus 1386/28 669 (4.8%) for patients receiving neither CC nor ICIs for the FPC. This reduction was observed at all ages and for all histotypes analyzed. Treatment with ICIs and/or CC for the FPC are associated with a reduced risk of SPC in multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

Immunotherapy with ICIs alone and in combination with CC was found to be associated with a reduced incidence of SPC for all ages and cancer types.

•

From 2013 to 2018, 3.9% of the 46 829 patients diagnosed with a first cancer presented with an SPC.

•

Treatment of the first cancer with ICIs was associated with a major reduction of SPC.

•

CC given for an FPC was also associated with a lower magnitude of reduction of SPC.

•

There were no SPC in cancer patients treated with ICIs in the localized phase of their first cancer.

[Non-palpable testicular tumors in adults: A management based on imaging? Issue from the French Urologic Association Genital Cancer committee's edit]

BACKGROUND

Help in management of non-palpable testicular tumors. French Urologic Association Genital cancer committee's Edit.

OBJECTIVES

To review their characterization at imaging findings of non-palpable testicular tumors.

DOCUMENTARY SOURCES

Literature review (PubMed, Medline) of urological and radiological studies dealing with testicular tumors using keywords: non-palpable/incidental testicular tumors; color Doppler ultrasound; US elastography; magnetic resonance imaging; contrast enhanced sonography; partial surgery.

RESULTS

Color Doppler is the basic exam. The size, the presence of microlithts/microlithiasis/macrocalcifications, the vascular architecture are major semiological findings to suggest the benign or the malignant nature of the lesion. Other techniques like multiparametric MRI, contrast-enhanced sonography, sonographic elastography are still in evaluation. The frequency of benign tumors such as Leydig cell tumors lead to preservation management, through improved characterization, monitoring or tumorectomy.

LIMITS

Non-randomized study - a very few prospective studies.

CONCLUSION

The era of total orchiectomy for any uncertain testicular lesion is over. We try the challenge of characterization, and define management's algorithms based on the suspected nature of the tumors.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of maintenance therapy with tasquinimod in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer responsive to or stabilized during first-line docetaxel chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

This phase II study was conducted to assess clinical efficacy of tasquinimod maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer not progressing during first-line docetaxel-based therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive tasquinimod (0.25-1.0 mg/day orally) or placebo. The primary end point was radiologic progression-free survival (rPFS); secondary efficacy end points included: overall survival (OS); PFS on next-line therapy (PFS 2) and symptomatic PFS, assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaire and analgesic use. Quality of life was measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and by the EuroQol-5 Dimension Quality of Life Instrument (EQ-5D). Adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 219 patients were screened and 144 patients randomized. The median duration of treatment was 18.7 weeks (range 0.6-102.7 weeks) for the tasquinimod arm and 19.2 weeks (range 0.4-80.0 weeks) for the placebo arm. Median (90% CI) rPFS was 31.7 (24.3-53.7) and 22.7 (16.1-25.9) weeks in the tasquinimod and placebo arms, respectively [HR (90% CI) 0.6 (0.4-0.9), P = 0.0162]. The median OS was not reached because only 14 deaths occurred by the cut-off date. No statistically significant differences between treatment arms were noted for symptomatic PFS, PFS 2, BPI score, FACT-P score, or EQ-5D. The incidence of any treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE) was similar in the tasquinimod and placebo arms (97.2% versus 94.3%, respectively), whereas severe TEAEs (NCI-CTC Grade 3-5) incidence was higher in the tasquinimod group (50.7% versus 27.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Randomized trials testing new drugs as maintenance can be successfully conducted after chemotherapy in castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Maintenance tasquinimod therapy significantly reduced the risk of rPFS by 40%.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier NCT01732549.

Vinflunine-gemcitabine versus vinflunine-carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in cisplatin-unfit patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: results of an international randomized phase II trial (JASINT1)

This randomized phase II study examined the use of vinflunine in combination with gemcitabine or carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. Both doublets were feasible and offered a similar 77% disease control rate. Response rate (44%), overall survival (14 months) and less haematological toxicity favoured vinflunine–gemcitabine.

Background

There is no standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) in cisplatin-ineligible (cisplatin-unfit) patients. The study assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of two vinflunine-based cytotoxic regimens in this setting.

Patients and methods

Patients with aUC a creatinine clearance (CrCl) of <60 but ≥30 ml/min, performance status 0 or 1 and no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomized (1 : 1). They received vinflunine 250 or 280 mg/m² (based on baseline CrCl) on day 1, plus either gemcitabine [750 mg/m² escalated to 1000 mg/m² in cycle 2 if no toxicity grade (G) ≥2 on days 1 and 8 (VG) or plus carboplatin area under the curve 4.5 day 1 (VC) every 21 days]. To detect a 22% improvement in each arm compared with H0 (41%) in the primary end point, disease control rate (DCR = complete response + partial response + stable disease), 31 assessable patients per arm were required (α = 5%, β = 20%).

Results

Sixty-nine patients were enrolled (34 VG, 35 VC). Less G3/4 haematological adverse events (AEs) were reported with VG: neutropaenia was seen in 38% (versus 68% with VC) and febrile neutropaenia in 3% (versus 14% with VC) of patients. No major differences were observed for non-haematological AEs. DCR was 77% in both groups; overall response rate (ORR) was 44.1% versus 28.6%, with a median progression-free survival of 5.9 versus 6.1 months and median OS of 14.0 versus 12.8 months with VG and VC, respectively.

Conclusion

Both vinflunine-based doublets offer a similar DCR, ORR and OS. The better haematological tolerance favours the VG combination, which warrants further study.

ClinicalTrials.gov protocol identifier

NCT 01599013.

[Management of testicular teratoma: update by the Oncology Committee of the French Urology Association, section of External Genital Organs (CCAFU-OGE)]

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this article was to focus on the pathological, clinical and therapeutic aspects of the different forms of testicular teratoma in adults.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The multidisciplinary working group has conducted a literature search on Pubmed with keywords: adult teratoma; malignant transformation; growing teratoma; chemotherapy; surgery with focus on the different forms of adult testicular teratoma.

RESULTS

Teratomas of the adults are malignant and subdivided into localized and metastatic forms that may be distinguished under exclusive teratoma form, growing teratoma or teratoma with malignant transformation. The management is based on an enlarged surgical excision (testis and metastasis) with, in metastatic forms, a chemotherapy adjusted with histology. Extended follow-up beyond 10 years is necessary because of the risk of late relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Testicular teratoma is a rare tumor, which is considered malignant with a potential of metastasis. The treatment is based mainly on surgical management.

[Chemotherapy in male external genital organs (testicular and penile cancer)]

AIM

To describe drugs used in the chemotherapy of testis and penis neoplasms.

MATERIAL

Bibliographical search was performed from the database Medline (National Library of Medicine, PubMed) and websites of the HAS and the ANSM. The search was focused on the characteristics, the mode of action, the efficiency and the side effects of the various drugs concerned.

RESULTS

Nowadays, the chemotherapy is perfectly codified in adjuvant treatment or in first-line treatment of metastatic testis cancer. A single dose of carboplatin for seminoma testicular (stage I) in adjuvant treatment situation is one of the latest advances. Concerning penis cancer, the optimal protocols validated by a high level of evidence are missing.

CONCLUSION

The chemotherapy in testis and penis neoplasms knew few advances in recent years. So, it is necessary to include patients in clinical research protocols.

Maintaining success, reducing treatment burden, focusing on survivorship: highlights from the third European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer

In November 2011, the Third European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ-Cell Cancer (GCC) was held in Berlin, Germany. This third conference followed similar meetings in 2003 (Essen, Germany) and 2006 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) [Schmoll H-J, Souchon R, Krege S et al. European consensus on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG). Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1377-1399; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part I. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 478-496; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 497-513]. A panel of 56 of 60 invited GCC experts from all across Europe discussed all aspects on diagnosis and treatment of GCC, with a particular focus on acute and late toxic effects as well as on survivorship issues. The panel consisted of oncologists, urologic surgeons, radiooncologists, pathologists and basic scientists, who are all actively involved in care of GCC patients. Panelists were chosen based on the publication activity in recent years. Before the meeting, panelists were asked to review the literature published since 2006 in 20 major areas concerning all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of GCC patients, and to prepare an updated version of the previous recommendations to be discussed at the conference. In addition, ∼50 E-vote questions were drafted and presented at the conference to address the most controversial areas for a poll of expert opinions. Here, we present the main recommendations and controversies of this meeting. The votes of the panelists are added as online supplements.

Major prognostic value of modeled AUChCG-AFP, a dynamic kinetic marker characterizing tumor marker decline of nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT) intermediate-poor-risk patients according to the IGCCCG

5085

Background: The level of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) and alpha-foetoprotein (AFP) serum tumor marker is well established in NSGCT as prognostic factor, the relevance of marker kinetic analysis under treatment is still unclear. This may be due to the inaccuracy of methods employed so far, simplifying complex exponential decrease curves by a median half-life (HL). We propose to model patient's AFP and hCG decline profiles in order to calculate area under the curve of marker concentrations versus time (AUChCG-AFP) and to test its prognostic value. Methods: Our retrospective study involved 65 pts treated by 4 cycles of bleomycin-etoposide-cisplatin (BEP) regimen for an intermediate-poor-risk group NSGCT in the same center between 1997 and 2008. A kinetic population approach with NONMEM software was used to model equations of hCG and AFP individual decrease profiles between day 7 (D7) and D42 after the first BEP cycle. AUChCG and AUCAFP were calculated between day D0 and D42 as: AUC0–42=AUC0–7+AUC7–42 where AUC0–7 = trapezium area between D0 and D7 while AUC7–42=integral of modeled equation. Survival univariate and multivariate analyses tested the prognostic value of AUChCG-AFP regarding PFS. Results: Mono-exponential models best fitted AFP and hCG decreases: CAFP (t) = 381*e - 0.14 *t +3.27 and ChCG (t) = 1230*e - 0.25 *t +1.22. Three prognostic groups (AUChCG-AFP) were determined according to AUCAFP median and AUChCG terciles: good if AUCAFP<=11729.4 and AUChCG0–42<=6670; intermediate if AUCAFP>11729 and/or if 6670<=AUChCG<18178 and poor risk if AUChCG>18178 whatever AUCAFP. AUChCG-AFP was a significant prognostic factor in the univariate analysis on the 2 year PFS (100% vs 73.8% vs 67.7%, p = 0.035) as well as IGCCCG score (poor/intermediate risk groups), primary site (mediastinal/other) and HLhCG-AFP. Yet AUChCG-AFP was the only significant independent factor in the multivariate Cox model (HR = 3.3, 95%CI = [1.2–9.2], p = 0.032). Conclusions: Modeled AUChCG-AFP is a dynamic kinetic marker characterizing NSGCT patient marker decline during BEP treatment. These results must be validated in a prospective cohort. It may be a major prognostic factor.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Results of a phase II study of carboplatin and etoposide in patients with progressive metastatic castration refractory prostate cancer (mCRPC) and neuro-endocrine differentiation

e16073

Background: Neuro-endocrine differentiation is often observed in the evolution of mCRPC. We assessed the efficacy and toxicity of a platin-based chemotherapy regimen in patients with mCPRC and neuro-endocrine differentiation defined by: either increased circulating neuro-endocrine markers (chromogranin A: CgA, Neuron Specific Enolase: NSE) more than 1.5 X normal serum values and/or visceral metastases confirmed with immunihistochemical proof of neuro-endocrine differentiation on pathological sample. Methods: Sixty patients were included (Simon optimal two stages design with P0 = 20%, P1 = 40%, α = 5% and power 90% for a total of 54 evaluable patients) and were treated by the combination of carboplatin AUC 4 d1 IV and etoposide 100 mg/m2/d d1–3 IV every 3 weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles. Efficacy endpoints included PSA and neuro-endocrine marker response rate (defined as a decrease of 50% or greater of the baseline serum value), objective response rate (according to RECIST criteria), and toxicity. Results: Sixty patients were included between April 2005 to January 2008, median age was 67 (range: 45–80). Sixty-seven per cent patients received prior chemotherapy. Patients had bone metastases (78%), lymph nodes involvement (49%), lung metastases (35%), hepatic involvement (33%) and other localizations (17%). The objective response rate was 33% in the 48 assessable patients. A neuro-endocrine response was observed in 28% of 32 evaluable patients for neuro-endocrine marker level (CgA 6%, NSE 25% and both 3%). The PSA response rate was 9%. The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related toxicities were neutropenia (67%), thrombocytopenia (31%), anemia (27%), asthenia (14%) nausea and vomiting grade (12%). There were 6% febrile neutropenia, with one related toxic death. The median follow-up is 9 months. The median response duration was 1.8 months (range: 0.2–13.4 months). The median overall survival is 10 months. Conclusions: Despite an absolute response rate in accordance with the study assumptions, the benefit-risk ratio of this regimen seems unfavourable due to observed toxicities. Another trials must be conducted in order to define a group of patients which may benefit of this regimen.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.