Joaquim Bellmunt

EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Clinically Localised Disease

OBJECTIVE Our aim was to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised cancer of the prostate (PCa). METHODS The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010. The guidelines were updated, and level of evidence and grade of recommendation were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. RESULTS A full version is available at the EAU office or Web site (www.uroweb.org). Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population-based screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for PCa. A systematic prostate biopsy under ultrasound guidance and local anaesthesia is the preferred diagnostic method. Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy. PSA doubling time in <3 yr or a biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention. In men with locally advanced PCa in whom local therapy is not mandatory, watchful waiting (WW) is a treatment alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with equivalent oncologic efficacy. Active treatment is mostly recommended for patients with localised disease and a long life expectancy with radical prostatectomy (RP) shown to be superior to WW in a prospective randomised trial. Nerve-sparing RP represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease; neoadjuvant androgen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with at least 74 Gy and 78 Gy in low-risk and intermediate/high-risk PCa, respectively. For locally advanced disease, adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior disease-specific and overall survival rates and represents the treatment of choice. Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA, and a disease-specific history with imaging is indicated only when symptoms occur. CONCLUSIONS The knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice.

EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013

CONTEXT The most recent summary of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on prostate cancer (PCa) was published in 2011. OBJECTIVE To present a summary of the 2013 version of the EAU guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically organ-confined PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A literature review of the new data emerging from 2011 to 2013 has been performed by the EAU PCa guideline group. The guidelines have been updated, and levels of evidence and grades of recommendation have been added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A full version of the guidelines is available at the EAU office or online (www.uroweb.org). Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population-based screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for PCa. Systematic prostate biopsies under ultrasound guidance and local anesthesia are the preferred diagnostic method. Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy. A biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention, whereas the role of PSA doubling time is controversial. In men with locally advanced PCa for whom local therapy is not mandatory, watchful waiting (WW) is a treatment alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), with equivalent oncologic efficacy. Active treatment is recommended mostly for patients with localized disease and a long life expectancy, with radical prostatectomy (RP) shown to be superior to WW in prospective randomized trials. Nerve-sparing RP is the approach of choice in organ-confined disease, while neoadjuvant ADT provides no improvement in outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with ≥ 74 Gy in low-risk PCa and 78 Gy in intermediate- or high-risk PCa. For locally advanced disease, adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior rates for disease-specific and overall survival and is the treatment of choice. Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA and a disease-specific history, with imaging indicated only when symptoms occur. CONCLUSIONS Knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarize the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice. PATIENT SUMMARY A summary is presented of the 2013 EAU guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa). Screening continues to be done on an individual basis, in consultation with a physician. Diagnosis is by prostate biopsy. Active surveillance is an option in low-risk PCa and watchful waiting is an alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy in locally advanced PCa not requiring immediate local treatment. Radical prostatectomy is the only surgical option. Radiation therapy can be external or delivered by way of prostate implants. Treatment follow-up is based on the PSA level.

EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer ☆

OBJECTIVES Our aim is to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). METHODS The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010. The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence (LEs) and/or grades of recommendation (GR) were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. RESULTS Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are the standard of care in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Although LHRH antagonists decrease testosterone without any testosterone surge, their clinical benefit remains to be determined. Complete androgen blockade has a small survival benefit of about 5%. Intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) results in equivalent oncologic efficacy when compared with continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in well-selected populations. In locally advanced and metastatic PCa, early ADT does not result in a significant survival advantage when compared with delayed ADT. Relapse after local therapy is defined by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values >0.2 ng/ml following radical prostatectomy (RP) and >2 ng/ml above the nadir after radiation therapy (RT). Therapy for PSA relapse after RP includes salvage RT at PSA levels <0.5 ng/ml and salvage RP or cryosurgical ablation of the prostate in radiation failures. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and (11)C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) are of limited importance if the PSA is <2.5 ng/ml; bone scans and CT can be omitted unless PSA is >20 ng/ml. Follow-up after ADT should include screening for the metabolic syndrome and an analysis of PSA and testosterone levels. Treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) includes second-line hormonal therapy, novel agents, and chemotherapy with docetaxel at 75 mg/m(2) every 3 wk. Cabazitaxel as a second-line therapy for relapse after docetaxel might become a future option. Zoledronic acid and denusomab can be used in men with CRPC and osseous metastases to prevent skeletal-related complications. CONCLUSION The knowledge in the field of advanced, metastatic, and CRPC is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice. A full version is available at the EAU office or online at www.uroweb.org.

Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma have few treatment options after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. In this trial, we assessed treatment with atezolizumab, an engineered humanised immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that binds selectively to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), in this patient population. METHODS For this multicentre, single-arm, two-cohort, phase 2 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease had progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled from 70 major academic medical centres and community oncology practices in Europe and North America. Key inclusion criteria for enrolment were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, measurable disease defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), adequate haematological and end-organ function, and no autoimmune disease or active infections. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour specimens with sufficient viable tumour content were needed from all patients before enrolment. Patients received treatment with intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg, given every 3 weeks). PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (ICs) was assessed prospectively by immunohistochemistry. The co-primary endpoints were the independent review facility-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and the investigator-assessed objective response rate according to immune-modified RECIST, analysed by intention to treat. A hierarchical testing procedure was used to assess whether the objective response rate was significantly higher than the historical control rate of 10% at an α level of 0·05. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02108652. FINDINGS Between May 13, 2014, and Nov 19, 2014, 486 patients were screened and 315 patients were enrolled into the study. Of these patients, 310 received atezolizumab treatment (five enrolled patients later did not meet eligibility criteria and were not dosed with study drug). The PD-L1 expression status on infiltrating immune cells (ICs) in the tumour microenvironment was defined by the percentage of PD-L1-positive immune cells: IC0 (<1%), IC1 (≥1% but <5%), and IC2/3 (≥5%). The primary analysis (data cutoff May 5, 2015) showed that compared with a historical control overall response rate of 10%, treatment with atezolizumab resulted in a significantly improved RECIST v1.1 objective response rate for each prespecified immune cell group (IC2/3: 27% [95% CI 19-37], p<0·0001; IC1/2/3: 18% [13-24], p=0·0004) and in all patients (15% [11-20], p=0·0058). With longer follow-up (data cutoff Sept 14, 2015), by independent review, objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 18-36) in the IC2/3 group, 18% (13-24) in the IC1/2/3 group, and 15% (11-19) overall in all 310 patients. With a median follow-up of 11·7 months (95% CI 11·4-12·2), ongoing responses were recorded in 38 (84%) of 45 responders. Exploratory analyses showed The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) subtypes and mutation load to be independently predictive for response to atezolizumab. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, of which fatigue was the most common (five patients [2%]), occurred in 50 (16%) of 310 treated patients. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 15 (5%) of 310 treated patients, with pneumonitis, increased aspartate aminotransferase, increased alanine aminotransferase, rash, and dyspnoea being the most common. No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION Atezolizumab showed durable activity and good tolerability in this patient population. Increased levels of PD-L1 expression on immune cells were associated with increased response. This report is the first to show the association of TCGA subtypes with response to immune checkpoint inhibition and to show the importance of mutation load as a biomarker of response to this class of agents in advanced urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

Letrozole, a new oral aromatase inhibitor for advanced breast cancer : Double-blind randomized trial showing a dose effect and improved efficacy and tolerability compared with megestrol acetate

PURPOSE To compare two doses of letrozole and megestrol acetate (MA) as second-line therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with antiestrogens. PATIENTS AND METHODS Five hundred fifty-one patients with locally advanced, locoregionally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive letrozole 2.5 mg (n = 174), letrozole 0.5 mg (n = 188), or MA 160 mg (n = 189) once daily in a double-blind, multicenter trial. Data were analyzed for tumor response and safety variables up to 33 months of follow-up evaluation and for survival up to 45 months. RESULTS Letrozole 2.5 mg produced a significantly higher overall objective response rate (24%) compared with MA (16%; logistic regression, P = .04) or letrozole 0.5 mg (13%; P = .004). Duration of objective response was significantly longer for letrozole 2.5 mg compared with MA (Cox regression, P = .02). Letrozole 2.5 mg was significantly superior to MA and letrozole 0.5 mg in time to treatment failure (P = .04 and P = .002, respectively). For time to progression, letrozole 2.5 mg was superior to letrozole 0.5 mg (P = .02), but not to MA (P = .07). There was a significant dose effect in overall survival in favor of letrozole 2.5 mg (P = .03) compared with letrozole 0.5 mg. Letrozole was significantly better tolerated than MA with respect to serious adverse experiences, discontinuation due to poor tolerability, cardiovascular side effects, and weight gain. CONCLUSION The data show letrozole 2.5 mg once daily to be more effective and better tolerated than MA in the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with antiestrogens.

Phase III Trial of Bevacizumab Plus Interferon Alfa-2a in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (AVOREN): Final Analysis of Overall Survival

PURPOSE A phase III trial of bevacizumab combined with interferon alfa-2a (IFN) showed significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Here, we report overall survival (OS) data. PATIENTS AND METHODS Six hundred forty-nine patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomly assigned to receive bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) plus IFN (9 MIU subcutaneously three times a week; n = 327) or IFN plus placebo (n = 322) in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. The primary end point was OS. Final analysis of the secondary end point (PFS) was reported earlier. RESULTS Median OS was 23.3 months with bevacizumab plus IFN and 21.3 months with IFN plus placebo (unstratified hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.10; P = .3360; stratified HR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.04; P = .1291). Patients (> 55%) in both arms received at least one postprotocol antineoplastic therapy, possibly confounding the OS analysis. Patients receiving postprotocol therapy including a tyrosine kinase inhibitor had longer median OS (bevacizumab plus IFN arm: 38.6 months; IFN plus placebo arm: 33.6 months; HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.13). Tolerability was similar to that reported previously. CONCLUSION Bevacizumab plus IFN is active as first-line treatment in patients with mRCC. Most patients with mRCC receive multiple lines of therapy, so considering the overall sequence of therapy when selecting first-line therapy may optimize patient benefit.

EAU–ESTRO–SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

OBJECTIVE To present a summary of the 2016 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) - European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) - International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2013-2015). The guidelines were updated and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS BRCA2 mutations have been added as risk factors for early and aggressive disease. In addition to the Gleason score, the five-tier 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system should now be provided. Systematic screening is still not recommended. Instead, an individual risk-adapted strategy following a detailed discussion and taking into account the patients wishes and life expectancy must be considered. An early prostate-specific antigen test, the use of a risk calculator, or one of the promising biomarker tools are being investigated and might be able to limit the overdetection of insignificant PCa. Breaking the link between diagnosis and treatment may lower the overtreatment risk. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging using standardised reporting cannot replace systematic biopsy, but robustly nested within the diagnostic work-up, it has a key role in local staging. Active surveillance always needs to be discussed with very low-risk patients. The place of surgery in high-risk disease and the role of lymph node dissection have been clarified, as well as the management of node-positive patients. Radiation therapy using dose-escalated intensity-modulated technology is a key treatment modality with recent improvement in the outcome based on increased doses as well as combination with hormonal treatment. Moderate hypofractionation is safe and effective, but longer-term data are still lacking. Brachytherapy represents an effective way to increase the delivered dose. Focal therapy remains experimental while cryosurgery and HIFU are still lacking long-term convincing results. CONCLUSIONS The knowledge in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2016 EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for the use in clinical practice. These are the first PCa guidelines endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office and online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/). PATIENT SUMMARY The 2016 EAU-STRO-IOG Prostate Cancer (PCa) Guidelines present updated information on the diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer. In Northern and Western Europe, the number of men diagnosed with PCa has been on the rise. This may be due to an increase in opportunistic screening, but other factors may also be involved (eg, diet, sexual behaviour, low exposure to ultraviolet radiation). We propose that men who are potential candidates for screening should be engaged in a discussion with their clinician (also involving their families and caregivers) so that an informed decision may be made as part of an individualised risk-adapted approach.

Phase III Trial of Vinflunine Plus Best Supportive Care Compared With Best Supportive Care Alone After a Platinum-Containing Regimen in Patients With Advanced Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Urothelial Tract

PURPOSE Vinflunine (VFL) is a new microtubule inhibitor that has activity against transitional cell carcinoma of urothelial tract (TCCU). We conducted a randomized phase III study of VFL and best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in the treatment of patients with advanced TCCU who had experienced progression after a first-line platinum-containing regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS The study was designed to compare overall survival (OS) between patients receiving VFL + BSC (performance status [PS] = 0: 320 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks; PS = 0 with previous pelvic radiation and PS = 1: 280 mg/m(2) subsequently escalated to 320 mg/m(2)) or BSC. RESULTS Three hundred seventy patients were randomly assigned (VFL + BSC, n =253; BSC, n = 117). Both arms were well balanced except there were more patients with PS more than 1 (10% difference) in the BSC arm. Main grade 3 or 4 toxicities for VFL + BSC were neutropenia (50%), febrile neutropenia (6%), anemia (19%), fatigue (19%), and constipation (16%). In the intent-to-treat population, the objective of a median 2-month survival advantage (6.9 months for VFL + BSC v 4.6 months for BSC) was achieved (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.12) but was not statistically significant (P = .287). Multivariate Cox analysis adjusting for prognostic factors showed statistically significant effect of VFL on OS (P = .036), reducing the death risk by 23% (HR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.98). In the eligible population (n = 357), the median OS was significantly longer for VFL + BSC than BSC (6.9 v 4.3 months, respectively), with the difference being statistically significant (P = .040). Overall response rate, disease control, and progression-free survival were all statistically significant favoring VFL + BSC (P = .006, P = .002, and P = .001, respectively). CONCLUSION VFL demonstrates a survival advantage in second-line treatment for advanced TCCU. Consistency of results exists with significant and meaningful benefit over all efficacy parameters. Safety profile is acceptable, and therefore, VFL seems to be a reasonable option for TCCU progressing after first-line platinum-based therapy.

Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

Background Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma that progresses after platinum‐based chemotherapy have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Methods In this open‐label, international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 542 patients with advanced urothelial cancer that recurred or progressed after platinum‐based chemotherapy to receive pembrolizumab (a highly selective, humanized monoclonal IgG4κ isotype antibody against programmed death 1 [PD‐1]) at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks or the investigators choice of chemotherapy with paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine. The coprimary end points were overall survival and progression‐free survival, which were assessed among all patients and among patients who had a tumor PD‐1 ligand (PD‐L1) combined positive score (the percentage of PD‐L1–expressing tumor and infiltrating immune cells relative to the total number of tumor cells) of 10% or more. Results The median overall survival in the total population was 10.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0 to 11.8) in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.1 to 8.3) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.91; P=0.002). The median overall survival among patients who had a tumor PD‐L1 combined positive score of 10% or more was 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 12.3) in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 7.4) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.88; P=0.005). There was no significant between‐group difference in the duration of progression‐free survival in the total population (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.19; P=0.42) or among patients who had a tumor PD‐L1 combined positive score of 10% or more (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.28; P=0.24). Fewer treatment‐related adverse events of any grade were reported in the pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (60.9% vs. 90.2%); there were also fewer events of grade 3, 4, or 5 severity reported in the pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (15.0% vs. 49.4%). Conclusions Pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer overall survival (by approximately 3 months) and with a lower rate of treatment‐related adverse events than chemotherapy as second‐line therapy for platinum‐refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. (Funded by Merck; KEYNOTE‐045 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02256436.)

Randomized Phase III Study Comparing Paclitaxel/Cisplatin/ Gemcitabine and Gemcitabine/Cisplatin in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Without Prior Systemic Therapy: EORTC Intergroup Study 30987

PURPOSE The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) is a standard regimen in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. A phase I/II study suggested that a three-drug regimen that included paclitaxel had greater antitumor activity and might improve survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a randomized phase III study to compare paclitaxel/cisplatin/gemcitabine (PCG) with GC in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS From 2001 to 2004, 626 patients were randomly assigned; 312 patients were assigned to PCG, and 314 patients were assigned to GC. After a median follow-up of 4.6 years, the median OS was 15.8 months on PCG versus 12.7 months on GC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; P = .075). OS in the subgroup of all eligible patients was significantly longer on PCG (3.2 months; HR, 0.82; P = .03), as was the case in patients with bladder primary tumors. PFS was not significantly longer on PCG (HR, 0.87; P = .11). Overall response rate was 55.5% on PCG and 43.6% on GC (P = .0031). Both treatments were well tolerated, with more thrombocytopenia and bleeding on GC than PCG (11.4% v 6.8%, respectively; P = .05) and more febrile neutropenia on PCG than GC (13.2% v 4.3%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION The addition of paclitaxel to GC provides a higher response rate and a 3.1-month survival benefit that did not reach statistical significance. Novel approaches will be required to obtain major improvements in survival of incurable urothelial cancer.