Victoria Hinder

A Multigene Urine Test for the Detection and Stratification of Bladder Cancer in Patients Presenting with Hematuria

PURPOSE We investigated whether the RNA assay uRNA® and its derivative Cxbladder® have greater sensitivity for the detection of bladder cancer than cytology, NMP22™ BladderChek™ and NMP22™ ELISA, and whether they are useful in risk stratification. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 485 patients presenting with gross hematuria but without a history of urothelial cancer were recruited prospectively from 11 urology clinics in Australasia. Voided urine samples were obtained before cystoscopy. The sensitivity and specificity of the RNA tests were compared to cytology and the NMP22 assays using cystoscopy as the reference. The ability of Cxbladder to distinguish between low grade, stage Ta urothelial carcinoma and more advanced urothelial carcinoma was also determined. RESULTS uRNA detected 41 of 66 urothelial carcinoma cases (62.1% sensitivity, 95% CI 49.3-73.8) compared with NMP22 ELISA (50.0%, 95% CI 37.4-62.6), BladderChek (37.9%, 95% CI 26.2-50.7) and cytology (56.1%, 95% CI 43.8-68.3). Cxbladder, which was developed on the study data, detected 82%, including 97% of the high grade tumors and 100% of tumors stage 1 or greater. The cutoffs for uRNA and Cxbladder were prespecified to give a specificity of 85%. The specificity of cytology was 94.5% (95% CI 91.9-96.5), NMP22 ELISA 88.0%, (95% CI 84.6-91.0) and BladderChek 96.4% (95% CI 94.2-98.0). Cxbladder distinguished between low grade Ta tumors and other detected urothelial carcinoma with a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 90%. CONCLUSIONS uRNA and Cxbladder showed improved sensitivity for the detection of urothelial carcinoma compared to the NMP22 assays. Stratification with Cxbladder provides a potential method to prioritize patients for the management of waiting lists.

Everolimus and Zoledronic Acid in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma With Bone Metastases: A Randomized First-Line Phase II Trial

BACKGROUND Bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are a major cause of morbidity. Post hoc analysis has suggested that bone turnover markers can identify patients at risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) among those receiving zoledronic acid. This study sought to evaluate the effect on bone metastases of everolimus alone compared with everolimus plus zoledronic acid. PATIENTS AND METHODS Thirty treatment-naive patients with RCC and ≥ 1 bone metastases were randomized 1:1 to everolimus (10 mg daily) versus everolimus plus zoledronic acid (4 mg intravenously 4-weekly). Bone-specific assessments were performed at baseline and at weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12. Treatment was continued on allocated arm until progression per RECIST 1.1 (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1). The primary outcome measure was urine N-telopeptide (uNTX) level, with secondary measures of plasma C-telopeptide (CTX), quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Pain [FACT-BP], Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]), progression-free survival (PFS), SREs, and safety. RESULTS After 12 weeks, reduction in mean uNTX and CTX on everolimus plus zoledronic acid relative to everolimus was 68.4% (95% CI, 60.1%-74.9%; P < .0001) and 76.2% (95% CI, 67.3%-82.7%; P < .0001), respectively. There was no evidence of a difference for FACT-BP (P = .5), but evidence was favorable for BPI Severity (P = .05) and BPI Interference (P = .06). Median PFS was 7.5 months (95% CI, 3.4-11.2) on everolimus plus zoledronic acid and 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.2-6.3) on everolimus (P = .009). Median time to first SRE was 9.6 months (95% CI, 4.3-15.5) on everolimus plus zoledronic acid and 5.2 months (95% CI, 1.6-8.2) on everolimus (P = .03). CONCLUSION In this RCC population, the addition of zoledronic acid to everolimus significantly reduced bone resorption markers and may prolong tumor control.

Colorectal adenocarcinoma cancer in New Zealand in those under 25 years of age (1997-2007).

Colorectal cancer is common and primarily a disease of older people. Colorectal cancer in patients aged 25 years and under is infrequent and may represent a unique subgroup of patients. This study aimed to describe the population of young people in New Zealand diagnosed with colorectal cancer, their tumour characteristics, management and outcomes.

A randomized phase II study comparing capecitabine alone with capecitabine and oral cyclophosphamide in patients with advanced breast cancer-cyclox II

BACKGROUND Capecitabine and cyclophosphamide are active in patients with advanced breast cancer, have non-overlapping toxic effects and synergy pre-clinically. We explored the efficacy and toxic effect of an all-oral combination of capecitabine with cyclophosphamide versus capecitabine alone in a multicentre, randomized, phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to treatment with capecitabine given continuously (666 mg/m2 b.i.d. days 1-28) alone (C) or with oral cyclophosphamide (100 mg/m2 days 1-14 of a 28-day cycle) (CCy) for up to six cycles. RESULTS Eighty-two patients were randomized. There was no complete response. The proportions with partial response were 36% on C and 44% on CCy, a difference of 7.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) -13.4 to 29.1]. Significant toxic effect was uncommon: grade ≥3 diarrhoea in 4 (10%) versus 1 (3%) patients; grade ≥3 fatigue in 2 (5%) versus 5 patients (13%) and grade ≥2 hand-foot syndrome in 7 (17%) versus 11 (28%) patients receiving C versus CCy, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 3.1 months on C and 6.9 months on CCy, not significantly different statistically. There was no difference in overall survival. CONCLUSION The difference in tumour response suggests a reasonable chance that CCy is superior to C alone.BACKGROUND Capecitabine and cyclophosphamide are active in patients with advanced breast cancer, have non-overlapping toxic effects and synergy pre-clinically. We explored the efficacy and toxic effect of an all-oral combination of capecitabine with cyclophosphamide versus capecitabine alone in a multicentre, randomized, phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to treatment with capecitabine given continuously (666 mg/m(2) b.i.d. days 1-28) alone (C) or with oral cyclophosphamide (100 mg/m(2) days 1-14 of a 28-day cycle) (CCy) for up to six cycles. RESULTS Eighty-two patients were randomized. There was no complete response. The proportions with partial response were 36% on C and 44% on CCy, a difference of 7.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) -13.4 to 29.1]. Significant toxic effect was uncommon: grade ≥3 diarrhoea in 4 (10%) versus 1 (3%) patients; grade ≥3 fatigue in 2 (5%) versus 5 patients (13%) and grade ≥2 hand-foot syndrome in 7 (17%) versus 11 (28%) patients receiving C versus CCy, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 3.1 months on C and 6.9 months on CCy, not significantly different statistically. There was no difference in overall survival. CONCLUSION The difference in tumour response suggests a reasonable chance that CCy is superior to C alone.

Transient elevation in serum carcinoembryonic antigen while on adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer: Is this of prognostic importance?

Serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is used to detect relapses from colon cancer following initial surgical or adjuvant treatment. There are little data on transient elevations of CEA while receiving chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting. We aimed to review patterns of change in CEA levels while receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and investigate associations between transient rises and patient survival.

Transient increase in serum CEA while on adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer: Is this of prognostic importance?

654 Background: Serum Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) is used to monitor response to treatment in metastatic colon cancer. Transient surges in CEA can occur after initiation of chemotherapy and are not associated with worse outcome. There is little data on transient CEA surge in the adjuvant setting. We aimed to review patterns of change in CEA levels with adjuvant chemotherapy and investigate associations between transient rises and patient survival. Methods: A retrospective review of patients in Auckland with a new diagnosis of colon cancer in 2001 or 2005 was reported previously [Murray, NZMJ, 2011]. CEA results immediately pre-chemotherapy, during and up to 9 months post chemotherapy were collected and death data was updated. Increase in CEA during chemotherapy was measured as the maximum change from baseline; values more than 2 (within-person) standard deviations above baseline [Erden, Scand, J Clin Lab Inv, 2008] were classified as increased. An increase was transient if the last recorded CEA post ch...