Explore the vast range of titles available.

Recurrent cervical cancer is a life-threatening disease, with limited treatment options available when disease progression occurs after first-line combination therapy. We conducted a phase 3, multinational, open-label trial of tisotumab vedotin as second- or third-line therapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive tisotumab vedotin monotherapy (2.0 mg per kilogram of body weight every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed). The primary end point was overall survival. A total of 502 patients underwent randomization (253 were assigned to the tisotumab vedotin group and 249 to the chemotherapy group); the groups were similar with respect to demographic and disease characteristics. The median overall survival was significantly longer in the tisotumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (11.5 months [95% confidence interval {CI}, 9.8 to 14.9] vs. 9.5 months [95% CI, 7.9 to 10.7]), results that represented a 30% lower risk of death with tisotumab vedotin than with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89; two-sided P = 0.004). The median progression-free survival was 4.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 4.4) with tisotumab vedotin and 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 3.1) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; two-sided P<0.001). The confirmed objective response rate was 17.8% in the tisotumab vedotin group and 5.2% in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.1 to 7.6; two-sided P<0.001). A total of 98.4% of patients in the tisotumab vedotin group and 99.2% in the chemotherapy group had at least one adverse event that occurred during the treatment period (defined as the period from day 1 of dose 1 until 30 days after the last dose); grade 3 or greater events occurred in 52.0% and 62.3%, respectively. A total of 14.8% of patients stopped tisotumab vedotin treatment because of toxic effects. In patients with recurrent cervical cancer, second- or third-line treatment with tisotumab vedotin resulted in significantly greater efficacy than chemotherapy. (Funded by Genmab and Seagen [acquired by Pfizer]; innovaTV 301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04697628.).

Background Premenopausal, high-risk, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients are often treated with ovarian suppression in combination with aromatase inhibitors (AI). This combination has important adverse effects, particularly in sexual function, such as vaginal dryness and loss of libido. There is no effective therapy for reduced sexual function in this setting. Our study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety, particularly regarding sexual function, of a low-dose, topical testosterone gel administration. Methods This is a pilot, single-center study, designed to evaluate the efficacy of topical testosterone gel (3 mg/day) in improving sexual function in 29 premenopausal patients on ovarian suppression in combination with an AI. The primary safety endpoint was to assess serum estradiol elevation. The primary efficacy endpoint was sexual function improvement, assessed by the Female Sexual Function Index questionnaire. Results We report the results on 29 patients. Twenty-two patients (75%) completed the 3-month treatment, and seven discontinued treatment before completion, mostly due to logistical difficulties related to the COVID-19 pandemic. All patients maintained the value of baseline mass spectrometry assay for estradiol of less than 2.7 pg/mL during the undertaken measurements. We observed a significant improvement in Female Sexual Function Index measures over the visits, with an increase from a mean of 11.7 at baseline to 19.1 in the third month ( p  < 0.001), with the greatest improvement observed between the second and third months. Conclusions Our findings suggest that topical testosterone seems to be safe and may be effective in improving sexual function in patients on ovarian suppression and AI. Trial registration The project was submitted and approved through the hospital’s SGPP platform in 11/26/2019 (Project No. SGPP 393819) and CAAE (Research Ethics Committee) (CAAE No 25609719.5.0000.007).

The real impact of specific sites of metastasis on prognosis of metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) is unknown. To evaluate the association of specific metastatic sites and survival outcomes in MPC a systematic literature review was performed including prospective randomized trials of systemic treatments in metastatic pancreatic cancer indexed in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Data regarding systemic treatment regimens, progression free survival and overall survival were extracted. The outcomes were compared using a random effects model. The index I2 and the graphs of funnel plot were used for the interpretation of the data. Of 1,052 abstracts, 7 randomized trials were considered eligible with a combined sample size of 2,975 MPC patients. Combining the studies with meta-analysis, we could see that patients with liver metastasis had a HR for death of 1.53 with 95% CI of 1.15 to 2.02 (p-value 0.003) and HR for risk of progression of 1.96 with 95% CI of 1.28 to 2.99 (p-value 0.002), without significant heterogeneity. Having two or more sites of metastasis comparing to one site did not have impact on overall survival; RR of 1.05 with 95% CI 0.91 to 1.23 (p-value 0.493). In conclusion, liver metastasis confers worse outcomes among patients with MPC. Apparently, multiple metastatic sites do not present worse prognosis when compared with only one organ involved, therefore, demonstrating the severity of this disease. Prospective studies evaluating other treatments are necessary to address the impact of local treatments in liver metastasis in MPC.

DNA repair gene aberrations occur in 20% to 30% of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and some of these aberrations have been associated with sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition platinum-based treatments. However, previous trials assessing platinum-based treatments in patients with CRPC have mostly included a biomarker-unselected population; therefore, efficacy in these patients is unknown. To characterize the antitumor activity of platinum-based therapies in men with CRPC with or without DNA repair gene alterations. In this case series, data from 508 patients with CRPC treated with platinum-based therapy were collected from 25 academic centers from 12 countries worldwide. Patients were grouped by status of DNA repair gene aberrations (ie, cohort 1, present; cohort 2, not detected; and cohort 3, not tested). Data were collected from January 1986 to December 2018. Data analysis was performed in 2019, with data closure in April 2019. Treatment with platinum-based compounds either as monotherapy or combination therapy. The primary end points were as follows: (1) antitumor activity of platinum-based therapy, defined as a decrease in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of at least 50% and/or radiological soft tissue response in patients with measurable disease and (2) the association of response with the presence or absence of DNA repair gene aberrations. A total of 508 men with a median (range) age of 61 (27-88) years were included in this analysis. DNA repair gene aberrations were present in 80 patients (14.7%; cohort 1), absent in 98 (19.3%; cohort 2), and not tested in 330 (65.0%; cohort 3). Of 408 patients who received platinum-based combination therapy, 338 patients (82.8%) received docetaxel, paclitaxel, or etoposide, and 70 (17.2%) received platinum-based combination treatment with another partner. A PSA level decrease of at least 50% was seen in 33 patients (47.1%) in cohort 1 and 26 (36.1%) in cohort 2 (P = .20). In evaluable patients, soft tissue responses were documented in 28 of 58 patients (48.3%) in cohort 1 and 21 of 67 (31.3%) in cohort 2 (P = .07). In the subgroup of 44 patients with BRCA2 gene alterations, PSA level decreases of at least 50% were documented in 23 patients (63.9%) and soft tissue responses in 17 of 34 patients (50.0%) with evaluable disease. In cohort 3, PSA level decreases of at least 50% and soft tissue responses were documented in 81 of 284 patients (28.5%) and 38 of 185 patients (20.5%) with evaluable disease, respectively. In this study, platinum-based treatment was associated with relevant antitumor activity in a biomarker-positive population of patients with advanced prostate cancer with DNA repair gene aberrations. The findings of this study suggest that platinum-based treatment may be considered an option for these patients.

Background Testosterone suppression is the standard treatment for advanced prostate cancer, and it is associated with side-effects that impair patients’ quality of life, like sexual dysfunction, osteoporosis, weight gain, and increased cardiovascular risk. We hypothesized that abiraterone acetate with prednisone (AAP) and apalutamide, alone or in combination, can be an effective hormonal therapy also possibly decreasing castration-associated side effects. Methods Phase II, open-label, randomized, efficacy trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) and Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) versus apalutamide versus the combination of AAP (without ADT) and apalutamide. Key eligibility criteria are confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; biochemical relapse after definitive treatment (PSA ≥ 4 ng/ml and doubling time less than 10 months, or PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml); newly diagnosed locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer; asymptomatic to moderately symptomatic regarding bone symptoms. Patients with other histology besides adenocarcinoma or previous use of hormonal therapy or chemotherapy were excluded. Discussion There is an urgent need to study and validate regimens such as new hormonal agents that may add benefit to castration with an acceptable safety profile. We aim to evaluate if apalutamide in monotherapy or in combination with AAP is an effective and safety hormonal treatment that can spare patients of androgen deprivation therapy. Trial registration This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on October 16, 2017, under Identifier: NCT02867020.

Background Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred treatment for patients with very low-and low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but it is underperformed worldwide. This study aimed to report knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of AS for PCa among urologists in Brazil. Methods This cross-sectional study used a questionnaire with 50 questions divided into participant characteristics, knowledge regarding inclusion criteria for AS, follow-up, intervention triggers, acceptance, and practice for an index patient. Data analysis comprises absolute and relative frequencies of the variables. After that, a logistic regression was performed in order to verify possible patterns of answers provided by the respondents in the index patient questionnaire. Results Questionnaires were sent through the SurveyMonkey® platform to 5,015 urologists using email addresses and through social media. A total of 600 (12%) questionnaires returned and 413 (8.2%) were completed and included in the analysis. Only 53% of urologists adopt AS for low- and very-low-risk PCa. Inclusion criteria were patients with age > 50 years (32.2%), prostate specific antigen (PSA) < 10 ng/mL (87.2%), T1 clinical stage (80.4%), Biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6, positive cores ≤ 2 (44.3%), positive core involvement < 50% (45.3%), and magnetic resonance imaging findings (38.7%). The PSA doubling time was still used by 60.3%. Confirmatory biopsy (55.9%), PSA level (36.6%), and digital rectal examination (34.4%) were considered by most urologists for follow-ups. Patient preference (85.7%), upgrade of Gleason score (73.4%), and increased number of positive cores (66.8%) were associated with conversion to definitive treatment. In an index patient, non-acceptance and active treatment request were the most cited reasons for not performing AS. Conclusion There is significant variability in the KAP of AS in Brazil, which indicates the need to reinforce AS, its inclusion and follow-up criteria, and the benefits for physicians and the general population. Trial registration : Not applicable.

Background: Renal cell cancer (RCC) is one of the 10 most common cancers in the world, and its incidence is increasing, whereas mortality is declining only in developed countries. Therefore, two collaborative groups, The Latin American Oncology Cooperative Group-Genitourinary Section (LACOG-GU) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG), held a consensus meeting to develop this guideline. Methods: Issues (134) related to the treatment of RCC were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists (urologists and medical oncologists) from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. A consensus was reached if 75% agreement was achieved. If there was less concordance, a new discussion was undertaken, and a consensus was determined by the most votes after a second voting session. Results: The expert meeting provided recommendations that were in line with the global literature; 75.0% of the recommendations made by the panel of experts were evidence-based level A, 22.5% of the recommendations were level B, and 2.5% of the recommendations were level D. Conclusions: This review suggests recommendations for the surgical treatment of RCC according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG experts.

Purpose Renal cell carcinoma is an aggressive disease with a high mortality rate. Management has drastically changed with the new era of immunotherapy, and novel strategies are being developed; however, identifying systemic treatments is still challenging. This paper presents an update of the expert panel consensus from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group on advanced renal cell carcinoma management in Brazil. Methods A panel of 34 oncologists and experts in renal cell carcinoma discussed and voted on the best options for managing advanced disease in Brazil, including systemic treatment of early and metastatic renal cell carcinoma as well as nonclear cell tumours. The results were compared with the literature and graded according to the level of evidence. Results Adjuvant treatments benefit patients with a high risk of recurrence after surgery, and the agents used are pembrolizumab and sunitinib, with a preference for pembrolizumab. Neoadjuvant treatment is exceptional, even in initially unresectable cases. First-line treatment is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the choice of treatment is based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMCD) risk score. Patients at favourable risk receive ICIs in combination with TKIs. Patients classified as intermediate or poor risk receive ICIs, without preference for ICI + ICIs or ICI + TKIs. Data on nonclear cell renal cancer treatment are limited. Active surveillance has a place in treating favourable-risk patients. Either denosumab or zoledronic acid can be used for treating metastatic bone disease. Conclusion Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are the standards of care for advanced disease. The utilization and sequencing of these therapeutic agents hinge upon individual risk scores and responses to previous treatments. This consensus reflects a commitment to informed decision-making, drawn from professional expertise and evidence in the medical literature.

FLOT regimen became the standard perioperative treatment in several centers around the world for esophagogastric tumors despite concerns about toxicity. In addition, FLOT has never been compared with other docetaxel-based regimens. To address this question, we conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science including prospective or retrospective studies of docetaxel based perioperative regimen in gastric and esophagogastric tumors. Data regarding chemotherapy regimens, efficacy and toxicity were extracted. Outcomes were compared using a random effects model. Of 548 abstracts, 16 were considered eligible. Comparing the studies with meta-analysis we can see that the regimens are similar in terms of pathological complete response, resection rate, progression free survival and overall survival in one year, without significant heterogeneity. The meta-regression of docetaxel dose failed to show any association with dose ranging between 120–450 mg/m². Regarding the toxicity of the regimens it is noted that the regimens are quite toxic (up to 50–70% of grade 3–4 neutropenia). The results of this meta-analysis with a combined sample size of more than 1,000 patients suggest that docetaxel perioperative regimens are equivalent in outcomes. Prospective trials addressing modified regimens should be performed to provide less toxic strategies and be applicable to all patients.

PurposeThe outcome of RCC has improved considerably in the last few years, and the treatment options have increased. LACOG-GU and LARCG held a consensus meeting to develop guidelines to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of RCC patients.MethodsEighty questions addressing relevant advanced RCC treatments were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. Consensus was determined as 75% agreement. For questions with less than 75% agreement, a new discussion was held, and consensus was determined by the majority of votes after the second voting session.ResultsThe recommendations were based on the highest level of scientific evidence or by the opinion of the RCC experts when no relevant research data were available.ConclusionThis manuscript provides guidance for advanced RCC treatment according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG expert recommendations.