Vargas, H. Alberto

PURPOSE Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has proven survival benefits for patients with invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, yet its role for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) remains undefined. We conducted a multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial of NAC with gemcitabine and split-dose cisplatin (GC) for patients with high-risk UTUC before extirpative surgery to evaluate response, survival, and tolerability. METHODS Eligible patients with defined criteria for high-risk localized UTUC received four cycles of split-dose GC before surgical resection and lymph node dissection. The primary study end point was rate of pathologic response (defined as < ypT2N0). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability. RESULTS Among 57 patients evaluated, 36 (63%) demonstrated pathologic response (95% CI, 49 to 76). A complete pathologic response (ypT0N0) was noted in 11 patients (19%). Fifty-one patients (89%) tolerated at least three complete cycles of split-dose GC, 27 patients (47%) tolerated four complete cycles, and all patients proceeded to surgery. With a median follow up of 3.1 years, 2- and 5-year PFS rates were 89% (95% CI, 81 to 98) and 72% (95% CI, 59 to 87), while 2- and 5-year OS rates were 93% (95% CI, 86 to 100) and 79% (95% CI, 67 to 94), respectively. Pathologic complete and partial responses were associated with improved PFS and OS compared with nonresponders (≥ ypT2N any; 2-year PFS 100% and 95% v 76%, P < .001; 2-year OS 100% and 100% v 80%, P < .001). CONCLUSION NAC with split-dose GC for high-risk UTUC is a well-tolerated, effective therapy demonstrating evidence of pathologic response that is associated with favorable survival outcomes. Given that these survival outcomes are superior to historical series, these data support the use of NAC as a standard of care for high-risk UTUC, and split-dose GC is a viable option for NAC.

PURPOSE Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.