Heidenreich, Axel

What is the role of pcRPLND in men with retroperitoneal vital cancer after first-line chemotherapy? This question arises because of the potential predictive value of miR371 in identifying residual cancer even before pcRPLND! @cdfankhauser shared data within a multicenter cohort study redefining future practice in the miR371 era.

Abstract Purpose: The PARP inhibitor rucaparib is approved in the United States for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and a deleterious germline and/or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) alteration. While sequencing of tumor tissue is considered the standard for identifying patients with BRCA alterations (BRCA+), plasma profiling may provide a minimally invasive option to select patients for rucaparib treatment. Here, we report clinical efficacy in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC identified through central plasma, central tissue, or local genomic testing and enrolled in TRITON2. Patients and Methods: Patients had progressed after next-generation androgen receptor–directed and taxane-based therapies for mCRPC and had BRCA alterations identified by central sequencing of plasma and/or tissue samples or local genomic testing. Concordance of plasma/tissue BRCA status and objective response rate and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates were summarized. Results: TRITON2 enrolled 115 patients with BRCA+ identified by central plasma (n = 34), central tissue (n = 37), or local (n = 44) testing. Plasma/tissue concordance was determined in 38 patients with paired samples and was 47% in 19 patients with a somatic BRCA alteration. No statistically significant differences were observed between objective and PSA response rates to rucaparib across the 3 assay groups. Patients unable to provide tissue samples and tested solely by plasma assay responded at rates no different from patients identified as BRCA+ by tissue testing. Conclusions: Plasma, tissue, and local testing of mCRPC patients can be used to identify men with BRCA+ mCRPC who can benefit from treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib.

Objectives To develop and externally validate a risk calculator for prediction of any cancer recurrence in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma (pSCC) and inguinal lymph node metastases (ILNM), as to date no validated prognostic tool is available for patients with pSCC and ILNM. Patients and Methods The development cohort included 234 patients from seven referral centres. The external validation cohort included 273 patients from two additional referral centres. Cox regression identified predictors of any recurrence, which were used to develop a risk calculator. The risk‐calculator grouped the development and the validation cohorts according to the individual risk of any recurrence at 24 months (24m‐R). Adjuvant treatment effects were tested on overall survival (OS) according to the derived tertiles, within the development and validation cohorts. Results Positive surgical margins, pN 3 , and ILNM ratio were associated with higher recurrence rate. The 2‐year OS rates were lower for patients with high (>37%) and intermediate (19–37%) compared to low (<19%) 24m‐R risk of recurrence, for both the development (43% and 58% vs 83%, P < 0.001) and validation cohort (44% and 50% vs 85%, P < 0.001). Results were confirmed in the subgroup of patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment ( P < 0.001), but not in patients who did receive adjuvant treatments in both the development and validation cohorts ( P > 0.1). Conclusion Adjuvant treatment planning is crucial in patients with pSCC with ILNM, where only weak evidence is available. The current tool proved to successfully stratify patients according to their individual risk, potentially allowing better tailoring of adjuvant treatments.