Tagawa, Scott T

Purpose In April 2017, the American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology released a joint evidence-based practice guideline on clinically localized prostate cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. Methods The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Expert Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. Results The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline were clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline except for two recommendations on cryosurgery. The two recommendations covering cryosurgery were not endorsed because the panel found that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of cryotherapy in this setting. Recommendations The ASCO Expert Panel endorsed all but two of the original guideline recommendations as written and offered a series of discussion points to guide practice.

Purpose This trial assessed the efficacy and safety of docetaxel monotherapy or docetaxel in combination with ramucirumab (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 antibody) or icrucumab (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 antibody) after progression during or within 12 months of platinum-based regimens for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on day 1 of a 3-week cycle (arm A), docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV plus ramucirumab 10 mg/kg IV on day 1 of a 3-week cycle (arm B), or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV on day 1 plus icrucumab 12 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle (arm C). Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results A total of 140 patients were randomly assigned and treated in arms A (n = 45), B (n = 46), or C (n = 49). PFS was significantly longer in arm B compared with arm A (median, 5.4 months; 95% CI, 3.1 to 6.9 months v 2.8 months; 95% CI, 1.9 to 3.6 months; stratified hazard ratio, 0.389; 95% CI, 0.235 to 0.643; P = .0002). Arm C did not experience improved PFS compared with arm A (1.6 months; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.9; stratified hazard ratio, 0.863; 95% CI, 0.550 to 1.357; P = .5053). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events (arms A, B, and C) were neutropenia (36%, 33%, and 39%), fatigue (13%, 30%, and 20%), febrile neutropenia (13%, 17%, and 6.1%), and anemia (6.7%, 13%, and 14%, respectively). Conclusion The addition of ramucirumab to docetaxel met the prespecified efficacy end point for prolonging PFS in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma receiving second-line treatment and warrants further investigation in the phase III setting.

BACKGROUNDAngiogenesis contributes to the progression of urothelial carcinoma (UC). In the current study, the authors investigated the role of maintenance sunitinib in patients with advanced UC.METHODSPatients with locally recurrent/metastatic UC and adequate organ function who achieved stable disease or a partial or complete response after 4 to 6 chemotherapy cycles were randomized to sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg/day (28 days on and 14 days off) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the 6‐month progression rate. Secondary endpoints were safety, survival, change in serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/soluble VEGF receptor‐2 (sVEGFR2), and the activity of sunitinib in patients who developed disease progression while receiving placebo. A total of 38 eligible patients per treatment arm were required to select better therapy with 90% probability (α = .05).RESULTSA total of 54 eligible patients were randomized to either the sunitinib arm (26 patients) or the placebo arm (28 patients). The median number of cycles received was 2 cycles per treatment arm. The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events (graded according to version 3.0 of the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) among patients receiving sunitinib were thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, mucositis, fatigue, and hypertension. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events noted among > 5% of patients receiving placebo. The 6‐month progression rate was 72% versus 64%. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 2.9 months (range, 0.5 months‐32.5 months) versus 2.7 months (range, 0.8 months −65 months) for the sunitinib versus placebo arms, respectively. Patients receiving placebo were found to have no changes in their serum VEGF/sVEGFR2 levels over time. Patients treated with sunitinib had no significant change in their VEGF level, but the sVEGFR2 level significantly decreased after cycles 1 and 2 (P < .0001) and at the time of disease progression (P = .0002). A baseline VEGF level that was at or greater than the median was found to be correlated with a longer PFS. Sixteen patients who were receiving placebo received sunitinib at the time of disease progression, with the best responses being 1 partial response (6.3%), 6 cases of stable disease (37.5%), and 5 cases of progressive disease (31.3%); 4 patients were not evaluable for response. The median PFS was 3.7 months (range, 0.1 months‐22 months).CONCLUSIONSThe current multicenter study was limited by premature closure and a small sample size. Maintenance sunitinib did not appear to improve the 6‐month progression rate. Open‐label sunitinib was found to have only modest activity. The sVEGFR2 level decreased among patients receiving sunitinib. Cancer 2014;120:692–701. © 2013 American Cancer Society.