Boorjian, Stephen A.

TPS3172 Background: Bladder cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Over 90% of bladder cancer cases are urothelial carcinomas (UC) that may present as a non-muscle-invasive (NMIBC) or muscle-invasive disease (MIBC). Standard of care for NMIBC includes transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT), intravesical chemotherapy and immunotherapy with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG). Patients (pts) with high-grade BCG-refractory NMIBC or MIBC undergo RC, which involves complete bladder removal and pelvic lymphadenectomy. RC severely impacts quality of life with significant morbidity. Oncolytic viruses are showing promise in UC, and MV-NIS has proven efficacy in other tumor types. MV-NIS is an investigational oncolytic measles virus with an excellent safety profile, irrespective of route of administration (n > 100). MV-NIS-related adverse events are limited to infusion reactions and transient CBC changes, and little local toxicity is anticipated with intravesical therapy. Clinical efficacy of this oncolytic may be related to absence of measles immunity. Based on this, the clinical strategy for MV-NIS is focused on targeting immune-privileged sites via intra-tumoral or intravesical routes, alone or in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. We hypothesize that intravesical therapy with oncolytic MV-NIS can improve clinical outcomes for (a) BCG refractory NMIBC pts to avoid or delay the need for RC; and (b) MIBC pts undergoing RC. Methods: This study is enrolling pts undergoing RC who are ineligible to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The trial has 2 stages to (a) determine the safety and tolerability of intravesical MV-NIS, and (b) assess preliminary efficacy. Part (a) includes 4-24 pts in a timing cohort with doses administered at increasing durations (1-4 weeks) prior to RC to establish safety of a single MV-NIS dose. Part (b) includes an expansion cohort (n = 12) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 intravesical doses of MV-NIS at 2-week intervals prior to RC. Safety is assessed using NCI-CTCAE V5 and Clavien-Dindo grading of operative complications. The efficacy endpoint is pathologic stage at time of RC (pT0 rate), which can be compared to pre-study TURBT stage. Additional exploratory studies include PK and PD analyses in urine, blood and tumor. Enrollment is ongoing at 2 Mayo Clinic sites (Rochester, MN and Jacksonville, FL) and the study has now progressed from the timing cohort into the expansion cohort. Clinical trial information: NCT03171493 .

ObjectivesTo evaluate the timing and distribution of first renal cell carcinoma metastasis after nephrectomy stratified by nodal status.MethodsWe evaluated patients treated with nephrectomy for sporadic, unilateral renal cell carcinoma between 1970 and 2011 who subsequently developed distant metastasis to three or fewer sites. Site‐specific metastases‐free 2‐year survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Associations of nodal status with time to metastasis were evaluated using multivariable Cox regression models.ResultsA total of 1049 patients met the inclusion criteria (135 pN1, 914 pN0/x patients). The median time to identification of first distant metastasis for pN1 patients was 0.4 years (interquartile range 0.2–1.1 years) versus 2.2 years (interquartile range 0.6–6.0 years) in pN0/x patients. The most common site of metastasis was to the lung, but this occurred earlier in pN1 patients (median 0.3 years vs 2.0 years). pN1 was associated with significantly lower site‐specific 2‐year metastases‐free survival when compared with pN0/x for lung (37% vs 70%, P < 0.001), bone (63% vs 87%, P < 0.001), non‐regional lymph nodes (60% vs 96%, P < 0.001) and liver metastases (79% vs 91%, P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, pN1 status remained significantly associated with lung, bone, and non‐regional lymph node (all P < 0.001) metastases, but it was no longer associated with liver metastases (P = 0.3).ConclusionspN1 nodal status in M0 patients treated with nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma is associated with more frequent early metastasis to sites conferring poor prognosis when compared with pN0/x. Our findings highlight the importance of rigorous, early surveillance though the multimodal use of a comprehensive history, physical, laboratory and radiological studies, as outlined in societal guidelines.

Ambiguity exists regarding the definition of a level III inferior vena cava tumor thrombus (IVC-TT), limiting comparisons between open and minimally-invasive series. We assessed 253 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy with IVC-TT from 2000-2015 and proposed a modified classification based on associations between intraoperative IVC clamp position and need for cardiopulmonary bypass with complications, length of stay, and blood transfusions. Predictive ability of the modified system was not meaningfully improved (AUCs 0.59–0.58; 0.61–0.61; 0.72–0.72). Nevertheless, we advocate for standardization of the border of a level III thrombus at or above the major hepatic veins to facilitate meaningful comparisons between techniques.

4657 Background: While active surveillance (AS) is well recognized as an acceptable treatment strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (PC), the extent to which radiation oncologists and urologists perceive AS as effective and routinely recommend it to patients is unknown. Therefore, we sought to assess the attitudes and treatment recommendations for low-risk PC from a national survey of PC specialists. Methods: A mail survey was sent to a population-based sample of 1,439 physicians in the U.S. from late 2011 and early 2012. Physicians were queried about their attitudes regarding AS and treatment recommendations for patients diagnosed with low-risk PC (PSA<10 ng/dl; T1c; Gleason 6 in one of twelve cores). Pearson Chi-square and multivariate logistic regression were used to test for differences in attitudes and treatment recommendations by physician demographics, compensation structure, primary place of employment, and specialty. Results: Overall, 321 radiation oncologists and 322 urologists completed the survey for a 45% response rate. Most physicians reported that AS is effective for low-risk PC (71%) and stated that they were comfortable routinely recommending AS (67%). Urologists were more likely to agree that AS is effective (77% vs. 67%; p=0.005) and were comfortable recommending AS (74% vs. 61%; p=0.001) compared with radiation oncologists. Most physicians recommended radical prostatectomy (47%) or radiation therapy (32%), but fewer endorsed AS (21%) for low-risk disease. After adjusting for physician covariates, radiation oncologists were more likely to recommend radiation therapy (OR: 10.97; p<0.001), while urologists were more likely to recommend surgery (OR: 4.69; p<0.001) and AS (OR: 2.18; p=0.001) for low-risk PC. Conclusions: Although AS is widely viewed as effective by both radiation oncologists and urologists, most urologists continue to recommend surgery, while most radiation oncologists recommend radiation therapy. Our results may explain in part the relatively low contemporary use of AS in the U.S.