Citations

Multifaceted risk stratification is required for management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma, and imaging plays an important integrated role in diagnosis and management.

164 Background: Lurbinectedin (L) is a novel inhibitor of oncogenic transcription that was granted accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2020 for the treatment of metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) following disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC). Prostatic small cell or neuroendocrine carcinoma (SC/NEPC) is a high-grade, invasive malignancy that accounts for < 1% of all prostate cancers. SC/NEPC is distinct from prostatic adenocarcinoma and behaves similar to SCLC. NCCN guidelines for SC/NEPC recommend following the SCLC treatment guidelines. Using these guidelines, L may be used as a second-line treatment in patients (pts) with SC/NEPC who progress on or after PBC. We aimed to characterize the baseline characteristics, clinical course and therapeutic outcomes of pts treated with L for SC/NEPC. Methods: After IRB approval, 18 cases were gathered from 4 academic oncology centers. Baseline patient data, prior treatments and L treatment outcomes, including best radiographic and serologic responses, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment toxicity were assessed. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate OS and PFS from the L start date. Clinical benefit rate (CBR) included pts with complete response (CR), partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD) on imaging. Results: At the time of first L dose, all had metastatic disease with 2-6 distinct sites of metastases, most commonly bone (14/18, 77.8%), lymph nodes (14/18, 77.8%) and liver (13/18, 72.2%); median age was 63.5 (Range: 53-84); 11 pts (61.1%) had an ECOG 0-1; 4 pts (22.2%) had an ECOG of 2-3. The median total number of systemic therapies administered prior to L was 4 (Range: 2-7). All pts received PBC prior to L. The most common dose of L prescribed was 3.2 mg/m2 every 21 days (15/18, 83.3%). Androgen deprivation therapy was administered in conjunction with L in 9 pts (50%). The median number of cycles of L was 5 (Range: 1-10). L was discontinued due to toxicity in 1 patient (5.6%), disease progression in 10 pts (55.6%), transition to hospice in 2 pts (11.1%), 3 pts (16.7%) died while receiving treatment (not due to L toxicity), and 2 pts (11.1%) remained on L at the time of data reporting. The median OS and PFS from date of first L dose was 6.01 months (0.23 – 16.69) and 3.35 months (0.16 – 7.79), respectively. CBR was 9/16 (56.3%) with partial response in 5 pts (31.3%), stable disease in 4 pts (25%), and progressive disease in 7 pts (43.8%). Two pts did not have post-treatment imaging available to assess response. There were no hospitalizations for L treatment related adverse events (tRAE). The most common tRAE were grade I and II fatigue and anemia; 9 pts (50%) experienced no tRAE. The only grade IV toxicity was neutropenia in 3 pts (16.7%). Conclusions: L is a well-tolerated and active treatment option for patients with SC/NEPC. Prospective studies are needed to determine the role of L in the treatment of SC/NEPC.

Abstract Primary cardiac sarcoma is a rare type of intracardiac mass. This report describes a patient with atrial flutter who had a new right atrial mass incidentally discovered on transesophageal echocardiography. A thrombus was suspected based on radiographic appearance, but there was minimal change with anticoagulation. The mass was resected and found to be an undifferentiated pleomorphic cardiac sarcoma, an uncommon sub-type within the already rare category of primary cardiac neoplasms. This report highlights the importance of considering primary malignancy and thoroughly correlating radiographic and clinical evidence during the diagnostic workup of patients with intracardiac masses.

Context.— Epithelioid angiomyolipomas (eAMLs) are rare tumors of the kidney that occur in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex or in a sporadic setting; a subset of these tumors exhibit metastatic behavior. Objective.— To analyze molecular profiling data to identify pathogenic alterations in rare cases of metastatic eAML, and to identify immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based surrogate markers. Design.— Molecular profiling data from the American Association for Cancer Research GENIE registry was accessed for 23 patients with angiomyolipomas, and 9 of 16 patients with eAMLs in our institutional registry were evaluated with next-generation sequencing. IHC was performed to screen for alterations of P53, RB, and ATRX for all 16 institutional cases. Results.— Combined alterations of 5 tumor-suppressor genes (TP53, ATRX, RB1, APC, and NF1) were identified using next-generation sequencing in 7 of 8 (88%) patients with metastatic disease compared to a single patient with nonmetastatic disease (RB1 variant of uncertain significance; 1 of 24, 4%). No cases with abnormal IHC results were identified in 11 patients with nonmetastatic disease compared to 3 of 5 patients with metastatic disease. Conclusions.— Our results show that the majority of metastatic eAMLs have mutations of 5 tumor-suppressor genes (TP53, ATRX, RB1, APC, and NF1), while these are rare in patients with nonmetastatic disease. Furthermore, IHC for P53, RB, and ATRX may serve as a screen for a subset of these alterations in resource-limited settings. These findings, if validated in larger data sets, have the potential to predict metastatic behavior in eAMLs.

Abstract Objectives To test the hypothesis that lymph node yield will vary by pathology assistant (PA) in patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). Methods This is a single-institution retrospective review that included patients who underwent an RC with PLND for bladder cancer from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2018. Predicted mean lymph node counts were generated using multivariable regression analysis. Results In a total of 430 patients who underwent RC with PLND, the median lymph node count (interquartile range) was 15.0 (11.0-21.0). The frequency of the limits of lymphadenectomy was as follows: external iliac, internal iliac, and obturator (true pelvis) (33.3%); true pelvis plus common iliac to the level of the aortic bifurcation (47.9%); and inferior mesenteric artery (18.8%). On descriptive analysis, there were differences in lymph node yield when evaluating the following variables: level of dissection, clinical stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgical approach, surgeon, pathologist, and PA (P &lt; .05). On multivariable analysis, adjusted lymph node counts varied between surgeons, pathologists, clinical stage, and level of dissection but not by PA (P = .18). Conclusions Lymph node yield after RC varies on several known levels, including surgeon, extent of lymphadenectomy, clinical stage, and pathologist. This study found no significant variation in lymph node yield according to PA.

ObjectivesTo determine whether renal transplant diagnoses substantially change when 2 biopsy sites are chosen and whether contrast‐enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has value for targeting the second site.MethodsWe prospectively enrolled 40 patients undergoing ultrasound‐guided renal transplant biopsy within 2 years of transplant: 20, surveillance; and 20, for cause. A CEUS examination was performed to identify cortical regions with subjectively altered flow. One biopsy was performed at the operator‐preferred (primary) site regardless of CEUS findings. Another biopsy was done at a second location, either targeted to an area in which CEUS perfusion findings differed from the primary site (targeted) or at a random location (secondary) if no other area differed. Specimens were randomly labeled A or B; pathologists were blinded to the CEUS result and biopsy location. Location‐specific CEUS assessments were recorded. Pathologic results were compared, including acute and chronic Banff scores and any new findings from the targeted or secondary biopsy.ResultsForty patients were enrolled between January 2016 and December 2018. No location‐specific pathologic differences correlated with differences in CEUS assessments. The second biopsy provided additional information that changed management in 4 of 40 patients (10.0% [95% confidence interval, 2.8%–23.7%]). Major bleeding complications occurred in 3 of 40 (7.5%) patients.ConclusionsContrast‐enhanced ultrasound targeting was not useful. Major bleeding complications were higher than expected, possibly due to the additional biopsy away from the operator‐preferred location. Obtaining a second renal transplant biopsy from a substantially different area than the initial operator‐preferred location provided additional clinically useful information in 10% of patients.