scholarly journals Urothelial Carcinoma: Optimal Treatment Options in First-Line and Beyond

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Optimal Treatment ◽  
First Line

scholarly journals Clinical evidence for the first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma: Current paradigms and emerging treatment options

2020 ◽  
Vol 89 ◽  
pp. 102072 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Koufopoulou ◽  
Paulo A.P. Miranda ◽  
Paulina Kazmierska ◽  
Sohan Deshpande ◽  
Priyanka Gaitonde
Keyword(s):  
Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
First Line Treatment

scholarly journals Update on the Treatment of Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nedal Bukhari ◽  
Humaid O. Al-Shamsi ◽  
Faisal Azam
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Unfit Patients ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
First Line Treatment

Platinum-based combination chemotherapy has been the standard of care in the first-line treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Treatment of metastatic disease following progression on platinum-based regimens has evolved significantly in the last few years. Clinical trials are currently ongoing to determine how best to use and sequence these treatments. In this minireview, we will review current first-line treatment options in both cisplatin fit and cisplatin unfit patients and advances in first- and second-line treatments including chemotherapy and immunotherapy. This review reports key findings from the clinical trials especially highlighting the importance of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of bladder/urothelial carcinomas.

Phase II trial of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy after progression on single-agent PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor in cisplatin ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma HCRN GU17-295.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS587-TPS587
Author(s):  
Nabil Adra ◽  
Ralph J. Hauke ◽  
Hristos Z. Kaimakliotis ◽  
Shuchi Gulati ◽  
Neda Hashemi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy ◽  
Line Setting

TPS587 Background: Patients (pts) with cisplatin ineligible metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who progress after first-line PD1/PDL1 inhibition have limited treatment options. The concept of maintenance therapy with targeted agents and adding onto it at time of progression is a proven effective strategy. Preclinical data indicate that carboplatin+gemcitabine have immunomodulatory effect to potentially augment immune response. We hypothesize that in pts with cisplatin ineligible mUC, the use of atezolizumab+chemotherapy after progression on single-agent PD1/PDL1 inhibitor will result in clinical benefit. Methods: Multi-center, single arm, open label phase 2 trial of atezolizumab+carboplatin+gemcitabine in pts with cisplatin ineligible mUC. Eligible pts are adults with mUC (mixed histology allowed) who progressed after first line PD1/PDL1 inhibitor. Pts should be cisplatin ineligible based on consensus criteria. Neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy completed ≥12 months prior to enrollment is allowed. Treatment with atezolizumab will continue until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity while carboplatin+gemcitabine can be stopped after 4-6 cycles. Primary objective is progression-free survival per RECIST and secondary objectives are overall response rate, clinical benefit rate, and overall survival (OS). Exploratory endpoints include to compare OS of atezolizumab+carboplatin+gemcitabine in this trial compared to a virtual control arm of carboplatin+gemcitabine in mUC after progression on first-line PD1/PDL1 inhibitors. Other exploratory endpoints include to compare PD-L1 status at time of diagnosis and at time of enrollment (after progression on PD1/PDL1 inhibitor). Using an alternate hypothesis that atezolizumab+carboplatin+gemcitabine will have a median PFS of 9 months compared to historical control of 5 months with a platinum regimen in 2nd line setting, we plan to enroll 33 patients. This study is currently enrolling pts. A protocol amendment is under way that will allow pts with prior platinum-based chemotherapy to enroll on this trial. Clinical trial information: NCT03737123.

First Report of Oncological Outcome and Prognostic Analysis in a First-Line Setting of Short Hydration Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Chemotherapy for Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

Oncology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Taku Naiki ◽  
Takashi Nagai ◽  
Yosuke Sugiyama ◽  
Toshiki Etani ◽  
Satoshi Nozaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Risk Index ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Oncological Outcome ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
First Line ◽  
Prognostic Analysis ◽  
Nutritional Risk Index ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Gemcitabine And Cisplatin

<b><i>Objectives:</i></b> The aim of the study was to examine the effectiveness of a modified-short hydration gemcitabine and cisplatin (m-shGC) regimen for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) and to assess the efficacy of a geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) with regard to prognosis. <b><i>Patients and Methods:</i></b> From January 2016 to July 2020, 68 patients with mUC underwent first-line m-shGC therapy with 70 mg/m<sup>2</sup> cisplatin and 1,000 mg/m<sup>2</sup> gemcitabine (days 1, 8, and 15), with 2,050 mL fluid replaced on the first day of each 28-day cycle. Prior to the start of treatment, the serum neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and levels of albumin and C-reactive protein (CRP) in serum, as well as body heights and weights were measured. Patients were grouped according to GNRI &#x3c;92 (low) or ≥92 (high). The analysis of data was done retrospectively. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Median follow-up was found to be 12.9 (range 1.7–50.2) months and the objective response rate (ORR) was 54.4% after m-shGC treatment. The ORR was significantly different when high and low-GNRI groups were compared (ORR: 28.0 vs. 69.8% in low- vs. high-GNRI groups). Median overall survival (OS) was calculated as 8.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.4–21.3) and 34.5 (95% CI: 20.5–NA) months for low- and high-GNRI groups, respectively (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.0001). Unlike for NLR and CRP, univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that low GNRI and visceral metastases were significant prognostic factors for short OS. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> First-line m-shGC showed a survival benefit for mUC, with GNRI a useful prognostic biomarker.

scholarly journals Patient profiles as an aim to optimize selection in the second line setting: the role of aflibercept

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. González Astorga ◽  
F. Salvà Ballabrera ◽  
E. Aranda Aguilar ◽  
E. Élez Fernández ◽  
P. García-Alfonso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Effective Therapeutic Option ◽  
Line Setting ◽  
First Line Treatment

AbstractColorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. For metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, it is recommended, as first-line treatment, chemotherapy (CT) based on doublet cytotoxic combinations of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). In addition to CT, biological (targeted agents) are indicated in the first-line treatment, unless contraindicated. In this context, most of mCRC patients are likely to progress and to change from first line to second line treatment when they develop resistance to first-line treatment options. It is in this second line setting where Aflibercept offers an alternative and effective therapeutic option, thought its specific mechanism of action for different patient’s profile: RAS mutant, RAS wild-type (wt), BRAF mutant, potentially resectable and elderly patients. In this paper, a panel of experienced oncologists specialized in the management of mCRC experts have reviewed and selected scientific evidence focused on Aflibercept as an alternative treatment.

scholarly journals Immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation and management of adverse events associated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110311
Author(s):  
Chiun Hsu ◽  
Lorenza Rimassa ◽  
Hui-Chuan Sun ◽  
Arndt Vogel ◽  
Ahmed O. Kaseb
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Antiangiogenic Agents ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
First Line

In light of positive efficacy and safety findings from the IMbrave150 trial of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, this novel combination has become the preferred first-line standard of care for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Several additional trials are ongoing that combine an immune checkpoint inhibitor with another agent such as a multiple kinase inhibitor or antiangiogenic agent. Therefore, the range of first-line treatment options for unresectable HCC is likely to increase, and healthcare providers need succinct information about the use of such combinations, including their efficacy and key aspects of their safety profiles. Here, we review efficacy and safety data on combination immunotherapies and offer guidance on monitoring and managing adverse events, especially those associated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Because of their underlying liver disease and high likelihood of portal hypertension, patients with unresectable HCC are at particular risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, and this risk may be exacerbated by treatments that include antiangiogenic agents. Healthcare providers also need to be alert to the risks of proteinuria and hypertension, colitis, hepatitis, and reactivation of hepatitis B or C virus infection. They should also be aware of the possibility of rarer but potentially life-threatening adverse events such as pneumonitis and cardiovascular events. Awareness of the risks associated with these therapies and knowledge of adverse event monitoring and management will become increasingly important as the therapeutic range broadens in unresectable HCC.

scholarly journals 285TiP DANUBE: A Phase 3 randomised study of first-line durvalumab (MEDI4736) 6 tremelimumab vs standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy (CT) in patients (pts) with Stage IV urothelial carcinoma (UC)

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. ix88-ix89
Author(s):  
S.H. Park ◽  
D. Castellano ◽  
D.P. Petrylak ◽  
M.D. Galsky ◽  
M.S. van der Heijden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Randomised Study

scholarly journals Pharmacological Treatment of Schizophrenia: Japanese Expert Consensus

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hitoshi Sakurai ◽  
Norio Yasui-Furukori ◽  
Takefumi Suzuki ◽  
Hiroyuki Uchida ◽  
Hajime Baba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Relapse Prevention ◽  
Negative Symptoms ◽  
Japanese Society ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Standard Deviation Score ◽  
Expert Consensus ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
First Line ◽  
A Current

Abstract Introduction Conventional treatment guidelines of schizophrenia do not necessarily provide solutions on clinically important issues. Methods A total of 141 certified psychiatrists of the Japanese Society of Clinical Neuropsychopharmacology evaluated treatment options regarding 19 clinically relevant situations in the treatment of schizophrenia with a 9-point scale (1=“disagree” and 9=“agree”). Results First-line antipsychotics varied depending on predominant symptoms: risperidone (mean±standard deviation score, 7.9±1.4), olanzapine (7.5±1.6), and aripiprazole (6.9±1.9) were more likely selected for positive symptoms; aripiprazole (7.6±1.6) for negative symptoms; aripiprazole (7.3±1.9), olanzapine (7.2±1.9), and quetiapine (6.9±1.9) for depression and anxiety; and olanzapine (7.9±1.5) and risperidone (7.5±1.5) for excitement and aggression. While only aripiprazole was categorized as a first-line treatment for relapse prevention (7.6±1.0) in patients without noticeable symptoms, aripiprazole (8.0±1.6) and brexpiprazole (6.9±2.3) were categorized as such for social integration. First-line treatments in patients who are vulnerable to extrapyramidal symptoms include quetiapine (7.5±2.0) and aripiprazole (6.9±2.1). Discussion These clinical recommendations represent the expert consensus on the use of a particular antipsychotic medication for a particular situation, filling a current gap in the literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document