Guru Sonpavde

BACKGROUND: Inflammation may play an important role in cancer progression, and a high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been reported to be a poor prognostic indicator in several malignancies. Here we quantify the prognostic impact of this biomarker and assess its consistency in solid tumors. METHODS: A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted to identify publications exploring the association of blood NLR and clinical outcome in solid tumors. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome, and cancer-specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were secondary outcomes. Data from studies reporting a hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) or a P value were pooled in a meta-analysis. Pooled hazard ratios were computed and weighted using generic inverse-variance and random-effect modeling. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: One hundred studies comprising 40559 patients were included in the analysis, 57 of them published in 2012 or later. Median cutoff for NLR was 4. Overall, NLR greater than the cutoff was associated with a hazard ratio for OS of 1.81 (95% CI = 1.67 to 1.97; P < .001), an effect observed in all disease subgroups, sites, and stages. Hazard ratios for NLR greater than the cutoff for CSS, PFS, and DFS were 1.61, 1.63, and 2.27, respectively (all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A high NLR is associated with an adverse OS in many solid tumors. The NLR is a readily available and inexpensive biomarker, and its addition to established prognostic scores for clinical decision making warrants further investigation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have poor overall survival after platinum-containing chemotherapy and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor treatment. METHODS: We conducted a global, open-label, phase 3 trial of enfortumab vedotin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had previously received platinum-containing chemotherapy and had had disease progression during or after treatment with a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or investigator-chosen chemotherapy (standard docetaxel, paclitaxel, or vinflunine), administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization; 301 were assigned to receive enfortumab vedotin and 307 to receive chemotherapy. As of July 15, 2020, a total of 301 deaths had occurred (134 in the enfortumab vedotin group and 167 in the chemotherapy group). At the prespecified interim analysis, the median follow-up was 11.1 months. Overall survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (median overall survival, 12.88 vs. 8.97 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.89; P = 0.001). Progression-free survival was also longer in the enfortumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (median progression-free survival, 5.55 vs. 3.71 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.75; P<0.001). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (93.9% in the enfortumab vedotin group and 91.8% in the chemotherapy group); the incidence of events of grade 3 or higher was also similar in the two groups (51.4% and 49.8%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Enfortumab vedotin significantly prolonged survival as compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had previously received platinum-based treatment and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and Seagen; EV-301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03474107.).

PURPOSE: Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy is considered standard first-line treatment for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. However, a large proportion of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma are considered "unfit" for cisplatin. The purpose of this review is to define unfit patients and to identify treatment options for this subgroup of patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this review, the criteria used to define unfit patients are explored and the results of prospective clinical trials evaluating chemotherapeutic regimens in unfit patients are summarized. RESULTS: Several phase II trials and a single, large phase III trial have explored chemotherapeutic regimens for the treatment of unfit patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Heterogeneous eligibility criteria have been used to define unfit patients in these studies. A uniform definition of unfit is proposed on the basis of the results of a survey of genitourinary medical oncologists. According to this definition, unfit patients would meet at least one of the following criteria: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2, creatinine clearance less than 60 mL/min, grade ≥ 2 hearing loss, grade ≥ 2 neuropathy, and/or New York Heart Association Class III heart failure. CONCLUSION: Additional studies to optimize treatment for this important subset of patients are needed. A uniform definition of unfit patients will lead to more uniform clinical trials, enhanced ability to interpret the results of these trials, and a greater likelihood of developing a viable strategy for regulatory approval.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after an initial diagnosis of prostate cancer and management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring, treatment of recurrent disease, and systemic therapy for metastatic castration-recurrent prostate cancer also are included. This article summarizes the NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel's most significant discussions for the 2016 update of the guidelines, which include refinement of risk stratification methods and new options for the treatment of men with high-risk and very-high-risk disease and progressive castration-naïve disease.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal carcinoma. These guidelines are developed by a multidisciplinary panel of leading experts from NCCN Member Institutions consisting of medical oncologists, hematologists and hematologic oncologists, radiation oncologists, urologists, and pathologists. The NCCN Guidelines are in continuous evolution and are updated annually or sometimes more often, if new high-quality clinical data become available in the interim.