European urology oncology最新文献

{"title":"Engaging in Clinical Research and Practice Approaches that Reduce Environmental Impact","authors":"Stacy Loeb","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.04.007","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.04.007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":"7 6","pages":"Pages 1451-1452"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140857156","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Clofarabine Has a Superior Therapeutic Window as compared to Gemcitabine in Preclinical Bladder Cancer Models","authors":"Michael Gutmann ,&nbsp;Iris E. Ertl ,&nbsp;Paula Herek ,&nbsp;Petra Vician ,&nbsp;Christine Pirker ,&nbsp;Christoph Nössing ,&nbsp;Robert Brettner ,&nbsp;Ursula Lemberger ,&nbsp;Reinhard Grausenburger ,&nbsp;Kai Batlogg ,&nbsp;Oliver Baumfried ,&nbsp;Isabella Prantl ,&nbsp;Neha Singh ,&nbsp;Ekaterina Laukhtina ,&nbsp;André Oszwald ,&nbsp;Gabriel Wasinger ,&nbsp;Eva Compérat ,&nbsp;Walter Berger ,&nbsp;Shahrokh F. Shariat ,&nbsp;Bernhard Englinger","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.05.001","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.05.001","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Current standard-of-care systemic therapy options for locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer (BC), which are predominantly based on cisplatin-gemcitabine combinations, are limited by significant treatment failure rates and frailty-based patient ineligibility. We previously addressed the urgent clinical need for better-tolerated BC therapeutic strategies using a drug screening approach, which identified outstanding antineoplastic activity of clofarabine in preclinical models of BC. To further assess clofarabine as a potential BC therapy component, we conducted head-to-head comparisons of responses to clofarabine versus gemcitabine in preclinical <em>in vitro</em> and <em>in vivo</em> models of BC, complemented by in silico analyses. <em>In vitro</em> data suggest a distinct correlation between the two antimetabolites, with higher cytotoxicity of gemcitabine, especially against several nonmalignant cell types, including keratinocytes and endothelial cells. Accordingly, tolerance of clofarabine (oral or intraperitoneal application) was distinctly better than for gemcitabine (intraperitoneal) in patient-derived xenograft models of BC. Clofarabine also exhibited distinctly superior anticancer efficacy, even at dosing regimens optimized for gemcitabine. Neither complete remission nor cure, both of which were observed with clofarabine, were achieved with any tolerable gemcitabine regimen. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that clofarabine has a better therapeutic window than gemcitabine, further emphasizing its potential as a candidate for drug repurposing in BC.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>We compared the anticancer activity of clofarabine, a drug used for treatment of leukemia but not bladder cancer, and gemcitabine, a drug currently used for chemotherapy against bladder cancer. Using cell cultures and mouse models, we found that clofarabine was better tolerated and more efficacious than gemcitabine, and even cured implanted tumors in mouse models. Our results suggest that clofarabine, alone or in combination schemes, might be superior to gemcitabine for the treatment of bladder cancer.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":"7 6","pages":"Pages 1166-1170"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140957030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Maintaining Mental Health: Mindfulness Techniques for Clinicians","authors":"Madhumita Parmar,&nbsp;Phillip M. Pierorazio","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.09.019","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.09.019","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":"7 6","pages":"Pages 1183-1184"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142461481","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Added Value of Side-specific Systematic Biopsy in Patients Diagnosed by Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Prostate Biopsy","authors":"Henri-Alexandre Bourgeno ,&nbsp;Teddy Jabbour ,&nbsp;Arthur Baudewyns ,&nbsp;Yolène Lefebvre ,&nbsp;Mariaconsiglia Ferriero ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Simone ,&nbsp;Alexandre Fourcade ,&nbsp;Georges Fournier ,&nbsp;Marco Oderda ,&nbsp;Paolo Gontero ,&nbsp;Adrian Bernal-Gomez ,&nbsp;Alessandro Mastrorosa ,&nbsp;Jean-Baptiste Roche ,&nbsp;Rawad Abou Zahr ,&nbsp;Guillaume Ploussard ,&nbsp;Gaelle Fiard ,&nbsp;Adam Halinski ,&nbsp;Katerina Rysankova ,&nbsp;Charles Dariane ,&nbsp;Gina Delavar ,&nbsp;Romain Diamand","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.01.007","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.01.007","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Systematic biopsy (SB) combined with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy is still recommended considering the risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the added value in csPCa detection on side-specific SB relative to MRI lesion and to externally validate the Noujeim risk stratification model that predicts the risk of csPCa on distant SB cores relative to the index MRI lesion.</div></div><div><h3>Design, setting, and participants</h3><div>Overall, 4841 consecutive patients diagnosed by MRI-targeted biopsy and SB for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score ≥3 lesions were identified from a prospectively maintained database between January 2016 and April 2023 at 15 European referral centers. A total of 2387 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Outcome measurements and statistical analysis</h3><div>McNemar’s test was used to compare the csPCa detection rate between several biopsy strategies including MRI-targeted biopsy, side-specific SB, and a combination of both. Model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination using area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2.</div></div><div><h3>Results and limitations</h3><div>Overall, the csPCa detection rate was 49%. Considering MRI-targeted biopsy as reference, the added values in terms of csPCa detection were 5.8% (relative increase of 13%), 4.2% (relative increase of 9.8%), and 2.8% (relative increase of 6.1%) for SB, ipsilateral SB, and contralateral SB, respectively. Only 35 patients (1.5%) exclusively had csPCa on contralateral SB (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Considering patients with csPCa on MRI-targeted biopsy and ipsilateral SB, the upgrading rate was 2% (20/961) using contralateral SB (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). The Noujeim model exhibited modest performance (AUC of 0.63) when tested using our validation set.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The added value of contralateral SB was negligible in terms of cancer detection and upgrading rates. The Noujeim model could be included in the decision-making process regarding the appropriate prostate biopsy strategy.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>In the present study, we collected a set of patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. We found that biopsies taken at the opposite side of the MRI suspicious lesion have a negligible impact on cancer detection. We also validate a risk stratification model that predicts the risk of cancer on biopsies beyond 10 mm from the initial lesion, which could be used in daily practice to improve the personalization of the prostate biopsy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":"7 6","pages":"Pages 1320-1326"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139563575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Magnetic Resonance Imaging–based Prostate Cancer Screening in Carriers of Pathogenic Germline Mutations: Interim Results from the Initial Screening Round of the Prostate Cancer Genetic Risk Evaluation and Screening Study","authors":"Andrew E. Amini ,&nbsp;Alexandra E. Hunter ,&nbsp;Aya Almashad ,&nbsp;Aileen J. Feng ,&nbsp;Neel D. Patel ,&nbsp;Margaret R O'Dea ,&nbsp;Shelley R. McCormick ,&nbsp;Linda H. Rodgers ,&nbsp;Keyan Salari","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.01.015","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.01.015","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Background&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;The risk of early-onset and clinically aggressive prostate cancer is elevated in carriers of certain rare pathogenic germline mutations. The utility of augmenting traditional prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening measures with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in this population is not yet known.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Objective&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;To evaluate MRI-based screening in comparison with traditional PSA-based screening among individuals at an elevated genetic risk for prostate cancer.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Design, setting, and participants&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Male germline carriers of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in any of 19 prostate cancer risk genes between the ages of 35 and 74 yr with no prior history of prostate cancer were recruited.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Intervention&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Enrolled participants underwent screening with annual PSA, digital rectal examination (DRE), and triennial multiparametric MRI. Individuals with abnormal DRE, elevated age-adjusted PSA (&gt;1.5 ng/ml for 35–49 yr, &gt;2.0 ng/ml for 50–54 yr, and &gt;3.0 ng/ml for 55–74 yr), or suspicious multiparametric MRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] ≥3 lesion) were offered prostate biopsy.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Outcome measurements and statistical analysis&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Endpoints were diagnosis of any and clinically significant prostate cancer, and alternative screening strategies were compared by a decision curve analysis.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Results and limitations&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;To date, 101 males have completed the first round of screening. The greatest proportion of participants are carriers of &lt;em&gt;BRCA2&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; = 44), &lt;em&gt;BRCA1&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; = 35), and &lt;em&gt;ATM&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; = 7) variants. Twenty-one have undergone biopsy, resulting in the detection of nine cases of cancer (seven clinically significant). For the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, abnormal MRI (PI-RADS ≥3) demonstrated 100% sensitivity (7/7) with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, whereas PSA-based screening alone had 57% (4/7) sensitivity with an NPV of 73%. Of six screening strategies evaluated in the decision curve analysis, MRI-based screening alone achieved superior net benefit at all threshold probabilities compared with PSA screening—detecting one additional cancer case per 7.5 patients, while avoiding more unnecessary biopsies at the same threshold probability.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusions&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Disease prevalence is high among carriers of prostate cancer–associated pathogenic germline mutations. Early results suggest that MRI-based screening enhances early detection of clinically significant disease beyond PSA screening alone.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Patient summary&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;In this study, we present the interim results from the PROGRESS prostate cancer screening trial. We found that in certain germline carriers of prostate cancer risk mutations, magnetic resonance imag","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":"7 6","pages":"Pages 1358-1366"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140059065","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"PTEN Loss Is Associated with Adverse Outcomes in the Setting of Salvage Radiation Therapy","authors":"Emerson Lee ,&nbsp;Lia DePaula Oliveira ,&nbsp;Oluwademilade Dairo ,&nbsp;Sanaz Nourmohammadi Abadchi ,&nbsp;Eumee Cha ,&nbsp;Adrianna A. Mendes ,&nbsp;Jarey H. Wang ,&nbsp;Daniel Y. Song ,&nbsp;Tamara L. Lotan","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.06.008","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.06.008","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Salvage radiation therapy (SRT) is a mainstay of treatment for biochemical relapse following radical prostatectomy; however, few studies have examined genomic biomarkers in this context.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>We characterized the prognostic impact of previously identified deleterious molecular phenotypes—loss of PTEN, ERG expression, and <em>TP53</em> mutation—for patients undergoing SRT.</div></div><div><h3>Design, setting, and participants</h3><div>We leveraged an institutional database of 320 SRT patients with available tissue and follow-up. Tissue microarrays were used for genetically validated immunohistochemistry assays.</div></div><div><h3>Intervention</h3><div>All men underwent SRT with or without androgen deprivation therapy</div></div><div><h3>Outcome measurements and statistical analysis</h3><div>Univariable and multivariable Cox-proportional hazard models assessed the association of molecular phenotypes with biochemical recurrence-free (bRFS) and metastasis-free (MFS) survival after SRT.</div></div><div><h3>Results and limitations</h3><div>Loss of PTEN (<em>n</em> = 123, 43%) and ERG expression (<em>n</em> = 118, 39%) were common in this cohort, while p53 overexpression (signifying <em>TP53</em> missense mutation) was infrequent (<em>n</em> = 21, 7%). In univariable analyses, any loss of PTEN portended worse bRFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.86; 95% confidence interval 1.36–2.57) and MFS (HR 1.89; 1.21–2.94), with homogeneous PTEN loss being associated with the highest risk of MFS (HR 2.47; 1.54–3.95). Similarly, p53 overexpression predicted worse bRFS (HR 1.95; 1.14–3.32) and MFS (HR 2.79; 1.50–5.19). ERG expression was associated with worse MFS only (HR 1.6; 1.03–2.48). On the multivariable analysis adjusting for known prognostic features, homogeneous PTEN loss remained predictive of adverse bRFS (HR 1.82; 1.12–2.96) and MFS (HR 2.08; 1.06–4.86). The study is limited by its retrospective and single-institution design.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>PTEN loss by immunohistochemistry is an independent adverse prognostic factor for bRFS and MFS in prostate cancer patients treated with SRT. Future trials will determine the optimal approach to treating SRT patients with adverse molecular prognostic features.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>Loss of the PTEN tumor suppressor protein is associated with worse outcomes after salvage radiotherapy, independent of other clinical or pathologic patient characteristics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":"7 6","pages":"Pages 1513-1519"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141534013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Tolerability of Olaparib Combined with Abiraterone in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Further Results from the Phase 3 PROpel Trial","authors":"Fred Saad ,&nbsp;Andrew J. Armstrong ,&nbsp;Mototsugu Oya ,&nbsp;Karina Vianna ,&nbsp;Mustafa Özgüroğlu ,&nbsp;Craig Gedye ,&nbsp;Gary L. Buchschacher Jr. ,&nbsp;Ji Youl Lee ,&nbsp;Urban Emmenegger ,&nbsp;Jiri Navratil ,&nbsp;Juan Antonio Virizuela ,&nbsp;Anibal Salazar ,&nbsp;Denis Maillet ,&nbsp;Hiroji Uemura ,&nbsp;Jeri Kim ,&nbsp;Emma Oscroft ,&nbsp;Laura Barker ,&nbsp;Arnold Degboe ,&nbsp;Noel W. Clarke","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.03.006","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.03.006","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The PROpel study (NCT03732820) demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting, irrespective of homologous recombination repair mutation status.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>We report additional safety analyses from PROpel to increase clinical understanding of the adverse-event (AE) profiles of olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone.</div></div><div><h3>Design, setting, and participants</h3><div>A randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 126 centres in 17 countries (October 2018–January 2020). Patients had mCRPC and no prior systemic mCRPC treatment.</div></div><div><h3>Intervention</h3><div>Olaparib (300 mg bid) or placebo with abiraterone (1000 mg od) plus prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg bid).</div></div><div><h3>Outcome measurements and statistical analysis</h3><div>The data cut-off date was July 30, 2021. Safety was assessed by AE reporting (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03) and analysed descriptively.</div></div><div><h3>Results and limitations</h3><div>The most common AEs (all grades) for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone were anaemia (46.0% vs 16.4%), nausea (28.1% vs 12.6%), and fatigue (27.9% vs 18.9%). Grade ≥3 anaemia occurred in 15.1% versus 3.3% of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone arm. The incidences of the most common AEs for olaparib plus abiraterone peaked early, within 2 mo, and were managed typically by dose modifications or standard medical practice. Overall, 13.8% versus 7.8% of patients discontinued treatment with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone because of an AE; 3.8% versus 0.8% of patients discontinued because of anaemia. More venous thromboembolism events were observed in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 7.3%; grade ≥3, 6.8%) than in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 3.3%; grade ≥3, 2.0%), most commonly pulmonary embolism (6.5% vs 1.8% for olaparib plus abiraterone vs placebo plus abiraterone).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Olaparib plus abiraterone has a manageable and predictable safety profile.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>The PROpel trial showed that in patients who had not received any previous treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, olaparib combined with abiraterone was more effective in delaying progression of the disease than abiraterone alone. Most side effects caused by combining olaparib with abiraterone could be managed with supportive care methods, by pausing olaparib administration for a short period of time and/or by reducing the dose of olaparib.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":"7 6","pages":"Pages 1394-1402"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140779956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Re: Guillaume Ploussard, Eric Barret, Gaëlle Fiard, et al. Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Final Results of the Randomized PERFECT trial (CCAFU-PR1). Eur Urol Oncol. In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2024.01.019","authors":"Fu-Xiang Lin,&nbsp;Yi Yu,&nbsp;Zhan-Ping Xu","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.05.002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.05.002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":"7 6","pages":"Pages 1549-1550"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141075905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patient Preference of Apalutamide Versus Enzalutamide for Recurrent or Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Open-label, Randomized, Crossover Trial","authors":"Chi-Fai Ng ,&nbsp;Chi-Hang Yee ,&nbsp;Peter Ka-Fung Chiu ,&nbsp;Kenneth Wong ,&nbsp;Daisy Lam ,&nbsp;Violet Wai-Fan Yuen ,&nbsp;Pui-Tak Lai ,&nbsp;Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.04.001","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.04.001","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>Treatment preference regarding apalutamide versus enzalutamide in prostate cancer (PCa) and the factors influencing decisions are largely unknown. Our aim was to investigate the preference for apalutamide versus enzalutamide among prostate cancer patients and their physicians and caregivers, and factors influencing their decision.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a prospective, open-label, randomized, crossover trial. Patients with recurrence of localized PCa or with metastatic disease not considered as high-risk or high-volume and on continued androgen deprivation therapy were recruited. All subjects received a trial of two agents, apalutamide (A) and enzalutamide (E), for 12 wk each, with a 5-wk washout period in between. The sequencing of the drugs was randomized. The primary outcome was patient preference for one the drugs, assessed at the end of the study. Other outcomes included factors influencing patient preference, a comparison of side-effect profiles, and patients’ quality of life (QoL). Physician and caregiver preferences for the drugs and factors affecting their choice were also assessed.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>A total of 74 patients met the eligibility criteria and were randomized to the A → E or E → A arm. Of these, 66 patients (89.1%; 32 A → E, 34 E → A) completed the study. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, and ∼90% of the patients had low-volume metastatic disease. After completion of both treatments for 12 wk each, the difference in preference for A over E was 17.8%, with similar trends for preference of A over E among physicians (18.2%) and caregivers (22.4%). Fewer side effect was the most critical factor influencing the preference of patients. Among the side effects, less fatigue was the benefit of A over E most frequently reported. No notable difference in QoL was observed between the two drugs. However, the study was terminated on interim analysis and the results might not be conclusive.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There was a trend for preference of A over E among patients with predominantly low-volume recurrent or metastatic PCa and their physicians and caregivers. Fewer side effects was the most critical factor influencing their choice.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>Patients with low-volume recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer tended to prefer treatment with apalutamide over enzalutamide. Side effects were the most critical factor influencing treatment preference.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":"7 6","pages":"Pages 1420-1430"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140761556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"UncoVer: A Web-based Resource for Single-cell and Spatially Resolved Omics Data in Uro-oncology","authors":"Gwendoline C.V. Lecuyer,&nbsp;Aurélie Lardenois,&nbsp;Frédéric Chalmel,&nbsp;Uro-oncogenomics Viewer Group","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.04.008","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.04.008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":"7 6","pages":"Pages 1545-1547"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140853311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}