Genitourinary Cancers

Bladder cancer is the fourth most common cancer (excluding skin cancer) in the United States and ranks eighth as a cause of death from cancer among men; there will be an estimated 70,530 new cases and 14,680 cancer-related deaths in the United States in 2010.[1] Of new cases, 70% to 80% present with non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Despite endoscopic and intravesical treatments with curative intent, 50% to 70% of these cancers recur, usually within 5 years, and 10% to 30% progress to muscle-invasive disease, in the majority of cases as high-grade lesions.[2,3] Bladder cancer poses a significant economic burden due to the cost of the lifetime need for surveillance, the need to treat recurrent tumors, and the cost of complications associated with treatment. Medicare estimates have ranked bladder cancer treatment the seventh costliest among cancers, with a 5-year net cost of approximately one billion dollars.[4]

Two doctors, formerly with CMS, make a case for comparative effectiveness. Their paper is sure to spark heated debate within the prostate cancer community--as always, never a dull moment in prostate cancer.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been used in the management of prostate cancer for more than four decades. Initially, hormone therapy was given largely for palliation of symptomatic metastases. Following several randomized trials of patients with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer that demonstrated improvements in biochemical control and survival with the addition of ADT to external beam radiotherapy, there was a dramatic increase in the use of hormone therapy in the definitive setting. More recently, the safety of ADT has been questioned, as some studies have suggested an association of hormone therapy with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This is particularly worrisome in light of practice patterns that show ADT use extrapolated to situations for which there has been no proven benefit. In the setting of dose escalation with modern radiotherapy, in conjunction with the latest concerns about cardiovascular morbidity with ADT, the magnitude of expected benefit along with potential risks of ADT use must be carefully considered for each patient.

The incidence of metabolic syndrome is rapidly increasing. Metabolic syndrome is associated with elevated morbidity and mortality secondary to cardiovascular disease, insulin resistance, and hepatic dysfunction. A body of evidence has already implicated metabolic syndrome as a cancer risk factor; emerging evidence now suggests that cancer survivors themselves may be at risk for developing metabolic syndrome as a result of their anti-cancer therapy. Treatment of both breast cancer and prostate cancer often involves hormone-modifying agents that have been linked to features of metabolic syndrome. Androgen suppression in men with prostate cancer is associated with dyslipidemia, increasing risk of cardiovascular disease, and insulin resistance. Anti-estrogen therapy in women with breast cancer can affect lipid profiles, cardiovascular risk, and liver function. Similar findings have been noted in men with testicular cancer treated with chemotherapy. In addition, several emerging therapies, including mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors and targeted kinase inhibitors, are increasingly associated with some features of metabolic syndrome. As the number of cancer survivors continues to grow, consideration of these factors and of the risk of metabolic syndrome will become increasingly important when choosing between therapy options and managing long-term follow-up.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been shown to be beneficial in combination with radiotherapy (RT) vs RT alone in multiple phase III randomized trials treating patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Drs. Fang, Merrick, and Wallner have concisely summarized the data in Table 1 of their article. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial RTOG 86-10 has demonstrated that as little as 4 months of ADT in combination with RT can delay the time to development of metastatic disease by up to 8 years, compared with RT alone.[1] What’s more, longer durations of ADT (ie, 28 to 36 months) are superior to shorter durations (4 to 6 months), as evidenced by the results of RTOG 92-02 and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial EORTC 22961. Therefore, a long-term duration of ADT (ie, 24 to 36 months) is an accepted standard of care in combination with RT for patients with high-risk disease.

The role, timing, and clinical use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer remain a controversial topic for clinicians. Drs. Fang, Merrick, and Wallner provide a compelling review of the clinical benefits and side effects of ADT in high-risk prostate cancer. The number of patients presenting with advanced disease remains significant despite the stage migration of prostate cancer during the PSA (prostate-specific antigen) era.

Prostate cancer is one of the leading causes of death from malignant disease among men in the developed world. The extent of benefit and harm with widespread PSA screening is under continuous debate.

This article defines the biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer, distinguish SRT from ART, outline the evidence for SRT, and makes recommendations with regard to radiotherapy volume and dose.

A 36-year-old male with a history of cryptorchidism of the right side, treated with orchidopexy at the age of 4, presented with bilateral testicular swelling. Investigations included laboratory workup, ultrasound of both testes, as well as CT-scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. Initial treatment was bilateral orchiectomy.

Despite the common use of postoperative radiotherapy (RT) in patients managed initially with radical prostatectomy (RP), a number of questions remain. Raldow and colleagues build their arguments around three randomized trials that indicated a significant benefit of immediate adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with high-risk features.

Listen to internationally regarded oncologist and clinical investigator, Robert J. Motzer, MD, attending physician at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, discuss the past, present, and future trends in renal cell carcinoma.

In this exclusive ASCO podcast, Andrew J. Armstrong, MD, ScM, Assistant Professor of Medicine and Surgery Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, Departments of Medicine and Surgery, Divisions of Medical Oncology and Urology, addressed the vexing clinical issue of chemotherapy’s limited effectiveness in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Once PSA kinetics were thought to be a good way to predict which patients with early prostate cancer were at risk of progression. Now they're not. Even those who had the most hope for these biomarkers have evidence of their unreliability for this purpose.

Prostate cancer patients administered high doses of proton-beam therapy appear to have a markedly reduced risk of disease recurrence when compared with other low-risk patients treated with conventional radiation therapy, according to two recent studies.

Renal cell carcinoma represents 3% of all cancer cases but has a significant death rate associated with it: It’s estimated that there will be 60,000 new cases this year and 16,000 deaths from kidney cancer. The risk factors associated with kidney cancer include smoking, obesity, hypertension, and some occupational exposure.

A 56-year-old woman was referred to our institution for a left nephroureterectomy after the diagnoses of a nonfunctioning left kidney and noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma of the distal left ureter (Ta grade 1). Following the procedure, surveillance cystoscopy and computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis demonstrated a large bladder tumor with pan-urothelial extension.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas (NHL) have been updated to include ofatumumab (Arzerra) and romidepsin (Istodax). Ofatumumab was added to the NCCN Guidelines as a treatment option for relapsed/refractory disease in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, with and without a 17p deletion. In addition, the updated guidelines include romidepsin as a systemic treatment option for patients with mycosis fungoides and Szary syndrome.

The first major study to address the cardiovascular adverse effects of endocrine therapy for prostate cancer could change attitudes toward treatment options because testosterone deprivation may have more impact on the patient’s life than it does on the androgen receptor.

GlaxoSmithKline has received FDA approval for pazopanib (Votrient) for the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. The FDA’s approval of the angiogenesis inhibitor was based on data from a phase III clinical trial, which demonstrated that pazopanib reduced the risk of tumor progression or death by 54% compared with placebo and regardless of prior treatment.

The US Food and Drug Administration approved GlaxoSmithKline’s pazopanib (Votrient), the sixth drug to be approved for kidney cancer since 2005.

The comparison of brachytherapy and surgery may be done on several levels. This review focuses the comparison on toxicity, the “soft” endpoints of biochemical relapse-free survival and clinical relapse-free survival, and the “hard” endpoint of prostate cancer–specific mortality.

Standard treatment options for prostate cancer patients include surveillance, surgery, external-beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, the combination of external-beam and brachytherapy, and the combination of radiotheraputic modalities with hormonal therapy, for appropriately chosen patients.

In this review, we summarize contemporary data pertaining to active surveillance, a safe and appropriate strategy for select patients with low-risk cancer characteristics who undergo monitoring at regular intervals.

The Association of Community Cancer Centers recently surveyed its members and found a universal request for assistance in developing prostate cancer care programs. The ACCC responded by setting up pilot programs in the U.S. that focus on the following areas:

A phase III trial demonstrated that denosumab can reduce fracture risk in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy, Amgen announced.

Avastin (bevacizumab) plus interferon-alfa has been approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, according to Genentech. Approval was based on phase III data from the AVOREN study, which showed a 67% increase in progression-free survival (10.2 months) compared to those who received interferon-alfa alone (5.4 months; hazard ratio = 0.60).

Young men with advanced forms of prostate cancer do not live as long as older men with similar forms of the disease, according to research conducted at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Prostate cancer remains the most common solid organ malignancy diagnosed among men in the United States, with the American Cancer Society estimating that 1 in 6 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and 1 in 35 will die of the disease.[1]

So here we go again with one more round in the battle of treatment options for localized prostate cancer. While more than 3 decades of such sparring has gotten us no closer to evidence-based conclusions, one might say that these matches do serve the purpose of bringing out the best and the worst of the therapeutic contenders.

Ferring Pharmaceuticals announced that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the trade name Firmagon (degarelix for injection) for its prostate cancer treatment previously marketed under the generic name degarelix.