Treatment of Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Previous Cisplatin-based Chemotherapy for Localized Disease: A Retrospective Comparison of Different Chemotherapy Regimens

BackgroundOptimal chemotherapy for patients who received cisplatin for localized urothelial carcinoma (UC) and develop metastatic disease is unclear. We compared the efficacy of platinum-based (PBC) versus non–platinum-based (NPBC) first-line chemotherapy for metastasis.Patients and MethodsData were collected from the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelial Tract (RISC), a database of 3024 patients from 28 international academic centers from 2005 to 2012. Patient inclusion criteria included: (1) predominant UC; (2) any primary tumor site; (3) cT2-4, cN0-N2, cM0; (4) prior receipt of perioperative/radiation cisplatin-containing chemotherapy; and (5) receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the first-line metastatic setting. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to show progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the first day of chemotherapy for metastatic disease to date of censor.ResultsEligibility criteria was met by 132 patients (n = 74 PBC; n = 58 NPBC). The median OS was 8.13 months (interquartile range, 4.87-16.64 months) and 8.77 months (interquartile range, 4.01-13.49 months) for PBC and NPBC, respectively. Neither OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-1.69; P = .87) nor PFS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.31; P = .48) differed for PBC versus NPBC. However, for patients who received chemotherapy more than a year after perioperative/radiation chemotherapy, OS was superior for PBC over NPBC (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.92; P = .03).ConclusionsThere is no significant outcome difference between PBC and NPBC in patients with metastatic UC who previously received cisplatin-based chemotherapy for localized disease. However, if over a year has elapsed, return to PBC is associated with superior OS.     

HER2 testing in breast cancers: comparison of assays and interpretation using ASCO/CAP 2013 and 2018 guidelines

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment - HER2 overexpression and gene amplification are routinely tested by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), respectively. In...     

Near Miss or Standard of Care? DPYD Screening for Cancer Patients Receiving Fluorouracil

5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and its pro-drug capecitabine are widely used anticancer agents. Most 5-FU catabolism is dependent on dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) encoded by the DPYD gene, and DPYD variants that reduce DPD function increase 5-FU toxicity. Most DPD deficient patients are heterozygous and can be treated with reduced 5-FU dosing. We describe a patient with a genotype associated with near complete absence of DPD function, and severe and likely fatal toxicity with 5-FU treatment. The patient was treated effectively with alternative systemic therapy. Routine pretreatment DPYD genotyping is recommended by the European Medicines Agency, and guidelines for use of 5-FU in DPD deficient patients are available. However, outside the province of Quebec, routine pretreatment screening for DPD deficiency remains unavailable in Canada. It is likely our patient would have died from 5-FU toxicity under the current standard of care, but instead provides an example of the potential benefit of DPYD screening on patient outcomes.     

Endotracheal Intubation with the King Laryngeal Tube™ In Situ Using Video Laryngoscopy and a Bougie: A Retrospective Case Series and Cadaveric Crossover Study

Background

Removal of a functioning King laryngeal tube (LT) prior to establishing a definitive airway increases the risk of a “can't intubate, can't oxygenate” scenario. We previously described a technique utilizing video laryngoscopy (VL) and a bougie to intubate around a well-seated King LT with the balloons deflated; if necessary, the balloons can be rapidly re-inflated and ventilation resumed.