Penile cancer is a rare condition, which mostly affects men in their sixth decade of life. The most common histology is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), with about half of the cases linked to human papilloma virus (HPV) infection. The lack of awareness and significant social and psychological stigma associated with penile cancer often leads to delays in presentation, diagnosis and management. Timely multidisciplinary care at experienced centers is therefore critical for improving outcomes. For patients with advanced disease, treatment options are limited and prognosis remains poor. Large international efforts are underway to further define the optimal standards of care. Targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors could potentially play a role in advanced disease and are under evaluation in clinical trials. In this review, we discuss the current management of penile cancer and future directions.

Despite significant progress, metastatic urothelial cancer remains an incurable condition with a limited life expectancy. Platinum-based chemotherapy is still the mainstay of treatment for metastatic disease, but immunotherapy, antibody drug conjugates, and targeted agents have shown encouraging results in several recent practice changing trials. In this review, we discuss the standard of care, recent therapeutic advances, ongoing clinical trials, and future perspectives in metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

No abstract

The treatment landscape for metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) beyond first-line platinum-based chemotherapy has changed significantly over the last 5 years with the recent approvals of the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors and most recently Enfortumab Vedotin (EV). EV is a novel antibody–drug conjugate (ADC), that delivers monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), a microtubule-disrupting agent, inside cells harboring the cell surface nectin-4 receptor. In mUC, EV has shown encouraging response rates and received accelerated approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2019 in the post-platinum and ICI setting. EV is generally well tolerated, with the main toxicities being neuropathy, skin rash, alopecia and fatigue. Notably EV can also be administered to patients with renal dysfunction, which is commonly a concern in this patient population. EV is now being tested in combination strategies and in earlier disease settings in urothelial cancers. In this review, we will discuss its mechanism of action, clinical trials leading to FDA approval as well as ongoing trials and future directions.

Background Ovarian carcinomas presenting homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which is observed in about 50% of cases, are more sensitive to platinum and PARP inhibitor therapies. Although platinum resistant disease has a low chance to be responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy, a set of patients is retreated with platinum and some of them are responsive. In this study, we evaluated copy number alterations, HR gene mutations and HR deficiency scores in ovarian cancer patients with prolonged platinum sensitivity. Methods In this retrospective study (2005 to 2014), we selected 31 patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer retreated with platinum therapy. Copy number alterations and HR scores were evaluated using the OncoScan® FFPE platform in 15 cases. The mutational profile of 24 genes was investigated by targeted-NGS. Results The median values of the four HRD scores were higher in responders (LOH = 15, LST = 28, tAI = 33, CS = 84) compared with non-responders (LOH = 7.5, LST = 17.5, tAI = 23, CS = 47). Patients with high LOH, LST, tAI and CS scores had better response rates, although these differences were not statistically significant. Response rate to platinum retreatment was 22% in patients with CCNE1 gains and 83.5% in patients with no CCNE1 gains ( p = 0.041). Furthermore, response rate was 54.5% in patients with RB1 loss and 25% in patients without RB1 loss ( p = 0.569). Patients with CCNE1 gains showed a worse progression free survival (PFS = 11.1 months vs 3.7 months; p = 0.008) and a shorter overall survival (OS = 39.3 months vs 7.1 months; p = 0.007) in comparison with patients with no CCNE1 gains. Patients with RB1 loss had better PFS (9.0 months vs 2.6 months; p = 0.093) and OS (27.4 months vs 3.6 months; p = 0.025) compared with cases with no RB1 loss. Four tumor samples were BRCA mutated and tumor mutations were not associated with response to treatment. Conclusions HR deficiency was found in 60% of our cases and HRD medium values were higher in responders than in non-responders. Despite the small number of patients tested, CCNE1 gain and RB1 loss discriminate patients with tumors extremely sensitive to platinum retreatment. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5622-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: In metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC), bone metastasis (BM) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, yet their role as an independent prognostic variable remains unclear. We aimed to determine the impact of BM on overall survival (OS) in patients with mUC treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC). Methods: mUC patients receiving PBC at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Tom Baker Cancer Center, or Cross Cancer Institute from January 2005 to January 2018 were identified retrospectively using central pharmacy database records. Patient disease, treatment, and response characteristics were collected. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Variables reaching significance ( p < 0.05) in univariable analysis (UVA) of survival (OS) were included in multivariable analysis (MVA) (Cox). Results: Overall, 376 patients with a median follow-up of 16.8 (range: 2.2–218.3) months were included. Median age was 67 (range: 28–91) years, 76% were male, 63% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0–1, and 41% had BM. All patients received first-line PBC. Patients with BM had inferior median PFS (4.9 months (95% CI 3.6–6.2) versus 6.5 months (95% CI 5.4–7.6), p = 0.03) and median OS (8.8 months (95% CI 7.8–9.7) versus 10.8 months (95% CI 9.1–12.5), p = 0.002). In UVA, ECOG PS 2–3 ( p < 0.001), presence of BM ( p = 0.002), and WBC count ⩾ 11,000 cells/mm3 ( p = 0.001) were associated with inferior survival. Prior cystectomy ( p < 0.001) and lack of progression (stable disease, partial or complete response) on treatment was associated with improved OS ( p < 0.001). These variables maintained significance in MVA. Conclusion: In this retrospective study, mUC patients with BM had worse OS suggesting that BM may be an independent negative prognostic factor and including BM as a stratification factor in future mUC clinical trial designs may be warranted. A greater focus must be placed on novel therapeutic strategies to better manage BM to reduce both morbidity and mortality.

6061 Background: Platinum-based chemotherapy in association to cetuximab is the standart first-line treatment for metastatic HNSCC. There is no established biomarker for cetuximab efficacy in HNSCC. We have previously shown that PTEN loss of expression is a bad prognostic factor for patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and cetuximab. The aim of the present study was evaluate the prognostic impact of PTEN loss of expression in patients treated with or without cetuximab and to evaluate its predictive value to cetuximab benefit. Methods: One hundred and nineteen patients with metastatic or locally recurrent HNSCC were included. Clinical data on treatment and outcomes was retroespectively colected from medical charts. Tissue micro-array was constructed to evaluate PTEN protein expression through immunohistochemistry. Citoplasmatic staining was evaluated using H-score. Tumors with H-score < 10 were considered to present PTEN loss of expression. Results: From the 119 patients 72 were treated with chemotherapy plus cetuximab while 47 were treated with chemotherapy alone. Median overall survival (mOS) was 9.2 months and median progression free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months. Patients treated with cetuximab compared to those who were not treated with cetuximab had a mOS of 11.4 vs 7.0 months (p = 0.770) and a median PFS of 6.2 vs 3.0 months (p = 0.249). Patients with PTEN loss of expression had a worse OS and PFS with mOS of 5.8 vs 10.5 months (p = 0.002) months and mPFS of 3.2 vs 5.2 (p = 0.015). On multivariate analysis including PTEN loss of expression and ECOG performance status both remained independently associated to survival with HR 2.25 (CI95% 1.28-3.97, p = 0.005) for PTEN loss of expression and a HR 1.63 (CI95% 1.07-2.50, p = 0.023) for ECOG. Negative prognostic impact of PTEN loss of expression was seen only in the cetuximab treated patients (mOS 7.3 vs 13.0 months; p = 0.002) but not in the chemotherapy only group (mOS 3.2 vs 7.5 months; p = 0.051). Interaction test for treatment group and PTEN loss of expression showed a p = 0.418. Conclusions: The present study confirms PTEN as a prognostic factor for metastatic HNSCC and suggests PTEN expression should be studied in larger cohorts to evaluate its predictive value to cetuximab response.

No abstract