No abstract

PI3K-Akt-mTOR and androgen receptor (AR) signaling are commonly aberrantly activated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), with PTEN loss associating with poor prognosis. We therefore conducted a phase Ib/II study of the combination of ipatasertib, an Akt inhibitor, with the CYP17 inhibitor abiraterone in patients with mCRPC. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to ipatasertib 400 mg, ipatasertib 200 mg, or placebo, with abiraterone 1,000 mg orally. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in the intent-to-treat population and in patients with PTEN-loss tumors. rPFS was prolonged in the ipatasertib cohort versus placebo, with similar trends in overall survival and time-to-PSA progression. A larger rPFS prolongation for the combination was demonstrated in PTEN-loss tumors versus those without. The combination was well tolerated, with no treatment-related deaths. In mCRPC, combined blockade with abiraterone and ipatasertib showed superior antitumor activity to abiraterone alone, especially in patients with PTEN-loss tumors.

Our results validate the IMDC model for first-line pazopanib in mRCC and confirm the effectiveness and safety of this treatment.

Background The large number of available cancer apps and their impact on the population necessitates a transparent, objective, and comprehensive evaluation by app experts, health care professionals, and users. To date, there have been no analyses or classifications of apps for patients with genitourinary cancers, which are among the most prevalent types of cancer. Objective The objective of our study was to analyze the quality of apps for patients diagnosed with genitourinary cancers using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) and identify high-quality apps. Methods We performed an observational cross-sectional descriptive study of all smartphone apps for patients diagnosed with genitourinary cancers available on iOS and Android platforms. In July 2019, we searched for all available apps for patients with genitourinary cancers (bladder, prostate, cervical, uterine, endometrial, kidney, testicular, and vulvar) or their caregivers. Apps were downloaded and evaluated, and the general characteristics were entered into a database. The evaluation was performed by 2 independent researchers using the MARS questionnaire, which rates 23 evaluation criteria clustered in 5 domains (Engagement, Functionality, Esthetics, Information, and Subjective Quality) on a scale from 1 to 5. Results In total, 46 apps were analyzed. Of these, 31 (67%) were available on Android, 6 (13%) on iOS, and 9 (20%) on both platforms. The apps were free in 89% of cases (41/46), and 61% (28/46) had been updated in the previous year. The apps were intended for prostate cancer in 30% of cases (14/46) and cervical cancer in 17% (8/46). The apps were mainly informative (63%, 29/46), preventive (24%, 11/46), and diagnostic (13%, 6/46). Only 7/46 apps (15%) were developed by health care organizations. The mean MARS score for the overall quality of the 46 apps was 2.98 (SD 0.77), with a maximum of 4.63 and a minimum of 1.95. Functionality scores were quite similar for most of the apps, with the greatest differences in Engagement and Esthetics, which showed acceptable scores in one-third of the apps. The 5 apps with the highest MARS score were the following: “Bladder cancer manager,” “Kidney cancer manager,” “My prostate cancer manager,” “Target Ovarian Cancer Symptoms Diary,” and “My Cancer Coach.” We observed statistically significant differences in the MARS score between the operating systems and the developer types (P<.001 and P=.01, respectively), but not for cost (P=.62). Conclusions MARS is a helpful methodology to decide which apps can be prescribed to patients and to identify which features should be addressed to improve these tools. Most of the apps designed for patients with genitourinary cancers only try to provide data about the disease, without coherent interactivity. The participation of health professionals in the development of these apps is low; nevertheless, we observed that both the participation of health professionals and regular updates were correlated with quality.

Primary renal lymphoma is a controversial entity. Only 29 cases have been reported since 1980. Diagnostic criteria are not well established. We report here 3 new cases and review the literature. Primary renal lymphoma was considered on the basis of uni- or bilateral nonobstructive nephromegaly with or without renal failure. In all cases, the diagnosis was made after renal biopsy. Extrarenal abdominal involvement was excluded by imaging techniques. The role of staging laparotomy remains controversial. Chemotherapy is the treatment of choice, but the prognosis is poor. We propose a clinical definition of primary renal lymphoma in order to achieve a better management of the disease.