Individual response to sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients is highly variable. Earlier, sunitinib outcome was related to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in CYP3A5... Show moreIndividual response to sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients is highly variable. Earlier, sunitinib outcome was related to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in CYP3A5 and ABCB1. Our aim is to provide novel insights into biological mechanisms underlying sunitinib action. We included mRCC patients from the European EuroTARGET consortium (n = 550) and the RIKEN cohort in Japan (n = 204) which were analysed separately and in a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWAS). SNPs were tested for association with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Cox regression. Summary statistics were combined using a fixed effect meta-analysis. SNP rs28520013 in PDLIM3 and the correlated SNPs rs2205096 and rs111356738 both in DSCAM, showed genome-wide significance (p < 5 x 10 (8) ) with PFS and OS in the meta-analysis. The variant T-allele of rs28520013 associated with an inferior PFS of 5.1 months compared to 12.5 months in non-carriers (p = 4.02 x 10 (10), HR = 7.26). T-allele carriers of rs28520013 showed an inferior OS of 6.9 months versus 30.2 months in non-carriers (p = 1.62 x 10 (8), HR = 5.96). In this GWAS we identified novel genetic variants in PDLIM3 and DSCAM that impact PFS and OS in mRCC patients receiving sunitinib. The underlying link between the identified genes and the molecular mechanisms of sunitinib action needs to be elucidated. Show less
Witjes, J.A.; Babjuk, M.; Bellmunt, J.; Bruins, H.M.; Reijke, T.M. de; Santis, M. de; ... ; Horwich, A. 2020
Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To... Show moreBackground: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >= 70% agreement and <= 15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder canceir management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.Patient summary: This report summarises findings from an international, multistake-holder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available. (C) 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Show less
Horwich, A.; Babjuk, M.; Bellmunt, J.; Bruins, H.M.; Reijke, T.M. de; Santis, M. de; ... ; Witjes, J.A. 2019
Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To... Show moreBackground: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference.Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >= 70% agreement and <= 15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach. Show less
