Purpose: This is the first randomized phase II/III trial comparing two carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimens in patients with urothelial cancer who are ineligible (“unfit”) for cisplatin chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: The primary objective of the phase III part of this study was to compare the overall survival (OS) of chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable disease and an impaired renal function (glomerular filtration rate < 60 but > 30 mL/min) and/or performance score of 2 who were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) or methotrexate/carboplatin/vinblastine (M-CAVI). To detect an increase of 50% in median survival with GC compared with M-CAVI (13.5 v 9 months) based on a two-sided log-rank test at error rates α = .05 and β = .20, 225 patients were required. Secondary end points were overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and quality of life. Results: In all, 238 patients were randomly assigned by 29 institutions over a period of 7 years. The median follow-up was 4.5 years. Best ORRs were 41.2% (36.1% confirmed response) for patients receiving GC versus 30.3% (21.0% confirmed response) for patients receiving M-CAVI (P = .08). Median OS was 9.3 months in the GC arm and 8.1 months in the M-CAVI arm (P = .64). There was no difference in PFS (P = .78) between the two arms. Severe acute toxicity (death, grade 4 thrombocytopenia with bleeding, grade 3 or 4 renal toxicity, neutropenic fever, or mucositis) was observed in 9.3% of patients receiving GC and 21.2% of patients receiving M-CAVI. Conclusion: There were no significant differences in efficacy between the two treatment groups. The incidence of severe acute toxicities was higher for those receiving M-CAVI.

Purpose: Vinflunine (VFL) is a new microtubule inhibitor that has activity against transitional cell carcinoma of urothelial tract (TCCU). We conducted a randomized phase III study of VFL and best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in the treatment of patients with advanced TCCU who had experienced progression after a first-line platinum-containing regimen.Patients and Methods: The study was designed to compare overall survival (OS) between patients receiving VFL + BSC (performance status [PS] = 0: 320 mg/m², every 3 weeks; PS = 0 with previous pelvic radiation and PS = 1: 280 mg/m²subsequently escalated to 320 mg/m²) or BSC.Results: Three hundred seventy patients were randomly assigned (VFL + BSC, n =253; BSC, n = 117). Both arms were well balanced except there were more patients with PS more than 1 (10% difference) in the BSC arm. Main grade 3 or 4 toxicities for VFL + BSC were neutropenia (50%), febrile neutropenia (6%), anemia (19%), fatigue (19%), and constipation (16%). In the intent-to-treat population, the objective of a median 2-month survival advantage (6.9 months for VFL + BSC v 4.6 months for BSC) was achieved (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.12) but was not statistically significant (P = .287). Multivariate Cox analysis adjusting for prognostic factors showed statistically significant effect of VFL on OS (P = .036), reducing the death risk by 23% (HR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.98). In the eligible population (n = 357), the median OS was significantly longer for VFL + BSC than BSC (6.9 v 4.3 months, respectively), with the difference being statistically significant (P = .040). Overall response rate, disease control, and progression-free survival were all statistically significant favoring VFL + BSC (P = .006, P = .002, and P = .001, respectively).Conclusion: VFL demonstrates a survival advantage in second-line treatment for advanced TCCU. Consistency of results exists with significant and meaningful benefit over all efficacy parameters. Safety profile is acceptable, and therefore, VFL seems to be a reasonable option for TCCU progressing after first-line platinum-based therapy.

In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics. To present the report of APCCC 2017. Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions. The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process. Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data. The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process.

Purpose: The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) is a standard regimen in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. A phase I/II study suggested that a three-drug regimen that included paclitaxel had greater antitumor activity and might improve survival. Patients and Methods: We conducted a randomized phase III study to compare paclitaxel/cisplatin/gemcitabine (PCG) with GC in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and toxicity. Results: From 2001 to 2004, 626 patients were randomly assigned; 312 patients were assigned to PCG, and 314 patients were assigned to GC. After a median follow-up of 4.6 years, the median OS was 15.8 months on PCG versus 12.7 months on GC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; P = .075). OS in the subgroup of all eligible patients was significantly longer on PCG (3.2 months; HR, 0.82; P = .03), as was the case in patients with bladder primary tumors. PFS was not significantly longer on PCG (HR, 0.87; P = .11). Overall response rate was 55.5% on PCG and 43.6% on GC (P = .0031). Both treatments were well tolerated, with more thrombocytopenia and bleeding on GC than PCG (11.4% v 6.8%, respectively; P = .05) and more febrile neutropenia on PCG than GC (13.2% v 4.3%, respectively; P < .001). Conclusion: The addition of paclitaxel to GC provides a higher response rate and a 3.1-month survival benefit that did not reach statistical significance. Novel approaches will be required to obtain major improvements in survival of incurable urothelial cancer.

Germ cell tumour is the most frequent malignant tumour type in young men with a 100% rise in the incidence every 20 years. Despite this, the high sensitivity of germ cell tumours to platinum-based chemotherapy, together with radiation and surgical measures, leads to the high cure rate of ≥99% in early stages and 90%, 75-80% and 50% in advanced disease with ‘good’, ‘intermediate’ and ‘poor’ prognostic criteria (IGCCCG classification), respectively. The high cure rate in patients with limited metastatic disease allows the reduction of overall treatment load, and therefore less acute and long-term toxicity, e.g. organ sparing surgery for specific cases, reduced dose and treatment volume of irradiation or substitution of node dissection by surveillance or adjuvant chemotherapy according to the presence or absence of vascular invasion. Thus, different treatment options according to prognostic factors including histology, stage and patient factors and possibilities of the treating centre as well may be used to define the treatment strategy which is definitively chosen for an individual patient. However, this strategy of reduction of treatment load as well as the treatment itself require very high expertise of the treating physician with careful management and follow-up and thorough cooperation by the patient as well to maintain the high rate for cure. Treatment decisions must be based on the available evidence which has been the basis for this consensus guideline delivering a clear proposal for diagnostic and treatment measures in each stage of gonadal and extragonadal germ cell tumour and individual clinical situations. Since this guideline is based on the highest evidence level available today, a deviation from these proposals should be a rare and justified exception.