The authors of January’s BJUI Article of The Month come from Hamburg and Mannheim in Germany. The cover shows Hamburg’s Speicherstadt, the largest warehouse district in the world and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Click here for this issue’s Table of Contents
Every Month the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.
In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.
If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.
To compile the safety profile and quality of life (QoL) data for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with cabazitaxel in the UK Early Access Programme (UK EAP).
A total of 112 patients participated at 12 UK cancer centres. All had mCRPC with disease progression during or after docetaxel. Patients received cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks with prednisolone 10 mg daily for up to 10 cycles. Safety assessments were performed before each cycle and QoL was recorded at alternate cycles using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire and visual analogue scale (VAS). Thesafety profile was compiled after completion of the UK EAP and QoL measures were analysed to record trends. No formal statistical analysis was carried out.
The incidences of neutropenic sepsis (6.3%), grade 3 and 4 diarrhoea (4.5%) and grade 3 and 4 cardiac toxicity (0%) were low. Neutropenic sepsis episodes, though low, occurred only in patients who did not receive prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor. There were trends towards improved VAS and EQ-5D-3L pain scores during treatment.
The UK EAP experience indicates that cabazitaxel might improve QoL in mCRPC and represents an advance and a useful addition to the armamentarium of treatment for patients whose disease has progressed during or after docetaxel. In view of the potential toxicity, careful patient selection is important.
In this issue of BJUI, Bahl et al. [1] describe clinical outcomes amongst 112 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 in the UK Early Access Programme (EAP). Patients also received daily oral corticosteroids in a fashion consistent with the phase III TROPIC study and had experienced disease progression during or after docetaxel [2]. The study suggests that improved quality of life and only modest toxicity are achieved with cabazitaxel. Moving forward, the key challenge will be translating these data to clinical practice in the context of a rapidly changing therapeutic landscape.
A veritable game of leapfrog has been ongoing in metastatic prostate cancer. In 2010, two agents were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, sipuleucel-T and cabazitaxel. Sipuleucel-T, a dendritic cell vaccine, remains largely applied in the pre-docetaxel setting in patients who are either asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic. By contrast, the phase III TROPIC trial leading to the approval of cabazitaxel exclusively included patients who had previously received docetaxel. These approvals made for a relatively straightforward approach to mCRPC, with docetaxel therapy flanked by sipuleucel-T and cabazitaxel. Within 2 years, two novel endocrine therapies emerged, abiraterone and enzalutamide, initially approved in the post-docetaxel space and subsequently in the pre-docetaxel space. A fifth agent, radium-223, was approved for mCPRC in 2013 based on a trial conducted in symptomatic patients with bone metastases who were either post-docetaxel or unfit for or refused docetaxel.
Although editorials and position papers abound, there is actually little consensus regarding the sequencing of these agents. Furthermore, the classification of these therapies as pre- or post-docetaxel may be rendered obsolete in the aftermath of the recently reported CHAARTED trial [3]. In that study, a total of 790 patients with mostly extensive (defined as presence of visceral disease or ≥4 bone lesions with ≥1 lesion beyond the spine or pelvis) newly diagnosed metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer were randomized to receive either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone or ADT with six cycles of docetaxel (without daily corticosteroids). The study was closed after a planned interim analysis showed a significant survival advantage in the experimental arm; median overall survival was 57.6 months with docetaxel with ADT vs 44.0 months with ADT alone (hazard ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.37–0.65; P < 0.001). Furthermore, recent data from the phase III STAMPEDE trial corroborate the robust increment provided by combining docetaxel with ADT in patients with metastatic or high-risk non-metastatic castration-sensitive disease [4]. Thus, for many patients, docetaxel may leap to the fore.
If this is the case, where will cabazitaxel be applied? In patients with mCRPC who have received docetaxel in the castration-sensitive setting, either reinstitution of docetaxel or one of the new agents approved since 2010 may be appropriate. The report by Bahl et al. provides useful data to suggest that cabazitaxel would be reasonably tolerated in this setting, and reports quality-of-life benefits in conjunction with a low incidence of neuropathy and no toxic deaths. Conversely, despite the fact that 79.5% of patients received prophylactic G-CSF from cycle 1 and an additional 5.3% received G-CSF with subsequent cycles, 6.3% experienced neutropenic sepsis, which attests to the substantial myelosuppression caused by this agent. The optimum sequencing of all of the available agents for mCRPC is unclear and there is an absence of validated predictive biomarkers to deploy personalized therapy. Hence, eligibility criteria employed in the landmark trials, and clinical factors such as Gleason score and duration of prior ADT and comorbidities have been used to select agents, although these strategies remain unvalidated. There are published retrospective clinical experiences that address sequencing, which are not definitive. Since the advent of abiraterone and enzalutamide, the use of cabazitaxel has declined. Intriguingly, some but not all retrospective studies suggest that cabazitaxel followed by androgen axis inhibitors might lead to improved outcomes compared with androgen axis inhibitors followed by cabazitaxel [5, 6]. Another piece in the puzzle is provided by retrospective studies suggesting that cabazitaxel may retain substantial activity even after docetaxel and novel androgen inhibitors, while docetaxel appears to show poorer activity after androgen inhibitors [7].
In summary, the EAP data from Bahl et al. [1] characterizes the activity and safety of cabazitaxel in a real-world population. Furthermore, the use of prophylactic G-CSF in accordance with guidelines appeared to eliminate the deaths from neutropenic sepsis observed in the TROPIC trial, which did not use routine prophylactic G-CSF. The ongoing three-arm phase III FIRSTANA trial compares cabazitaxel with docetaxel as first-line chemotherapy for mCRPC and also attempts to refine dosing by investigating both the 25 and 20 mg/m2 doses. Similarly, the PROSELICA phase III trial attempts to show the non-inferiority of the 20 mg/m2 dose of cabazitaxel compared with the 25 mg/m2 dose in the post-docetaxel setting. Randomized phase II trials are investigating the impact of early switching of the taxane (docetaxel or cabazitaxel) in the absence of PSA decline ≥30% within 3 months and the impact of switching to cabazitaxel vs a different androgen inhibitor in those progressing on a first-line androgen inhibitor within 6 months.
Every Month the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.
In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.
Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Dr. Ilker Gökce, discussing his paper.
If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.
To evaluate the effect of the interval between the initial and second transurethral resection (TUR) on the outcome of patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) treated with maintenance intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy.
We reviewed the data of patients from 10 centres treated for high-risk NMIBC between 2005 and 2012. Patients without a diagnosis of muscle-invasive cancer on second TUR performed ≤90 days after a complete first TUR, and received at least 1 year of maintenance BCG were included in this study. The interval between first and second TUR in addition to other parameters were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of recurrence and progression.
In all, 242 patients were included. The mean (sd, range) follow-up was 29.4 (22.2, 12–96) months. The 3-year recurrence- and progression-free survival rates of patients who underwent second TUR between 14 and 42 days and 43–90 days were 73.6% vs 46.2% (P < 0.001) and 89.1% vs 79.1% (P = 0.006), respectively. On multivariate analysis, the interval to second TUR was found to be a predictor of both recurrence [odds ratio (OR) 3.598, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.885–8.137; P = 0.001] and progression (OR 2.144, 95% CI 1.447–5.137; P = 0.003).
The interval between first and second TUR should be ≤42 days in order to attain lower recurrence and progression rates. To our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating the effect of the interval between first and second TUR on patient outcomes.
Gökçe et al. [1] have evaluated a group of 242 patients from 10 centres with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) who underwent repeat resection and subsequent follow-up treatment, including induction and maintenance BCG for at least 1 year. They included patients who had repeat transurethral resection (TUR) within 90 days and excluded anyone who was upstaged to T2 or who did not complete 1 year of maintenance BCG. They divided patients into two groups according to time to second TUR, Group A (14–42 days) and Group B (43–90 days). The groups were similar in terms of patient age and gender, tumour multifocality, presence of carcinoma in situ (CIS), and stage and grade. The only factors on multivariable analysis that were statistically significant predictors of recurrence were grade, associated CIS, and time to second TUR. Only grade and time to second TUR were significant predictors of progression.
Figures 1 and 2 in the paper show an enormous difference in both recurrence-free survival and progression-free survival according to time to second TUR. For both outcomes, 42 days seemed to be the ‘magic number’, since re-TUR after 42 days was associated with much worse outcome. Patients who had repeat TUR at >42 days had nearly double the rate of both recurrence and progression than those who had repeat TUR within 6 weeks.
This is quite a dramatic result, and it is hard to imagine biologically how such an effect could be explained. Second TUR has two primary objectives, to identify occult muscle-invasive disease, and to remove tumour that was inadvertently left behind at the first resection. Both of these goals have been shown to be important and to result in better outcomes compared with no repeat TUR [2]. However, in this study [1], patients who had repeat TUR at >6 weeks after the initial resection had a progression rate similar to those in prior studies who had no second TUR at all [2]. What could be occurring that would cause a delay of just a few weeks in second TUR to double the risk of subsequent progression of disease?
This is a retrospective study without centralised pathology review, and no information is available about the reasons that patients had repeat TUR at an earlier or later interval, nor about the pathological findings at the repeat TUR. One must be wary that there is significant selection bias involved. There is a hint of this in the fact that the rate of residual tumour at repeat TUR in the two groups is very different (35% vs 53%). Perhaps the later group also had a higher rate of residual invasive components on the repeat resection? Herr et al. [3] have shown that residual T1 disease on repeat TUR is highly predictive of subsequent progression. Or alternatively, perhaps it is the delay in administration of BCG that really results in the worse outcome? Patients with a longer delay to repeat TUR by definition also have at least an equivalent delay in starting BCG.
Although high-risk NMIBC can certainly be aggressive, it seems highly unlikely that a week or two-one way or another in terms of treatment would make such a huge difference in the outcome. However, this is a provocative study that remains to be validated. It will be useful to see if other groups with similar patient populations can duplicate these findings. For the time being, as a routine practice it makes sense to repeat the TUR sooner rather than later whenever possible.
To evaluate the effect of the interval between the initial and second transurethral resection (TUR) on the outcome of patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) treated with maintenance intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy.
We reviewed the data of patients from 10 centres treated for high-risk NMIBC between 2005 and 2012. Patients without a diagnosis of muscle-invasive cancer on second TUR performed ≤90 days after a complete first TUR, and received at least 1 year of maintenance BCG were included in this study. The interval between first and second TUR in addition to other parameters were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of recurrence and progression.
In all, 242 patients were included. The mean (sd, range) follow-up was 29.4 (22.2, 12–96) months. The 3-year recurrence- and progression-free survival rates of patients who underwent second TUR between 14 and 42 days and 43–90 days were 73.6% vs 46.2% (P < 0.001) and 89.1% vs 79.1% (P = 0.006), respectively. On multivariate analysis, the interval to second TUR was found to be a predictor of both recurrence [odds ratio (OR) 3.598, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.885–8.137; P = 0.001] and progression (OR 2.144, 95% CI 1.447–5.137; P = 0.003).
The interval between first and second TUR should be ≤42 days in order to attain lower recurrence and progression rates. To our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating the effect of the interval between first and second TUR on patient outcomes.
Every Month the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.
In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.
Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Prof. Osamu Yamaguchi discussing his paper.
If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.
To examine the safety and efficacy of mirabegron as ‘add-on’ therapy to solifenacin in patients with overactive bladder (OAB).
This multicentre, open-label, phase IV study enrolled patients aged ≥20 years with OAB, as determined by an OAB symptom score (OABSS) total of ≥3 points and an OABSS Question 3 score of ≥2 points, who were being treated with solifenacin at a stable dose of 2.5 or 5 mg once daily for at least 4 weeks. Study duration was 18 weeks, comprising a 2-week screening period and a 16-week treatment period. Patients meeting eligibility criteria continued to receive solifenacin (2.5 or 5 mg once daily) and additional mirabegron (25 mg once daily) for 16 weeks. After 8 weeks of treatment, the mirabegron dose could be increased to 50 mg if the patient’s symptom improvement was not sufficient, if he/she was agreeable to the dose increase, and the investigator judged that there were no safety concerns. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, vital signs, 12-lead electrocardiogram, QT corrected for heart rate using Fridericia’s correction (QTcF) interval and post-void residual (PVR) volume. Efficacy endpoints were changes from baseline in OABSS total score, OAB questionnaire short form (OAB-q SF) score (symptom bother and total health-related quality of life [HRQL] score), mean number of micturitions/24 h, mean number of urgency episodes/24 h, mean number of urinary incontinence (UI) episodes/24 h, mean number of urgency UI episodes/24 h, mean volume voided/micturition, and mean number of nocturia episodes/night. Patients were instructed to complete the OABSS sheets at weeks −2, 0, 8 and 16 (or at discontinuation), OAB-q SF sheets at weeks 0, 8 and 16 (or at discontinuation) and patient voiding diaries at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12 and 16 (or at discontinuation).
Overall incidence of drug-related treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) was 23.3%. Almost all TEAEs were mild or moderate. The most common TEAE was constipation, with similar incidence in the groups receiving a dose increase to that observed in the groups maintained on the original dose. Changes in PVR volume, QTcF interval, pulse rate and blood pressure were not considered to be clinically significant and there were no reports of urinary retention. Significant improvement was seen for changes in efficacy endpoints from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) in all groups (patients receiving solifenacin 2.5 or 5 mg + mirabegron 25 or 50 mg).
Add-on therapy with mirabegron 25 mg once daily for 16 weeks, with an optional dose increase to 50 mg at week 8, was well tolerated in patients with OAB treated with solifenacin 2.5 mg or 5 mg once daily. There were significant improvements from baseline to EOT in OAB symptoms with combination therapy with mirabegron and solifenacin. Add-on therapy with mirabegron and an antimuscarinic agent, such as solifenacin, may provide an attractive therapeutic option.
Overactive bladder (OAB) is one of the most frequent LUTS in both sexes, and is associated with significant bother and impact on quality of life [1]. In many cases, no underlying cause is found and OAB is stated as being ‘idiopathic’. Until recently, the first-line management of idiopathic OAB has been based on the use of antimuscarinics, solifenacin being one of the most prescribed drugs; however, the long-term adherence to antimuscarinics has been shown to be rather low because of lack of efficacy, treatment switch or adverse events, or for mixed reasons [2].
A few years ago, β3-adrenergics were successfully introduced as an alternative to antimuscarinics for OAB management. The efficacy of β3-adrenergics has been shown and they are associated with a new safety profile that differs from that of antimuscarinics [3]. Mirabegron, the most widely used β3-adrenergic drug, has thus gained popularity in clinical practice. Given that β3-adrenergics and anticholinergics have a distinct mechanism of action, the combination of both drugs has been seen as a possible option and has been tested through a huge randomized controlled trial [4].
In the present issue of BJUI, Yamaguchi et al. [5] report the results of the MILAI study, an open-label phase IV trial assessing the effects of mirabegron as an add-on therapy in patients treated for OAB with solifenacin. They found that the addition of mirabegron to solifenacin generated only mild to moderate adverse events, and led to promising efficacy results; however, this study, which the authors call a preliminary study, raises a number of questions that remain completely unanswered.
First, even if seen as fluctuant, idiopathic OAB is considered to be a chronic disease. Long-term results must be seen as a critical issue in the field, and there is no guarantee that the short-term data presented in the MILAI study will stand the test of time in terms of efficacy and adherence.
Second, the study raises an important question about the optimum use of mirabegron in idiopathic OAB. Should it be a first-line option, a secondary option after antimuscarinics (available for treatment switch), or an add-on therapy, as it is presented in the present trial? There might be some room for each of these pathways depending on the patient history and characteristics, and the results obtained under antimuscarinics. From that point of view, the MILAI study is probably too weak to identify factors associated with failure of the combination therapy. Further studies should better detail patient inclusion criteria (because ‘failure’ of antimuscarinics is a heterogeneous concept), as well as characteristics of non-responders. In the present study, these two points are not detailed, and the study provides only a global statistically significant improvement, paving the way for additional research. A better understanding of the mechanism of action of the treatment combination would be of great value to move forward and enable better patient selection.
Finally, one of the upcoming challenges will be to integrate mirabegron as an add-on therapy in the world of male LUTS, including benign prostatic obstruction, where β3-adrenergics probably have an important role to play. As underlined by the authors, several studies are on the way, and their results (in a male population) are urgently awaited.
After having been successfully introduced in most countries in the western world, the new life of mirabegron has begun (including post-marketing studies, extensions of market authorizations, potentially new indications, combination therapy). The future will tell us whether this success story will continue.
2 Veenboer PW, Bosch JL. Long-term adherence to antimuscarinic therapy in everyday practice: a systematic review. J Urol 2014; 191: 1003–8
To examine the safety and efficacy of mirabegron as ‘add-on’ therapy to solifenacin in patients with overactive bladder (OAB).
This multicentre, open-label, phase IV study enrolled patients aged ≥20 years with OAB, as determined by an OAB symptom score (OABSS) total of ≥3 points and an OABSS Question 3 score of ≥2 points, who were being treated with solifenacin at a stable dose of 2.5 or 5 mg once daily for at least 4 weeks. Study duration was 18 weeks, comprising a 2-week screening period and a 16-week treatment period. Patients meeting eligibility criteria continued to receive solifenacin (2.5 or 5 mg once daily) and additional mirabegron (25 mg once daily) for 16 weeks. After 8 weeks of treatment, the mirabegron dose could be increased to 50 mg if the patient’s symptom improvement was not sufficient, if he/she was agreeable to the dose increase, and the investigator judged that there were no safety concerns. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, vital signs, 12-lead electrocardiogram, QT corrected for heart rate using Fridericia’s correction (QTcF) interval and post-void residual (PVR) volume. Efficacy endpoints were changes from baseline in OABSS total score, OAB questionnaire short form (OAB-q SF) score (symptom bother and total health-related quality of life [HRQL] score), mean number of micturitions/24 h, mean number of urgency episodes/24 h, mean number of urinary incontinence (UI) episodes/24 h, mean number of urgency UI episodes/24 h, mean volume voided/micturition, and mean number of nocturia episodes/night. Patients were instructed to complete the OABSS sheets at weeks −2, 0, 8 and 16 (or at discontinuation), OAB-q SF sheets at weeks 0, 8 and 16 (or at discontinuation) and patient voiding diaries at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12 and 16 (or at discontinuation).
Overall incidence of drug-related treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) was 23.3%. Almost all TEAEs were mild or moderate. The most common TEAE was constipation, with similar incidence in the groups receiving a dose increase to that observed in the groups maintained on the original dose. Changes in PVR volume, QTcF interval, pulse rate and blood pressure were not considered to be clinically significant and there were no reports of urinary retention. Significant improvement was seen for changes in efficacy endpoints from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) in all groups (patients receiving solifenacin 2.5 or 5 mg + mirabegron 25 or 50 mg).
Add-on therapy with mirabegron 25 mg once daily for 16 weeks, with an optional dose increase to 50 mg at week 8, was well tolerated in patients with OAB treated with solifenacin 2.5 mg or 5 mg once daily. There were significant improvements from baseline to EOT in OAB symptoms with combination therapy with mirabegron and solifenacin. Add-on therapy with mirabegron and an antimuscarinic agent, such as solifenacin, may provide an attractive therapeutic option.
Every Month the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.
In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.
Finally, the third post under the Article of the Month heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Dr. Anna Gavin discussing his paper.
If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.
Anna T. Gavin, Frances J. Drummond*, Conan Donnelly, Eamonn O’Leary*, Linda Sharp† and Heather R. Kinnear
Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Belfast Northern Ireland, UK, *National Cancer Registry Ireland, Building 6800, Airport Business Park Cork, Ireland, and †Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, England, UK
To investigate the prevalence of physical symptoms that were ‘ever’ and ‘currently’ experienced by survivors of prostate cancer at a population level, to assess burden and thus inform policy to support survivors.
The study included 3 348 men surviving prostate cancer for 2–18 years after diagnosis. A cross-sectional, postal survey of 6 559 survivors diagnosed 2–18 years ago with primary, invasive prostate cancer (ICD10-C61) identified via national, population-based cancer registries in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Questions included symptoms at diagnosis, primary treatments and physical symptoms (erectile dysfunction [ED]/urinary incontinence [UI]/bowel problems/breast changes/loss of libido/hot flashes/fatigue) experienced ‘ever’ and at questionnaire completion (‘current’). Symptom proportions were weighted by age, country and time since diagnosis. Bonferroni corrections were applied for multiple comparisons.
Adjusted response rate 54%; 75% reported at least one ‘current’ physical symptom (‘ever’ 90%), with 29% reporting at least three. Prevalence varied by treatment. Overall, 57% reported current ED and this was highest after radical prostatectomy (RP, 76%) followed by external beam radiotherapy with concurrent hormone therapy (HT, 64%). UI (overall ‘current’ 16%) was highest after RP (‘current’ 28%; ‘ever’ 70%). While 42% of brachytherapy patients reported no ‘current’ symptoms, 43% reported ‘current’ ED and 8% ‘current’ UI. ‘Current’ hot flashes (41%), breast changes (18%) and fatigue (28%) were reported more often by patients on HT.
Symptoms after prostate cancer treatment are common, often multiple, persist long-term and vary by treatment method. They represent a significant health burden. An estimated 1.6% of men aged >45 years are survivors of prostate cancer and currently experiencing an adverse physical symptom. Recognition and treatment of physical symptoms should be prioritised in patient follow-up. This information should facilitate men and clinicians when deciding about treatment as differences in survival between radical treatments is minimal.