Open partial nephrectomy in renal cancer: a feasible gold standard technique in all hospitals

Introduction. Partial nephrectomy (PN) is playing an increasingly important role in localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) as a true alternative to radical nephrectomy. With the greater experience and expertise of surgical teams, it has become an alternative to radical nephrectomy in young patients when the tumor diameter is 4 cm or less in almost all hospitals since cancer-specific survival outcomes are similar to those obtained with radical nephrectomy. Materials and Methods. The authors comment on their own experience and review the literature, reporting current indications and outcomes including complications. The surgical technique of open partial nephrectomy is outlined. Conclusions. Nowadays, open PN is the gold standard technique to treat small renal masses, and all nonablative techniques must pass the test of time to be compared to PN. It is not ethical for patients to undergo radical surgery just because the urologists involved do not have adequate experience with PN. Patients should be involved in the final treatment decision and, when appropriate, referred to specialized centers with experience in open or laparoscopic partial nephrectomies

Plerixafor and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for first-line steady-state autologous peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in lymphoma and multiple myeloma: results of the prospective PREDICT trial.

In Europe, the combination of plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is approved for the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells for autologous transplantation in patients with lymphoma and myeloma whose cells mobilize poorly. The purpose of this study was to further assess the safety and efficacy of plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for front-line mobilization in European patients with lymphoma or myeloma. In this multicenter, open label, single-arm study, patients received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (10 μg/kg/day) subcutaneously for 4 days; on the evening of day 4 they were given plerixafor (0.24 mg/kg) subcutaneously. Patients underwent apheresis on day 5 after a morning dose of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. The primary study objective was to confirm the safety of mobilization with plerixafor. Secondary objectives included assessment of efficacy (apheresis yield, time to engraftment). The combination of plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was used to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells in 118 patients (90 with myeloma, 25 with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 3 with Hodgkin's disease). Treatment-emergent plerixafor-related adverse events were reported in 24 patients. Most adverse events occurred within 1 hour after injection, were grade 1 or 2 in severity and included gastrointestinal disorders or injection-site reactions. The minimum cell yield (≥ 2 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg) was harvested in 98% of patients with myeloma and in 80% of those with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in a median of one apheresis. The optimum cell dose (≥ 5 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or ≥ 6 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg for myeloma) was harvested in 89% of myeloma patients and 48% of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients. In this prospective, multicenter European study, mobilization with plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor allowed the majority of patients with myeloma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma to undergo transplantation with minimal toxicity, providing further data supporting the safety and efficacy of plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for front-line mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or myeloma.

First-line gefitinib in Caucasian EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients: a phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND Phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study (NCT01203917) to assess efficacy and safety/tolerability of first-line gefitinib in Caucasian patients with stage IIIA/B/IV, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS Treatment: gefitinib 250 mg day(-1) until progression. Primary endpoint: objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints: disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety/tolerability. Pre-planned exploratory objective: EGFR mutation analysis in matched tumour and plasma samples. RESULTS Of 1060 screened patients with NSCLC (859 known mutation status; 118 positive, mutation frequency 14%), 106 with EGFR sensitising mutations were enrolled (female 70.8%; adenocarcinoma 97.2%; never-smoker 64.2%). At data cutoff: ORR 69.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.5-77.7), DCR 90.6% (95% CI 83.5-94.8), median PFS 9.7 months (95% CI 8.5-11.0), median OS 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-NC; 27% maturity). Most common adverse events (AEs; any grade): rash (44.9%), diarrhoea (30.8%); CTC (Common Toxicity Criteria) grade 3/4 AEs: 15%; SAEs: 19%. Baseline plasma 1 samples were available in 803 patients (784 known mutation status; 82 positive; mutation frequency 10%). Plasma 1 EGFR mutation test sensitivity: 65.7% (95% CI 55.8-74.7). CONCLUSION First-line gefitinib was effective and well tolerated in Caucasian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Plasma samples could be considered for mutation analysis if tumour tissue is unavailable.

First-line gefitinib in Caucasian EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients: a phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND: Phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study (NCT01203917) to assess efficacy and safety/tolerability of first-line gefitinib in Caucasian patients with stage IIIA/B/IV, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: TREATMENT: gefitinib 250 mg day(-1) until progression. Primary endpoint: objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints: disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety/tolerability. Pre-planned exploratory objective: EGFR mutation analysis in matched tumour and plasma samples. RESULTS: Of 1060 screened patients with NSCLC (859 known mutation status; 118 positive, mutation frequency 14%), 106 with EGFR sensitising mutations were enrolled (female 70.8%; adenocarcinoma 97.2%; never-smoker 64.2%). At data cutoff: ORR 69.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.5-77.7), DCR 90.6% (95% CI 83.5-94.8), median PFS 9.7 months (95% CI 8.5-11.0), median OS 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-NC; 27% maturity). Most common adverse events (AEs; any grade): rash (44.9%), diarrhoea (30.8%); CTC (Common Toxicity Criteria) grade 3/4 AEs: 15%; SAEs: 19%. Baseline plasma 1 samples were available in 803 patients (784 known mutation status; 82 positive; mutation frequency 10%). Plasma 1 EGFR mutation test sensitivity: 65.7% (95% CI 55.8-74.7). CONCLUSION: First-line gefitinib was effective and well tolerated in Caucasian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Plasma samples could be considered for mutation analysis if tumour tissue is unavailable.