ResearchPad - urologic-oncology https://www.researchpad.co Default RSS Feed en-us © 2020 Newgen KnowledgeWorks <![CDATA[Serum Levels of MicroRNA-371a-3p (M371 Test) as a New Biomarker of Testicular Germ Cell Tumors: Results of a Prospective Multicentric Study]]> https://www.researchpad.co/article/elastic_article_14389 Previous studies suggested that serum levels of microRNA (miR)-371a-3p (so-called M371 test) have a much higher sensitivity and specificity than the classic markers of testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs) and are applicable toward both seminoma and nonseminoma. We sought to confirm the usefulness of this test as a novel biomarker for GCT.PATIENTS AND METHODSIn a prospective, multicentric study, serum samples of 616 patients with testicular GCTs and 258 male controls were examined for serum levels of miRNA-371a-3p (miR levels) by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. The GCT population encompassed 359 patients with seminoma and 257 with nonseminoma; 371 had clinical stage I disease, 201 had systemic disease, and 46 had relapses. Paired measurements before and after orchiectomy were performed in 424 patients; 118 with systemic disease had serial measurements during treatment. miR levels were compared with those of β-human chorionic gonadotropin, α-fetoprotein, and lactate dehydrogenase.RESULTSFor the primary diagnosis of GCT, the M371 test showed a sensitivity of 90.1%, a specificity of 94.0%, an area under the curve of 0.966 upon receiver operating characteristic analysis, and a positive predictive value of 97.2%. α-Fetoprotein, β-human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase had sensitivities of less than 50% in seminoma and slightly higher sensitivities in nonseminomas. miR levels were significantly associated with clinical stage, primary tumor size, and response to treatment. Relapses had elevated miR levels that subsequently dropped to normal upon remission. Teratoma did not express miR-371a-3p.CONCLUSIONThe M371 test outperforms the classic markers of GCT with both a sensitivity and a specificity greater than 90%. All histologic subgroups, except teratoma, express this marker. The test could be considered for clinical implementation after further validation. ]]> <![CDATA[PARP inhibitor combinations in prostate cancer]]> https://www.researchpad.co/article/N337c50cc-8022-4a2a-9745-eea7b6aa6e12

Polyadenosine-diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors cause deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage that can be lethal to cells with deficient repair mechanisms. A number of PARP inhibitors are being tested as treatments for men with prostate cancer, both as monotherapies and in combinations that are based on purported synergies in treatment effect. While the initial single-agent development focused on men with identified deficiencies in DNA-repair pathways, broader patient populations are being considered for combination approaches. This review summarizes the current clinical development of PARP inhibitors and explores the rationale for novel combination strategies.

]]>
<![CDATA[Tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunotherapy combinations in renal cell carcinoma]]> https://www.researchpad.co/article/N7609a680-0bbc-4ccd-abfb-7aa667f2d214

The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been transformed with the advent of antiangiogenics, notably tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Both treatment options have improved outcomes of patients and modified the natural history of mRCC. Clinical investigations have focused on evaluating combination regimens containing ICIs and VEGFR-directed TKIs. Namely, the combinations of axitinib plus pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-426) and axitinib plus avelumab (JAVELIN RENAL 101) have shown improved outcomes compared with sunitinib in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC. In this review, we discuss the clinical data of single-agent TKIs and ICIs in mRCC and the rationale for the combination ICIs and TKIs based on preclinical and clinical evidence. We also explore the current challenges for regimen selection and development of predictive biomarkers.

]]>