C‐reactive protein flare‐response predicts long‐term efficacy to first‐line anti‐PD‐1‐based combination therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Objectives Immune checkpoint blockade (IO) has revolutionised the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Early C-reactive protein (CRP) kinetics, especially the recently introduced CRP flare-response phenomenon, has shown promising results to predict IO efficacy in mRCC, but has only been studied in second line or later. Here, we aimed to validate the predictive value of early CRP kinetics for 1st-line treatment of mRCC with αPD-1 plus either αCTLA-4 (IO+IO) or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO+TKI). Methods In this multicentre retrospective study, we investigated the predictive potential of early CRP kinetics during 1st-line IO therapy. Ninety-five patients with mRCC from six tertiary referral centres with either IO+IO (N = 59) or IO+TKI (N = 36) were included. Patients were classified as CRP flare-responders, CRP responders or non-CRP responders as previously described, and their oncological outcome was compared. Results Our data validate the predictive potential of early CRP kinetics in 1st-line immunotherapy in mRCC. CRP responders, especially CRP flare-responders, had significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with non-CRP responders (median PFS: CRP flare-responder: 19.2 months vs. responders: 16.2 vs. non-CRP responders: 5.6, P < 0.001). In both the IO+IO and IO+TKI subgroups, early CRP kinetics remained significantly associated with improved PFS. CRP flare-response was also associated with long-term response ≥ 12 months. Conclusions Early CRP kinetics appears to be a low-cost and easy-to-implement on-treatment biomarker to predict response to 1st-line IO combination therapy. It has potential to optimise therapy monitoring and might represent a new standard of care biomarker for immunotherapy in mRCC

Diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis without histological proof in the prostate-specific membrane antigen era: the jury is still out

Refers to Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Without Histological Proof: A Possibility in the Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Era? European Urology Open Science, Volume 44, October 2022, Pages 30-32. Joris G. Heetman, Lieke Wever, Leonor J. Paulino Pereira, Roderick C.N. van den Bergh https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.06.01

Management of medium and long term complications following prostate cancer treatment resulting in urinary diversion – a narrative review

The purpose of this narrative review is to discuss and highlight recently published studies regarding the surgical management of patients suffering from prostate cancer treatment complications. Focus will be put on the recalcitrant and more complex cases which might lead to urinary diversion as a definite, last resort treatment. It is in the nature of every treatment, that complications will occur and be bothersome for both patients and physicians. A small percentage of patients following prostate cancer treatment (radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or other focal therapies) will suffer side effects and thus, will experience a loss of quality of life. These side effects can persist for months and even years. Often, conservative management strategies fail resulting in recalcitrant recurrences. Prostate cancer patients with “end-stage bladder,” “devastated outlet,” or a history of multiple failed interventions, are fortunately rare, but can be highly challenging for both patients and Urologists. In a state of multiple previous surgical procedures and an immense psychological strain for the patient, urinary diversion can offer a definite, last resort surgical solution for this small group of patients. Ideally, they should be transferred to centers with experience in this field and a careful patient selection is needed. As these cases are highly complex, a multidisciplinary approach is often necessary in order to guarantee an improvement of quality of life

Is standardization transferable? Initial experience of urethral surgery at the University Hospital Frankfurt

Background: Since January 2018 performance of urethroplasties is done on regular basis at the University Hospital Frankfurt (UKF). We aimed to implement and transfer an institutional standardized perioperative algorithm for urethral surgery (established at the University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf—UKE) using a validated Urethral Stricture Surgery Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (USS-PROM) in patients undergoing urethroplasty at UKF. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent urethroplasty for urethral stricture disease between January 2018 and January 2020 at UKF. All patients were offered to revisit for clinical follow-up (FU) and completion of USS-PROM. Primary end point was stricture recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints were functional outcomes, quality of life (QoL), and patient satisfaction. Results: In total, 50 patients underwent urethroplasty and 74 and 24% had a history of previous urethrotomy or urethroplasty, respectively. A buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty was performed in 86% (n = 43). After patient's exclusion due to lost of FU, FU <3 months, and/or a pending second stage procedure, 40 patients were eligible for final analysis. At median FU of 10 months (interquartile-range 5.0–18.0), RFS was 83%. After successful voiding trial, the postoperative median Qmax significantly improved (24.0 vs. 7.0 mL/s; p < 0.01). Conversely, median residual urine decreased significantly (78 vs. 10 mL; p < 0.01). Overall, 95% of patients stated that QoL improved and 90% were satisfied by the surgical outcome. Conclusions: We demonstrated a successful implementation and transfer of an institutional standardized perioperative algorithm for urethral surgery from one location (UKE) to another (UKF). In our short-term FU, urethroplasty showed excellent RFS, low complication rates, good functional results, improvement of QoL and high patient satisfaction. PROMs allow an objective comparison between different centers

Cancer-specific survival after radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in high-risk and very high-risk African American prostate cancer patients

Background To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk African American patients, as well as Johns Hopkins University (JHU) high-risk and very high-risk patients. Materials and methods Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010–2016), we identified 4165 NCCN high-risk patients, of whom 1944 (46.7%) and 2221 (53.3%) patients qualified for JHU high-risk or very high-risk definitions. Of all 4165 patients, 1390 (33.5%) were treated with RP versus 2775 (66.6%) with EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models addressed CSM before and after 1:1 propensity score matching between RP and EBRT NCCN high-risk patients. Subsequently, analyses were repeated separately in JHU high-risk and very high-risk subgroups. Finally, all analyses were repeated after landmark analyses were applied. Results In the NCCN high-risk cohort, 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 2.4 versus 5.2%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30–0.84, p = 0.009) favoring RP. In JHU very high-risk patients 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 3.7 versus 8.4%, respectively, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.28–0.95, p = 0.03) favoring RP. Conversely, in JHU high-risk patients, no significant CSM difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (5-year CSM rates: 1.3 vs 1.3%; multivariable hazard ratio: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16–1.90, p = 0.3). Observations were confirmed in propensity score-matched and landmark analyses adjusted cohorts. Conclusions In JHU very high-risk African American patients, RP may hold a CSM advantage over EBRT, but not in JHU high-risk African American patients

Effect of chemotherapy on overall survival in contemporary metastatic prostate cancer patients

Introduction: Randomized clinical trials demonstrated improved overall survival in chemotherapy exposed metastatic prostate cancer patients. However, real-world data validating this effect with large scale epidemiological data sets are scarce and might not agree with trials. We tested this hypothesis. Materials and Methods: We identified de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2014-2015). Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression models tested for overall survival differences between chemotherapy-exposed patients vs chemotherapy-naïve patients. All analyses were repeated in propensity-score matched cohorts. Additionally, landmark analyses were applied to account for potential immortal time bias. Results: Overall, 4295 de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients were identified. Of those, 905 (21.1%) patients received chemotherapy vs 3390 (78.9%) did not. Median overall survival was not reached at 30 months follow-up. Chemotherapy-exposed patients exhibited significantly better overall survival (61.6 vs 54.3%, multivariable HR:0.82, CI: 0.72-0.96, p=0.01) at 30 months compared to their chemotherapy-naïve counterparts. These findings were confirmed in propensity score matched analyses (multivariable HR: 0.77, CI:0.66-0.90, p<0.001). Results remained unchanged after landmark analyses were applied in propensity score matched population. Conclusions: In this contemporary real-world population-based cohort, chemotherapy for metastatic prostate cancer patients was associated with better overall survival. However, the magnitude of overall survival benefit was not comparable to phase 3 trials

Influence of biopsy gleason score on the risk of lymph node invasion in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy

Objective: To analyze the influence of biopsy Gleason score on the risk for lymph node invasion (LNI) during pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 684 patients, who underwent RP between 2014 and June 2020 due to PCa. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression, as well as binary regression tree models were used to assess the risk of positive LNI and evaluate the need of PLND in men with intermediate-risk PCa. Results: Of the 672 eligible patients with RP, 80 (11.9%) men harbored low-risk, 32 (4.8%) intermediate-risk with international society of urologic pathologists grade (ISUP) 1 (IR-ISUP1), 215 (32.0%) intermediate-risk with ISUP 2 (IR-ISUP2), 99 (14.7%) intermediate-risk with ISUP 3 (IR-ISUP3), and 246 (36.6%) high-risk PCa. Proportions of LNI were 0, 3.1, 3.7, 5.1, and 24.0% for low-risk, IR-ISUP1, IR-ISUP 2, IR-ISUP-3, and high-risk PCa, respectively (p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, after adjustment for patient and surgical characteristics, IR-ISUP1 [hazard ratio (HR) 0.10, p = 0.03], IR-ISUP2 (HR 0.09, p < 0.001), and IR-ISUP3 (HR 0.18, p < 0.001) were independent predictors for lower risk of LNI, compared with men with high-risk PCa disease. Conclusions: The international society of urologic pathologists grade significantly influence the risk of LNI in patients with intermediate- risk PCa. The risk of LNI only exceeds 5% in men with IR-ISUP3 PCa. In consequence, the need for PLND in selected patients with IR-ISUP 1 or IR-ISUP2 PCa should be critically discussed

Cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy vs external beam radiotherapy in high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients

Purpose: To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates in Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients according to treatment type, radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010–2016), we identified 2290 NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) high-risk (HR) Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients. Of those, 893 (39.0%) were treated with RP vs 1397 (61.0%) with EBRT. First, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models tested for CSM differences after adjustment for other cause mortality (OCM). Second, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models were refitted after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, PSA, biopsy Gleason score, cT-stage, cN-stage). Results: In NCCN HR patients, 5-year CSM rates for RP vs EBRT were 2.4 vs 4.7%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.19–0.73, p = 0.004) favoring RP. However, after propensity score matching, the hazard ratio of 0.54 was no longer statistically significant (95% CI 0.21–1.39, p = 0.2). Conclusion: Without the use of strictest adjustment for population differences, NCCN high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients appear to benefit more of RP than EBRT. However, after strictest adjustment for baseline patient and tumor characteristics between RP and EBRT cohorts, the apparent CSM benefit of RP is no longer statistically significant. In consequence, in Hispanic/Latino NCCN high-risk patients, either treatment modality results in similar CSM outcome

Effect of chemotherapy in metastatic prostate cancer according to race/ethnicity groups

Background: No North-American study tested the survival benefit of chemotherapy in de novo metastatic prostate cancer according to race/ethnicity. We addressed this void. Methods: We identified de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2014–2015). Separate and specific Kaplan–Meier plots and Cox regression models tested for overall survival differences between chemotherapy-exposed versus chemotherapy-naïve patients in four race/ethnicity groups: Caucasian versus African-American versus Hispanic/Latino vs Asian. Race/ethnicity specific propensity score matching was applied. Here, additional landmark analysis was performed. Results: Of 4232 de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients, 2690 (63.3%) were Caucasian versus 783 (18.5%) African-American versus 504 (11.8%) Hispanic/Latino versus 257 (6.1%) Asian. Chemotherapy rates were: 21.3% versus 20.8% versus 21.0% versus 20.2% for Caucasians versus African-Americans versus Hispanic/Latinos versus Asians, respectively. At 30 months of follow-up, overall survival rates between chemotherapy-exposed versus chemotherapy-naïve patients were 61.5 versus 53.2% (multivariable hazard ratio [mHR]: 0.76, 95 confidence interval [CI]: 0.63–0.92, p = 0.004) in Caucasians, 55.2 versus 51.6% (mHR: 0.76, 95 CI: 0.54–1.07, p = 0.11) in African-Americans, 62.8 versus 57.0% (mHR: 1.11, 95 CI: 0.73–1.71, p = 0.61) in Hispanic/Latinos and 77.7 versus 65.0% (mHR: 0.31, 95 CI: 0.11–0.89, p = 0.03) in Asians. Virtually the same findings were recorded after propensity score matching within each race/ethnicity group. Conclusions: Caucasian and Asian de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients exhibit the greatest overall survival benefit from chemotherapy exposure. Conversely, no overall survival benefit from chemotherapy exposure could be identified in either African-Americans or Hispanic/Latinos. Further studies are clearly needed to address these race/ethnicity specific disparities

Survival after radical prostatectomy vs. radiation therapy in ductal carcinoma of the prostate

Aim To compare cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs. external beam radiotherapy (RT) in patients with ductal carcinoma (DC) of the prostate. Materials and methods Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2016), we identified 369 DC patients, of whom 303 (82%) vs. 66 (18%) were treated with RP vs. RT, respectively. Kaplan-Meier plots and uni- and stepwise multivariate Cox regression models addressed CSM in the unmatched population. After propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), Kaplan-Meier curve and Cox regression models tested the effect of RP vs RT on CSM. Results Overall, RT patients were older, harbored higher PSA values, higher clinical T and higher Gleason grade groups. 5-year CSM rates were respectively 4.2 vs. 10% for RP vs. RT (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.16-0.99, p = 0.048, favoring RP). At step-by-step multivariate Cox regression, after adding possible confounders, the central tendency of the HR for RP vs. RT approached 1. PSM resulted into 124 vs. 53 patients treated respectively with RP vs. RT. After PSM, as well as after IPTW, the protective effect of RP was no longer present (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.23-5.73, p = 0.9 and 0.97, 95% CI 0.35-2.66, p = 0.9, respectively). Conclusions Although CSM rate of ductal carcinoma RP patients is lower of that of RT patients, this apparent benefit disappears after statistical adjustment for population differences