Search

The aim of this article is to raise awareness among healthcare providers about the adverse events (AEs) associated with the combined treatment with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab. The differential diagnostic allocation of these AEs to the respective agents is discussed, overlaps between the side effect profiles of the two drugs are identified and strategies for an effective management of these AEs are presented. The recommendations are based on the currently valid prescription information for both drugs, the results of pivotal approval studies and the guidelines of recognized specialist organizations as well as the clinical experience of the authors., Competing Interests: Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien. Interessenkonflikt: Gemäß den Richtlinien des Springer Medizin Verlags werden Autoren und Wissenschaftliche Leitung im Rahmen der Manuskripterstellung und Manuskriptfreigabe aufgefordert, eine vollständige Erklärung zu ihren finanziellen und nichtfinanziellen Interessen abzugeben. Autoren: M. Retz gibt folgende Interessenskonflikte an: Forschungsförderung (institutionell, außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) durch BMS, (Referenten-)Honorare (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) von AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, Astellas, Merck Serono, Roche Pharma AG, Eisai, Bayer Vital, Janssen, Novartis; Beratertätigkeiten (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) für Astra Zeneca, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, Astellas, Merck Serono, Roche Pharma AG, Eisai, Bayer Vital, Janssen. M.-O. Grimm gibt folgende Interessenskonflikte an: Forschungsförderung (institutionell, außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) durch BMS, Intuitive Surgical, Bayer Vital; (Referenten-)Honorare (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) von AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, Astellas, EUSA Pharma, Merck Serono, Roche Pharma AG, Eisai, Bayer Vital, Janssen, Gilead, Novartis, Takeda; Beratertätigkeiten (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) für Astra Zeneca, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, Astellas, EUSA Pharma, Merck Serono, Roche Pharma AG, Eisai, Bayer Vital, Janssen, Gilead, Novartis, Takeda. K. Leucht gibt folgende Interessenskonflikte an: Übernahme von Reise-/Kongresskosten (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) durch Ipsen, Medical Writing (institutionell, außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) von BMS, Intuitive Surgical, Honorare (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) von UroTrials. S. Zschäbitz gibt an: (Referenten-)Honorare (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) von Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer; Übernahme von Reise-/Kongresskosten (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) durch Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, Johnson&Johnson, Merck, MSD, Pfizer; Beratertätigkeiten (außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit) für Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Roche. Wissenschaftliche Leitung: Die vollständige Erklärung zum Interessenkonflikt der Wissenschaftlichen Leitung finden Sie am Kurs der zertifizierten Fortbildung auf www.springermedizin.de/cme . Der Verlag: erklärt, dass für die Publikation dieser CME-Fortbildung keine Sponsorengelder an den Verlag fließen. Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autor/-innen keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background: The IMvigor210 trial demonstrated clinical benefit and manageable toxicity with atezolizumab monotherapy [anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)] in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) in primary analyses. Final efficacy and safety results after long-term follow-up are reported., Patients and Methods: This phase II single-arm trial of atezolizumab monotherapy in patients with advanced UC included two cohorts: untreated patients ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy (cohort 1; n = 119) and those previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (cohort 2; n = 310). Atezolizumab was administered i.v. (1200 mg every 21 days) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints were independent review facility-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 in cohort 1 and independent review facility-assessed ORR per RECIST 1.1 and investigator-assessed modified (m)RECIST in cohort 2. Overall survival (OS), efficacy by PD-L1 status, and safety were also assessed., Results: At data cut-off (1 June 2023), the median survival follow-up was 96.4 months (range, 0.2-103.4 months) in cohort 1 and 46.2 months [0.2 (censored)-54.9 months] in cohort 2. In cohort 1, the ORR [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 23.5% (16.2% to 32.2%) in all patients and 28.1% (13.8% to 46.8%) in the PD-L1 tumor-infiltrating immune cell (IC)2/3 subgroup. Median OS (95% CI) was 16.3 months (10.4-24.5 months) overall and 12.3 months (6.0-49.8 months) in the PD-L1 IC2/3 subgroup. In cohort 2, the ORR (95% CI) was 16.5% (12.5% to 21.1%) per RECIST 1.1 and 19.7% (95% CI 15.4% to 24.6%) per mRECIST in all patients and 27.0% (18.6% to 36.8%) and 28.0% (19.5% to 37.9%), respectively, in the PD-L1 IC2/3 subgroup. Median OS (95% CI) was 7.9 months (6.7-9.3 months) in all patients and 11.9 months (9.0-22.8 months) in the IC2/3 subgroup. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 21.8% (cohort 1) and 18.7% (cohort 2); one treatment-related death occurred in cohort 1., Conclusions: With long-term follow-up, atezolizumab monotherapy demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy with durable responses in a subset of patients with metastatic UC; there were no new safety signals., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma face a poor prognosis. Standard first-line treatment involves platinum-based combinations followed by avelumab maintenance therapy. Follow-up therapies include enfortumab vedotin, vinflunine, and taxanes., Objective: To analyze new drug combinations in first-line and follow-up treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma concerning their clinical relevance, toxicities, and novel treatment sequences., Materials and Methods: Analysis of new study data from EV-302/KN-A39 (enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab) and CheckMate-901 (nivolumab and gemcitabine-cisplatin) for untreated metastatic patients as well as TROPHY-U-01 (sacituzumab govitecan) and THOR (erdafitinib) for later lines., Results: The new standard in first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma is the combination of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab. For cisplatin-eligible patients with contraindications to enfortumab vedotin, the combination of nivolumab and gemcitabine-cisplatin offers an alternative. Erdafitinib presents a new biomarker-based option in the follow-up treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma., Conclusion: These novel combinations are revolutionizing the treatment standard for metastatic urothelial carcinoma and necessitate a new approach to managing side effects., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

The risk of recurrence in patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) after radical cystectomy depends on the pathological tumor stage. In particular, patients with lymph node metastasis (pN+), locally advanced (≥pT3), or residual muscle invasive tumor despite neoadjuvant chemotherapy are at high risk. Currently, the importance of adjuvant therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors is increasing in the context of perioperative systemic therapeutic concepts. The indication for the PD‑1 inhibitor nivolumab currently approved in the European Union requires testing of PD-L1 (programmed cell death ligand 1) protein expression by immunochemistry in tumor tissue. Focusing on MIBC patients at high risk of recurrence, new questions arise regarding the implementation and interpretation of PD-L1 testing. An interdisciplinary group of experts from Germany has discussed relevant issues from a clinicopathological point of view and developed practical recommendations to facilitate the implementation of validated and quality-assured PD-L1 testing for the approved indications in daily clinical practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: We assessed the safety of atezolizumab in unselected patients (including understudied populations typically excluded from clinical trials) with pretreated urinary tract carcinoma (UTC). The prespecified final analysis updates previously reported safety and efficacy data., Methods: The single-arm prospective SAUL study (NCT02928406) enrolled 1004 patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial/non-urothelial UTC that had progressed during/after one to three prior treatment lines for advanced UTC (or <12 mo after [neo]adjuvant therapy). Broad eligibility criteria allowed enrollment of patients with complex comorbidities approximating the real-world setting. Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 wk until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included duration of response and overall survival (OS)., Key Findings and Limitations: The treated cohort included 10% of patients with poor performance status, 5% with creatinine clearance <30 ml/min, and 4% with autoimmune disease. At median follow-up of 55 mo, median atezolizumab duration was 2.8 mo (range 0-62); 68 patients (7%) continued atezolizumab for >4 yr. Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 16% of patients (death in 1%); 8% discontinued atezolizumab for adverse events. Median OS was 8.6 mo (95% confidence interval 7.8-9.7) and 136 patients (14%) had OS longer than 4 yr. Limitations include the small sample size for some subgroups of special interest., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Long-term safety and efficacy data continue to show a benefit of atezolizumab in unselected patients with UTC. Remarkably, 14% of patients lived for >4 yr after starting atezolizumab. These results can inform multidisciplinary team discussions and treatment decision-making for patients with UTC with complex comorbidities., Patient Summary: The SAUL study looked at how well tolerated a drug called atezolizumab was in patients with urinary tract cancer who had already received up to three previous treatments for their cancer, including people who are usually not included in clinical trials because of other medical conditions. The length of survival after starting treatment was also assessed. Overall, the results show that atezolizumab was well tolerated. People for whom other therapies had failed lived for about 8.6 months on average after starting treatment, and 14% of the patients were still alive after 4 years., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Limited responses have been observed in patients treated with enzalutamide after disease progression on abiraterone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but androgen receptor signaling impacts T-cell function., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide in mCRPC., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients in cohort C of the phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 study, who received ≥4 wk of treatment with abiraterone acetate in the prechemotherapy mCRPC state and experienced treatment failure or became drug-intolerant, were included., Intervention: Pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoints were safety, the confirmed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, and the objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 on blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) on BICR and overall survival (OS)., Results and Limitations: A total of 102 patients received pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide. Median follow-up was 51 mo (interquartile range 37-56). The confirmed PSA response rate was 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16-33%). The confirmed ORR was 11% (95% CI 2.9-25%; 4/38 patients; two complete responses). Median rPFS was 6.0 mo (95% CI 4.1-6.3). Median OS was 20 mo (95% CI 17-24). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 94 patients (92%); grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 44 patients (43%). The incidence of treatment-related rash was higher with combination therapy than expected from the safety profile of each drug. One patient (1.0%) died of a TRAE (cause unknown). Study limitations include the single-arm design., Conclusions: Pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide had limited antitumor activity in patients who received prior abiraterone treatment without previous chemotherapy for mCRPC, with a safety profile consistent with the individual profiles of each agent., Patient Summary: Pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide showed limited antitumor activity and manageable safety in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The KEYNOTE-365 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02861573., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Guidelines can only give treatment recommendations for defined patient groups if high quality and meaningful evidence is available. However, patients included in clinical trials for the treatment of metastatic and/or locally advanced bladder cancer (mUC) are generally not representative for the spectrum of patients encountered in daily clinical practice. In particular, patients with different systemic pretreatments, variable prestudy responses or variable time to tumor progression are not sufficiently considered in trials and guideline recommendations. Accordingly, recommendations for the treatment of mUC patients with previous perioperative systemic therapy are lacking. To provide some guidance for daily uro-oncological practice despite the limited evidence, we sought to develop expert opinion-based treatment recommendations. These recommendations focus on palliative first-line therapy of mUC. Both perioperative pretreatment with classical cisplatin-based systemic therapy and/or immunotherapy, as well as the time to tumor recurrence have been considered., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

177 Lu-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy (RLT) is a new treatment option for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Its low toxicity profile favors use in elderly patients or in patients with critical comorbidities. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of [ 177 Lu]-PSMA RLT in mCRPC patients at least 80 y old. Methods: Eighty mCRPC patients at least 80 y old underwent [ 177 Lu]-PSMA-I&T RLT and were retrospectively selected. The patients were previously treated by androgen receptor-directed therapy, received taxane-based chemotherapy, or were chemotherapy-ineligible. The best prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response was calculated, as well as clinical progression-free survival (cPFS) and overall survival (OS). Toxicity data were acquired until 6 mo after the last treatment cycle. Results: Of 80 patients, 49 (61.3%) were chemotherapy-naïve and 16 (20%) had visceral metastases. The median number of previous mCRPC treatment regimens was 2. In total, 324 cycles (median, 4 cycles; range, 1-12) with a median cumulative activity of 23.8 GBq (interquartile range, 14.8-42.2) were applied. A PSA decline of 50% was achieved in 37 (46.3%) patients. Chemotherapy-naïve patients showed higher 50% PSA response rates than chemotherapy-pretreated patients (51.0% vs. 38.7%, respectively). Overall, median cPFS and OS were 8.7 and 16.1 mo, respectively. The median cPFS and OS of chemotherapy-naïve patients were significantly longer than those of chemotherapy-pretreated patients (10.5 vs. 6.5 mo and 20.7 vs. 11.8 mo, respectively, P < 0.05). A lower hemoglobin level and higher lactate dehydrogenase level at baseline were independent predictors of shorter cPFS and OS. Treatment-emergent grade 3 toxicities were anemia in 4 patients (5%), thrombocytopenia in 3 patients (3.8%), and renal impairment in 4 patients (5%). No nonhematologic grade 3 and no grade 4 toxicities were observed. The most frequent clinical side effects were grade 1-2 xerostomia, fatigue, and inappetence. Conclusion: [ 177 Lu]-PSMA-I&T RLT in mCRPC patients at least 80 y old is safe and effective, comparable to previously published data on non-age-selected cohorts with a low rate of high-grade toxicities. Chemotherapy-naïve patients showed a better and longer response to therapy than taxane-pretreated patients. [ 177 Lu]-PSMA RLT seems to be a meaningful treatment option for older patients., (© 2023 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Background: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy (ChT) is the preferred perioperative treatment in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder (UCUB). Nevertheless, a certain number of patients are ineligible for platinum-based ChT. This trial compared immediate adjuvant vs. delayed gemcitabine ChT at progression in platinum-ineligible patients with high-risk UCUB., Methods: High-risk platinum-ineligible UCUB patients (n = 115) were randomized 1:1 to adjuvant gemcitabine (n = 59) or gemcitabine at progression (n = 56). Overall survival was analyzed. Additionally, we analyzed progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity and quality of life (QoL)., Results: After a median follow-up of 3.0 years (inter quartile range [IQR]: 1.3-11.6), adjuvant ChT did not significantly prolong overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.57-1.24; P = 0.375), with 5-year OS of 44.1% (95% CI: 31.2-56.2) and 30.4% (95% CI: 19.0-42.5), respectively. We noted no significant difference in PFS (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.49-1.18; P = 0.218), with 5-year PFS of 36.2% (95% CI: 22.8-49.7) in the adjuvant group and 22.2% (95% CI: 11.5%-35.1%) when treated at progression. Patients with adjuvant treatment showed a significantly worse QoL. The trial was prematurely closed after recruitment of 115 of the planned 178 patients., Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in terms of OS and PFS for patients with platinum-ineligible high-risk UCUB receiving adjuvant gemcitabine compared to patients treated at progression. These findings underline the importance of implementing and developing new perioperative treatments for platinum-ineligible UCUB patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest J.H. received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb. All other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funder and sponsor (Lilly) had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: There is an unmet need for therapeutic options that prolong survival for patients with heavily pretreated, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The phase III, open-label KEYLYNK-010 study evaluated pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus a next-generation hormonal agent (NHA) for biomarker-unselected, previously treated mCRPC., Methods: Eligible participants had mCRPC that progressed on or after abiraterone or enzalutamide (but not both) and docetaxel. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to pembrolizumab plus olaparib or NHA (abiraterone or enzalutamide). The dual primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review per Prostate Cancer Working Group-modified RECIST 1.1 and overall survival (OS). Time to first subsequent therapy (TFST) was a key secondary end point. Safety and objective response rate (ORR) were secondary end points., Results: Between May 30, 2019, and July 16, 2021, 529 participants were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus olaparib and 264 to NHA. At final rPFS analysis, median rPFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 6.0) with pembrolizumab plus olaparib and 4.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 6.1) with NHA (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.25]; P = .55). At final OS analysis, median OS was 15.8 months (95% CI, 14.6 to 17.0) and 14.6 months (95% CI, 12.6 to 17.3), respectively (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14]; P = .26). At final TFST analysis, median TFST was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.7 to 8.1) versus 5.7 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 7.1), respectively (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03]). ORR was higher with pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus NHA (16.8% v 5.9%). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.6% and 9.0% of participants, respectively., Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus olaparib did not significantly improve rPFS or OS versus NHA in participants with biomarker-unselected, heavily pretreated mCRPC. The study was stopped for futility. No new safety signals occurred.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are standard of care in the treatment of metastatic and locally advanced urothelial cancer. Their use in perioperative treatment is currently under investigation as monotherapy as well as in combination with chemotherapy or radiation regimens. This article provides an overview of recent trials, current data as well as an outlook on future developments in the perioperative management of urothelial cancer., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) with clinical suspicion of locally advanced growth or pelvic lymphogenic spread has a high risk of progression and death., Patients and Methods: Bladder cancer patients with locally advanced (cT3/4) tumor growth or suspected pelvic lymphogenic spread (cN+) were treated with preoperative cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and consolidative cystectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy. We aimed to identify prognostic factors and describe the patients' oncological outcome., Results: A complete dataset including follow-up data was available for 96 patients. In a univariate analysis, we identified cN stage (cN+ vs cN-, HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.3-6.0), response to chemotherapy (HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.5), ypT stage (ypT0/is/1 vs ypT2-4, HR 3.1, 95% CI 1.4-6.8), ypN stage (ypN + vs ypN-, HR 7.9, 95% CI 3.7-17.0), resection status (HR 4.4, 95% CI HR 1.5-13.0) as significantly associated with cancer-specific survival. In a multivariate regression analysis, both cN and ypN statuses were validated as independent prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival (cN: HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-6.1; ypN: HR 5.5, 95% CI 2.0-15.1)., Discussion: Lymph node status was identified as a prognostic marker in a high-risk cohort of UBC patients treated with inductive chemotherapy and cystectomy. Establishing cN status as a prognosticator underlines the necessity to aggressively treat these patients despite reported impreciseness of imaging procedures in UCB. Patients with histologically positive lymph nodes following preoperative chemotherapy have a very poor prognosis, and thus, the need for adjuvant systemic treatment is emphasized., Conclusion: Both clinically and pathologically affected lymph nodes convey a poor prognosis in bladder cancer and necessitate aggressive treatment., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The S3-guideline on bladder cancer recommends radical cystectomy and cisplatin-based perioperative chemotherapy (POC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Recommendation for metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) is cisplatin-based or immuno-oncological (IO) treatment in platinum-ineligible patients (pts) or as 2nd-line therapy., Objectives: Aim of the study was to obtain representative data on clinical routine treatment of MIBC and mUC in Germany., Materials and Methods: A nationwide survey was performed to obtain data on stage-related patient volume in hospitals and office-based physicians. Based on these results, a representative sample of treatment data was collected retrospectively from pts with MIBC and mUC., Results: Data from 956 pts (MIBC 576; mUC: 380) were collected. Of the MIBC pts, 49.8% received a systemic therapy (80.4% of them received cisplatin/gemcitabine) and 50.2% were treated with a cystectomy without POC. Significant factors for cystectomy without POC were higher age > 75 years (odds ratio [OR] 4.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.01-8.11, p < 0.001) and platinum-ineligible pts (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.30-3.59; p = 0.003). Treatment decision without interdisciplinary tumor board was also correlated with no POC (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.65-3.61, p < 0.001). In mUC platinum-pretreated pts generally receive IO therapy (OR 12.07, 95% CI 6.94-21.82, p < 0.001). Other significant factors are positive PD-L1 status (OR 3.72, 95% CI 1.30-5.71, p < 0.001), higher age > 75 years (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.43-5.73, p = 0.003) and platinum-ineligible pts (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.30-5.71, p = 0.007)., Conclusions: The "gold standard" cisplatin/gemcitabine is established in Germany if pts are treated with POC. Nonetheless half of the MIBC pts did not receive a POC, especially if the treatment decision is not discussed in a tumor board. In mUC IO therapy is established as 2nd-line therapy after a platinum-based treatment. Although the guideline recommendations are largely implemented, there is potential for optimization, especially in the establishment of interdisciplinary tumor boards., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Radical cystectomy is the standard treatment for muscle invasive bladder cancer. Using perioperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy, 5‑year overall survival rates are 5% higher with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to local therapy alone. New multimodal concepts have been developed to improve oncologic efficacy and to reduce treatment-related morbidity. Perioperative use of checkpoint inhibitors aims at improving efficacy, while bladder-preserving concepts try to avoid cystectomy in good responders. This article reviews new developments in radioimmunotherapy and perioperative combination therapies as well as bladder-preserving concepts like trimodal bladder therapy., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background: Loss of MHC I expression is a tumoral escape mechanism, part of the process of immunoediting. MHC expression patterns and their prognostic and predictive value have not been studied in urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UC) so far., Objective: To correlate the expression of MHC I and MHC II with prognosis after curative treatment, response to chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibition., Patients and Methods: We analyzed different patient cohorts for their expression of MHC I(HLA-A/B/C) and II (HLA-DR/DP/DQ) and examined potential correlations with prognosis and response to cisplatin-based chemotherapy or PD-1/PD-L1 directed immunotherapy., Results and Limitations: Overall, MHC expression was analyzed in 246 patients, and complete MHC I loss was seen in 29.7% of patients. In 35% of patients aberrant tumoral expression of MHC II was observed. In a homogeneous cohort of 149 patients with cystectomy with curative intent there were no significant differences in survival between the MHC expression groups. MHC I+ and MHC II+ patients had higher infiltration densities with CD8+ T effector cells.An analysis of 77 additional patients (cohort II) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy revealed no associations of MHC status with response defined as < pT2 pN0 in the cystectomy specimen. Lastly, we analyzed 26 patients with metastatic disease treated with PD-1/PD-L1 directed immunotherapy (cohort III, best response: 11 PD, 5 SD, 10 OR) and observed responses exclusively in MHC I+ patients (10/19 patients, 52.6). All four MHC I+ /MHC II+ /PD-L1+ patients had a progression-free interval of at least 12 months., Conclusions: Tumoral MHC I expression is frequently lost in UC. We found no association with prognosis or response to cisplatin-based chemotherapy but response to checkpoint inhibitors was limited to MHC I+ patients., Competing Interests: Nawroth R. is an Editorial Board member of this journal, but was not involved in the peer-review process nor had access to any information regarding its peer-review. Slotta-Huspenina J.: none Schwamborn K.: lecture honoraria and advisory board participation for Roche, BMS, MSD, Merck Steiger K.: none Simon R.: none Kirchhoff F.: none Büchler J.: none Fiedler J.: none Retz M.: lecture honoraria from BMS Ritschel C.: none Gschwend J.: lecture honoraria from Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, Roche, consultant for AAA, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, Roche Horn T.: lecture honoraria from Merck, medac GmbH and Pfizer, advisory board participation Merck and Bayer, (© 2022 – The authors. Published by IOS Press.)

Background: CheckMate 9KD (NCT03338790) is a non-randomized, multicohort, phase 2 trial of nivolumab plus other anticancer treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We report results from cohorts A1 and A2 of CheckMate 9KD, specifically evaluating nivolumab plus rucaparib., Methods: CheckMate 9KD enrolled adult patients with histologically confirmed mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Cohort A1 included patients with postchemotherapy mCRPC (1-2 prior taxane-based regimens) and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (eg, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide); cohort A2 included patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC and prior novel hormonal therapy. Patients received nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks plus rucaparib 600 mg two times per day (nivolumab dosing ≤2 years). Coprimary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA 50 -RR; ≥50% PSA reduction) in all-treated patients and patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, determined before enrollment. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: Outcomes (95% CI) among all-treated, HRD-positive, and BRCA1/2 -positive populations for cohort A1 were confirmed ORR: 10.3% (3.9-21.2) (n=58), 17.2% (5.8-35.8) (n=29), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA 50 -RR: 11.9% (5.9-20.8) (n=84), 18.2% (8.2-32.7) (n=44), and 41.7% (15.2-72.3) (n=12); median rPFS: 4.9 (3.7-5.7) (n=88), 5.8 (3.7-8.4) (n=45), and 5.6 (2.8-15.7) (n=12) months; and median OS: 13.9 (10.4-15.8) (n=88), 15.4 (11.4-18.2) (n=45), and 15.2 (3.0-not estimable) (n=12) months. For cohort A2 they were confirmed ORR: 15.4% (5.9-30.5) (n=39), 25.0% (8.7-49.1) (n=20), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA 50 -RR: 27.3% (17.0-39.6) (n=66), 41.9 (24.5-60.9) (n=31), and 84.6% (54.6-98.1) (n=13); median rPFS: 8.1 (5.6-10.9) (n=71), 10.9 (6.7-12.0) (n=34), and 10.9 (5.6-12.0) (n=15) months; and median OS: 20.2 (14.1-22.8) (n=71), 22.7 (14.1-not estimable) (n=34), and 20.2 (11.1-not estimable) (n=15) months. In cohorts A1 and A2, respectively, the most common any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (40.9% and 40.8%) and anemia (20.5% and 14.1%). Discontinuation rates due to TRAEs were 27.3% and 23.9%, respectively., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus rucaparib is active in patients with HRD-positive postchemotherapy or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, particularly those harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. Safety was as expected, with no new signals identified. Whether the addition of nivolumab incrementally improves outcomes versus rucaparib alone cannot be determined from this trial., Trial Registration Number: NCT03338790., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KF reports advisory board fees (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA, Sanofi, CureVac, and Orion. MR reports research grants (all institutional) from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Janssen; speakers bureau fees from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche; and advisory board fees from Astellas, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche. DPP reports consulting fees from Ada Cap, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Lilly, Mirati, Monopteros, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and UroGen; stock ownership in Bellicum Pharmaceuticals and Tyme; payment for expert testimony from Sanofi and Celgene; research grants from Ada Cap, Agensys, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioXcel Therapeutics, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Endocyte, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Innocrin, Lilly, MedImmune, Medivation, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Progenics, Replimune, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Seattle Genetics; local principal investigator (PI) nonfinancial interests (all institutional) in Ada Cap, Agensys, Inc., Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioXcel Therapeutics, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Endocyte, Genentech, Innocrin, MedImmune, Medivation, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, and Pfizer; medical writing support from Bioscript; study funding from Astellas; and editing support from Complete HealthVizion. JCG reports consulting fees from Eisai; honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, and MSD Australia, advisory board fees from BMS and Janssen (J&J); and stock ownership in ICON Cancer Care. JP-G reports research funding (all institutional) from BMS, Amgen, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; travel expenses from Roche, BMS, and MSD; and advisory board fees from BMS, Roche, Ipsen, Seattle Genetics, and MSD. LL reports local PI nonfinancial (all institutional) from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Hoffman-La Roche, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Myovant, Pfizer, Sanofi and Telix. SZ reports research grants (institutional) from Eisai; speakers bureau fees from Eisai (personal) and Merck (institutional); honoraria for educational events from Eisai, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, and Pfizer; travel expenses from Celgene (institutional); advisory board fees from Amgen, Bayer, and Sanofi (personal), and Astellas, BMS, EUSA, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche, (all institutional); receipt of drugs (institutional) from KURA; local PI nonfinancial interests from Astellas, Bayer, Calithera Biosciences, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Sanofi/Aventis, and SEAGEN; and coordinating PI nonfinancial interests from AVEO Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Pfizer, and Roche. MB reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD Oncology, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech; and speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD Oncology, and Roche/Genentech. HM reports travel expenses from Pfizer and Roche, advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and PI nonfinancial interests from BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. GG reports research funding (institutional) from BMS; speakers bureau fees (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, MSD Oncology, and Sanofi/Aventis; travel expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, and Sanofi; and advisory board fees (all institutional) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Aventis. DAB reports research grants (all institutional) from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche; and advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. SLM reports speakers bureau fees from BMS; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from BMS, Merck, and Roche/Genentech. JCVL reports employment from Hospital Civil de Guadalajara 'Fray Antonio Alcalde'; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all personal and institutional) from AstraZeneca, BMS, Europharma, Janssen, MSD, and Novartis. EMK reports speakers bureau fees from Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, and Janssen; writing engagement fees from Research Review; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck KGaA, and Pfizer. DC reports consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; travel expenses from AstraZeneca Spain, BMS, Pfizer, and Roche; and research funding (institutional) from Janssen. AF reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi/Aventis; and travel expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi/Aventis. FS reports research grants (all institutional) from Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Myovant, Novartis, and Pfizer; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. M-OG reports trial funding and medical writing funding from BMS, research funding (institutional) from BMS and Intuitive Surgical; consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Roche Pharma AG, and Takeda; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, and Pfizer; and travel expenses from BMS and Merck Serono. DRS has no competing interest to report. AJA reports research funding and writing grant (institutional) from BMS; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Dendreon, Exelixis, Forma, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis/AAA, and Pfizer; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Merck, Myovant, Novartis/AAA, and Pfizer; local PI nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Amgen, Bayer, BeiGene, Merck, Forma, and AstraZeneca; coordinating PI nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, and Pfizer; and steering committee member nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Dendreon. PB reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. NPA reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. KU-K reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS at the time of the study. KU-K is now employed by BioNTech US. XW reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS at the time of the study, and stock ownership in AstraZeneca. XW is no longer employed by BMS. JL reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. AL reports employment from and stock ownership in Clovis Oncology. RKP reports research funding (institutional) from Janssen and Pharmacyclics; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi; advisory board fees from Bayer, BMS, Dendreon, EMD Serono, Genomic Health, Janssen, Jounce, and Pfizer; PI nonfinancial interests from BMS, ESSA, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer/EMD Serono; steering committee member nonfinancial interests from BMS; and licensed technology to Tempus Labs., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) frequently receive docetaxel after they develop resistance to abiraterone or enzalutamide and need more efficacious treatments., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus docetaxel and prednisone in patients with mCRPC., Design, Setting, and Participants: The trial included patients with mCRPC in the phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 cohort B study who were chemotherapy naïve and who experienced failure of or were intolerant to ≥4 wk of abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC with progressive disease within 6 mo of screening., Intervention: Pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously (IV) every 3 wk (Q3W), docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 IV Q3W, and prednisone 5 mg orally twice daily., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoints were safety, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, and the objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included time to PSA progression; the disease control rate (DCR) and duration of response (DOR) according to RECIST v1.1 by BICR; ORR, DCR, DOR, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3-modified RECIST v1.1 by BICR; and overall survival (OS)., Results and Limitations: Among 104 treated patients, 52 had measurable disease. The median time from allocation to data cutoff (July 9, 2020) was 32.4 mo, during which 101 patients discontinued treatment, 81 (78%) for disease progression. The confirmed PSA response rate was 34% and the confirmed ORR (RECIST v1.1) was 23%. Median rPFS and OS were 8.5 mo and 20.2 mo, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 100 patients (96%). Grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 46 patients (44%). Seven AE-related deaths (6.7%) occurred (2 due to treatment-related pneumonitis). Limitations of the study include the single-arm design and small sample size., Conclusions: Pembrolizumab plus docetaxel and prednisone demonstrated antitumor activity in chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC. Safety was consistent with profiles for the individual agents. Further investigation is warranted., Patient Summary: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab combined with the chemotherapy drug docetaxel and the steroid prednisone for patients with metastatic prostate cancer resistant to androgen deprivation therapy , and who never received chemotherapy. The combination showed antitumor activity and manageable safety in this patient population. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02861573., (Copyright © 2022 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary Merck & Co., Inc, The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Due to the approval of immuno-oncological therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma has become more complex in all lines of therapy. Thus, in first-line treatment, immunotherapy alone or immune maintenance therapy following platinum-based chemotherapy can be applied in addition to treatment with platinum-based combination therapies alone. In addition to the approval status and guideline recommendation, patient-specific factors such as comorbidities as well as patient preference must always be considered when choosing a therapy. In the following, we summarize the current data on treatment options in the first-line therapy of metastatic urothelial carcinoma and illustrate their practical application using a patient example., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Introduction: METEOR was a phase 3 trial (NCT01865747) of cabozantinib versus everolimus in adults with advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC previously treated with VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This post hoc analysis of METEOR compared outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries., Material and Methods: Adults with advanced/metastatic clear cell RCC who had received ≥ 1 prior VEGFR-TKI treatment were randomized 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. Patients were categorized by recruitment region: Europe or outside of Europe (rest of world [RoW]). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were compared between regional subgroups., Results: In total, there were 320 eligible patients from Europe (cabozantinib, 167; everolimus, 153) and 338 from RoW (North America, 240 patients; Asia-Pacific, 86; Latin America, 12; randomized as cabozantinib, 163; everolimus, 175). PFS and OS were longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus and similar for the Europe and RoW subgroups. For PFS, the hazard ratio (HR) for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 0.54 for the Europe subgroup ( p < .001) and 0.50 for the RoW subgroup ( p < .001). For OS, the HR was 0.75 for the Europe subgroup ( p = .034) and 0.69 for the RoW subgroup ( p = .006). ORR in the Europe subgroup was 15% for cabozantinib and 3.9% for everolimus ( p < .001). For the RoW subgroup, ORR was 20% for cabozantinib and 2.9% for everolimus ( p < .001). Incidence of grade 3/4 AEs were similar for the Europe (cabozantinib, 74%; everolimus, 58%) and RoW subgroups (cabozantinib, 69%; everolimus, 64%)., Conclusion: In the METEOR trial, efficacy outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries favored cabozantinib over everolimus. The efficacy and safety results for the regional subgroups were consistent with those of the overall METEOR population.

Background: Docetaxel has immunostimulatory effects that may promote an immunoresponsive prostate tumour microenvironment, providing a rationale for combination with nivolumab (programmed death-1 inhibitor) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Methods: In the non-randomised, multicohort, global phase II CheckMate 9KD trial, 84 patients with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (NHTs) received nivolumab 360 mg and docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks with prednisone 5 mg twice daily (≤10 cycles) and then nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks (≤2 years). The co-primary end-points were objective response rate (ORR) and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA 50 -RR; ≥50% decrease from baseline)., Results: The confirmed ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 40.0% (25.7-55.7), and the confirmed PSA 50 -RR (95% CI) was 46.9% (35.7-58.3). The median (95% CI) radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were 9.0 (8.0-11.6) and 18.2 (14.6-20.7) months, respectively. In subpopulations with versus without prior NHT, the ORR was 38.7% versus 42.9%, the PSA 50 -RR was 39.6% versus 60.7%, the median rPFS was 8.5 versus 12.0 months and the median OS was 16.2 months versus not reached. Homologous recombination deficiency status or tumour mutational burden did not appear to impact efficacy. The most common any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (39.3%) and neutropenia (16.7%), respectively. Three treatment-related deaths occurred (1 pneumonitis related to nivolumab; 2 pneumonias related to docetaxel)., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus docetaxel has clinical activity in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Safety was consistent with the individual components. These results support further investigation in the ongoing phase III CheckMate 7DX trial. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Registration: NCT03338790., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (cRP) has been proposed as local treatment option in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) to prevent local complications and potentially improve oncological outcomes. In this study, we examined the feasibility of a multimodal concept with primary chemohormonal therapy followed by cRP and analyzed prostate size reduction under systemic treatment, postoperative complication rates, as well as early postoperative continence., Methods: In this retrospective study, 38 patients with mHSPC underwent cRP after primary chemohormonal therapy (3-monthly luteinising hormone-releasing hormone-analogue + six cycles 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 ) at two centers between September 2015 and December 2018., Results: Overall, 10 (26%) patients had high volume and 28 (74%) patients had low volume disease at diagnosis, according to CHAARTED definition. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decreased from 65 ng/mL (interquartile range [IQR] 35.0-124.5 ng/mL) pre-chemotherapy to 1 ng/mL (IQR 0.3-1.7 ng/mL) post-chemotherapy. Prostate gland volume was significantly reduced by a median of 50% (IQR 29%-56%) under chemohormonal therapy ( p  = 0.003). Postoperative histopathology showed seminal vesicle invasion in 33 (87%) patients and negative surgical margins in 17 (45%) patients. Severe complications (Grade 3 according to Clavien-Dindo) were observed in 4 (11%) patients within 30 days. Continence was reached in 87% of patients after 1 month and in 92% of patients after 6 months. Median time to castration-resistance from begin of chemohormonal therapy was 41.1 months and from cRP was 35.9 months. Postoperative PSA-nadir ≤1 ng/mL versus >1 ng/mL was a significant predictor of time to castration-resistance after cRP (median not reached versus 5.3 months; p <0.0001)., Conclusion: We observed a reduction of prostate volume under chemohormonal therapy going along with a low postoperative complication and high early continence rate. However, the oncologic benefit from cRP is still under evaluation., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2022 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.)

Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Purpose: Atezolizumab is an established treatment option for pretreated urothelial carcinoma, demonstrating efficacy in phase II/III trials. The SAUL study enrolled a broader patient population to determine safety and efficacy in underrepresented subgroups., Materials and Methods: Patients with metastatic urinary tract carcinoma received atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss of clinical benefit, or patient/physician decision. The primary endpoint was safety. Efficacy was a secondary endpoint. Analyses by programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) status, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) and renal impairment were prespecified; post hoc analyses explored outcomes by tumor location., Results: A total of 1,004 patients were enrolled. Subgroup analyses in patients with older age, renal impairment, or upper tract urothelial carcinoma showed safety and efficacy similar to those in patients without these characteristics. Patients with ECOG PS 2 had clinical features typically associated with aggressive disease; median overall survival was 2.3 months versus 10.0 months in patients with ECOG PS0/1. Patients with PD-L1 expression on ≥5% of tumor-infiltrating immune cells tended to have better outcomes than those with <5% PD-L1 expression, although conclusions on the relative efficacy of atezolizumab cannot be drawn from this single-arm study., Conclusions: The understudied populations included in the SAUL study had similar outcomes to those in more selected populations included in phase II/III trials of atezolizumab, except for those with ECOG PS 2. Age ≥80 years and/or creatinine clearance <30 ml/minute does not preclude administration of atezolizumab; however, treatment risk versus benefit must be carefully assessed in patients with ECOG PS 2.

Atezolizumab is an anti-PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitor recommended for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) after prior platinum-containing chemotherapy, regardless of PD-L1 status, among other treatment settings. We conducted a long-term follow-up to the exploratory analysis of overall survival (OS) and safety for the IMvigor211 intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Patients with mUC and disease progression during or following platinum-based chemotherapy were randomised 1:1 to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg or chemotherapy (vinflunine 320 mg/m 2 , paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 , or docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 according to investigator choice) intravenously every 3 wk. Although the primary analysis did not demonstrate statistically significant longer OS for patients receiving atezolizumab versus chemotherapy, updated OS showed long-term durable remission. With a median of 33 mo of follow-up, the 24-mo OS rate was 23% with atezolizumab and 13% with chemotherapy. Safety findings were consistent with the primary analysis, with no new signals detected. Chemotherapy-treated patients experienced more grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs; 43% vs 22%) and more AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (18% vs 9%). Atezolizumab-treated patients experienced more AEs of special interest (35% vs 20%), which tended to be grade 1-2. Our findings support the use of atezolizumab in platinum-treated patients with mUC regardless of PD-L1 status. PATIENT SUMMARY: We report follow-up results from a study of an immunotherapy treatment, atezolizumab, in patients with bladder cancer who had already received platinum-containing chemotherapy. This analysis compared the effectiveness of atezolizumab with chemotherapy over 2.5 years after starting treatment. The results show that patients who received atezolizumab lived longer and had manageable side effects compared with patients who received chemotherapy. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02302807., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Bladder cancer, which is a complex disease, can be treated with a variety of stage-oriented treatment options. In this article, the treatment recommendations of the German S3 guideline "Early detection, diagnosis, treatment and aftercare of bladder cancer" are applied in a fictitious case study. In a patient with invasive transitional cell carcinoma, the treatment options-ranging from bladder preservation to radical cystectomy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy-are discussed on the basis of the current literature.

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Background: Lymph-node (LN) metastasis in prostate cancer (PC) is a main risk factor for tumor recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP). Molecular analysis facilitates detection of small-volume LN metastases with higher sensitivity than histopathology. We aimed to prospectively evaluate six candidate gene markers for detection of pelvic LN metastases and to determine their ability to predict biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) in patients treated with RP., Methods: The expression of kallikrein 2, 3, and 4 (KLK2, KLK3, and KLK4), prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) and transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily M member 8 (TRPM8) was assessed using qPCR. We analyzed LNs from 111 patients (intermediate PC, n = 32 (29%); high-risk PC, n = 79 (71%)) who underwent RP and extended pelvic lymph-node dissection without neoadjuvant treatment., Results: Overall, 2411 LNs were examined by molecular and histopathologic examination. Histopathology detected 69 LN metastases in 28 (25%) patients. KLK2 and KLK3 diagnostically performed best and classified all pN1-patients correctly as molecular node-positive (molN1/pN1). The concordance on LN level was best for KLK3 (96%). KLK2, KLK3, KLK4, PSMA, TMPRSS2, and TRPM8 reclassified 27 (24%), 32 (29%), 29 (26%), 8 (7%), 13 (12%), and 23 (21%) pN0-patients, respectively, as node-positive (pN0/molN1). On multivariable cox regression analysis molecular LN status (molN1 vs. molN0) using KLK3 (HR 4.0, p = 0.04) and TMPRSS2 (HR 5.1, p = 0.02) were independent predictors of bRFS. Median bRFS was shorter in patients with only molecular positive LNs (molN1/pN0) for KLK3 (24 months, p = 0.001) and for TMPRSS2 (12 months, p < 0.001) compared to patients with negative nodes (molN0/pN0) (median bRFS not reached)., Conclusions: For diagnostic purposes, KLK3 showed highest concordance with histopathology for detection of LN metastases in PC patients undergoing RP. For prognostic purposes, KLK3 and TMPRSS2 expression were superior to histopathologic LN status and other transcripts tested for molecular LN status. We suggest a combined KLK3/TMPRSS2 panel as a valuable diagnostic and prognostic tool for molecular LN analysis.

Background: Beta-emitting Lu-177-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy (RLT) is a new option for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but its antitumor effect can decrease over time., Objective: To report the safety and activity of alpha-emitting Ac-225-PSMA-617 RLT in mCRPC that has progressed after Lu-177-PSMA., Design, Setting, and Participants: Twenty-six patients were treated under a compassionate use protocol. The eligibility criteria included previous treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide, previous taxane-based chemotherapy, progression after Lu-177-PSMA, and positive PSMA-ligand uptake. The median number of previous mCRPC regimens was 6. Ac-225-PSMA-617 was given every 8 wk until progression/intolerable side effects., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline, PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical progression-free survival (cPFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity were measured., Results and Limitations: Sixty-one cycles of Ac-225-PSMA-617 (median number of cycles 2; median activity 9 MBq) were administered. A PSA decline of ≥50% was achieved in 17/26 patients. The median PSA-PFS, cPFS, and OS periods were 3.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-11.2), 4.1 (95% CI 3-14.8), and 7.7 (95% CI 4.5-12.1) mo, respectively. Liver metastases were associated with shorter PSA-PFS (median 1.9 vs 4.0 mo; p = 0.02), cPFS (median 1.8 vs 5.2 mo; p = 0.001), and OS (median 4.3 vs 10.4 mo; p = 0.01). Hematological grade 3/4 toxicities were anemia (35%), leucopenia (27%), and thrombocytopenia (19%). All patients experienced grade 1/2 xerostomia. Two and six patients stopped due to hematological toxicity and xerostomia, respectively. A limitation is the retrospective design., Conclusions: Ac-225-PSMA-617 showed measurable antitumor effect after Lu-177-PSMA failure in late-stage mCRPC. Grade 3/4 hematological side effects were observed in up to one-third of patients, and xerostomia led to treatment halt in a relevant number of patients., Patient Summary: Ac-225-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-617 therapy showed substantial antitumor effect in late metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after Lu-177-PSMA failure. However, dry mouth is a common side effect that caused about a quarter of patients to stop therapy., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Numerous health care organizations have established guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer. However, the lack of a standardized guideline development approach results in considerable differences of the guidelines' methodological quality., Objective: To assess the methodological quality of all relevant clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for urinary bladder cancer and provide a reference for clinicians in choosing guidelines of high methodological quality., Evidence Acquisition: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline via PubMed, 4 CPG databases, and 7 databases of interdisciplinary organizations. CPGs for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) with the topics screening, pathology, diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare published in English language between 2012 and 2018 were included. The CPG quality was analyzed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument., Evidence Synthesis: A total of 16 CPGs were included for the quality appraisal. Because of predefined criteria, 5 CPGs were "strongly recommended" (American Urological Association NMIBC, European Association of Urology [EAU] NMIBC, EAU MIBC, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network), 4 CPGs were "weakly recommended" and 7 CPGs were "not recommended.", Conclusions: The methodological quality of bladder cancer guidelines is diverse. Considering the rapid development of new therapies (e.g., immune checkpoint inhibitors), "living guidelines" of high methodological quality, such as the EAU NMIBC or MIBC guideline, will become more relevant in the future guideline's landscape., (© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is widely used to monitor treatment response in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. However, PSA measurements are considered only after 12 wk of treatment. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of early PSA changes after 177 Lu-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ( 177 Lu-PSMA) radionuclide treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Methods: Men who were treated with 177 Lu-PSMA under a compassionate-access program at our institution and had available PSA values at baseline and at 6 wk after treatment initiation were included in this retrospective analysis. Patients were assigned to 3 groups on the basis of PSA changes: response (≥30% decline), progression (≥25% increase), and stable (<30% decline and <25% increase). The coprimary endpoints were overall survival and imaging-based progression-free survival. The secondary endpoints were PSA changes at 12 wk and PSA flare-up. Results: We identified 124 eligible patients with PSA values at 6 wk. A greater than or equal to 30% decline in PSA at 6 wk was associated with longer overall survival (median, 16.7 mo; 95% CI, 14.4-19.0) than stable PSA (median, 11.8 mo; 95% CI, 8.6-15.1) ( P = 0.007) or PSA progression (median, 6.5 mo; 95% CI, 5.2-7.8) ( P < 0.001). Patients with a greater than or equal to 30% decline in PSA at 6 wk also had a lower risk of imaging-based progression than patients with stable PSA (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.94) ( P = 0.02), whereas patients with PSA progression had a higher risk of imaging-based progression than patients with stable PSA (hazard ratio, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.95-5.21) ( P < 0.001). The percentage changes in PSA at 6 and 12 wk were highly associated ( r = 0.90; P < 0.001). Of 31 patients who experienced early PSA progression at 6 wk, 29 (94%) showed biochemical progression at 12 wk. Overall, only 1 (3%) of 36 patients with PSA progression at 6 wk achieved any PSA decline at 12 wk (1% of the entire cohort). The limitations of the study included its retrospective nature and the single-center experience. Conclusion: PSA changes at 6 wk after 177 Lu-PSMA initiation are an early indicator of long-term clinical outcome. Patients with PSA progression after 6 wk of treatment could benefit from a very early decision to switch treatment. PSA flare-up during 177 Lu-PSMA treatment is very uncommon. Prospective studies are now warranted to validate our findings and potentially inform clinicians earlier on the effectiveness of 177 Lu-PSMA., (© 2020 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

The therapy of advanced (clear-cell) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has recently experienced tremendous changes. Several new treatments have been developed, with PD-1 immune-checkpoint inhibition being the backbone of therapy. Diverse immunotherapy combinations change current first-line standards. These changes also require new approaches in subsequent lines of therapy. In an expert panel, we discussed the new treatment options and how they change clinical practice. While first-line immunotherapies introduce a new level of response rates, data on second-line therapies remains poor. This scenario poses a challenge for clinicians as guideline recommendations are based on historical patient cohorts and agents may lack the appropriate label for their in guidelines recommended use. Here, we summarize relevant clinical data and consider appropriate treatment strategies.

Objective: Presence of lymph node (LN) metastasis in bladder cancer (BCa) is a main risk factor for tumor recurrence after radical cystectomy (RC). Molecular analysis facilitates detection of small-volume LN metastases with higher sensitivity than standard histopathology. The aim of the present study was to establish molecular LN analysis in BCa patients undergoing RC with lymph node dissection (LND) and to determine its ability to predict tumor recurrence., Patients and Methods: Five transcripts with overexpression in BCa (FXYD3, KRT17, KRT20, SPINK1, UPKII) were evaluated for molecular LN analysis. We included 76 BCa patients from the prospective, randomized surgical phase-III trial (LEA AUO AB 25/02, NCT01215071) investigating extended vs. limited LND at RC. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). As control, 136 LNs from 45 patients without BCa were analyzed to determine a threshold for pathologic gene expression., Results: About 1,319 LNs were investigated with molecular and histopathologic examination. Histopathology detected 39 LN metastases in 17 (22%) patients. Of the tested genes FXYD3 performed best and classified all pN+-patients correctly as node-positive (pN+/molN+). In addition, FXYD3 reclassified 43 histopathologic negative LNs and 7 (9%) pN0-patients as molecular node-positive (pN0/molN+). Molecular and histopathologic LN status (pN0/molN0 vs. pN0/molN+ vs. pN+/molN+) was significantly associated with locally advanced disease (P = 0.006) and poor RFS (P < 0.001). Median RFS was not reached in LN-negative patients (pN0/molN0), 45 months (95%CI 8-83) in exclusively molecular positive patients (pN0/molN+) and 9 months (95%CI 5-13) in patients with histopathologic and molecular positive LNs (pN+/molN+)., Conclusions: Molecular LN analysis with FXYD3 identified additional LN metastases in histopathologic negative LNs and identified patients with elevated risk of tumor recurrence after RC. Thus, molecular LN analysis improves LN staging and might serve as a tool to guide adjuvant treatment., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial., Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management., Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference., Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference., Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus)., Results and Limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease., Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach., Patient Summary: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available., (Copyright © 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with locally advanced bladder cancer (cT3/4 cN0/N+ cM0) have a poor prognosis despite radical surgical therapy and perioperative chemotherapy. Preliminary data suggest that the combination of radiation and immunotherapy does not lead to excess toxicity and may have synergistic (abscopal) anti-tumor effects. We hypothesize that the combined preoperative application of the PD-1 checkpoint-inhibitor Nivolumab with concomitant radiation therapy of the bladder and pelvic region followed by radical cystectomy with standardized lymphadenectomy is safe and feasible and might improve outcome for patients with locally advanced bladder cancer., Methods: Study design: "RACE IT" (AUO AB 65/18) is an investigator initiated, prospective, multicenter, open, single arm phase II trial sponsored by Technical University Munich. Study drug and funding are provided by the company Bristol-Myers Squibb. Study treatment: Patients will receive Nivolumab 240 mg i.v. every 2 weeks for 4 cycles preoperatively with concomitant radiation therapy of bladder and pelvic region (max. 50.4 Gy). Radical cystectomy with standardized bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy will be performed between week 11-15. Primary endpoint: Rate of patients with completed treatment consisting of radio-immunotherapy and radical cystectomy at the end of week 15. Secondary endpoints: Acute and late toxicity, therapy response and survival (1 year follow up). Main inclusion criteria: Patients with histologically confirmed, locally advanced bladder cancer (cT3/4, cN0/N+), who are ineligible for neoadjuvant, cisplatin-based chemotherapy or who refuse neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Main exclusion criteria: Patients with metastatic disease (lymph node metastasis outside pelvis or distant metastasis) or previous chemo-, immune- or radiation therapy. Planned sample size: 33 patients, interim analysis after 11 patients., Discussion: This trial aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the combined approach of preoperative PD-1 checkpoint-inhibitor therapy with concomitant radiation of bladder and pelvic region followed by radical cystectomy. The secondary objectives of therapy response and survival are thought to provide preliminary data for further clinical evaluation after successful completion of this trial. Recruitment has started in February 2019., Trial Registration: Protocol Code RACE IT: AB 65/18; EudraCT: 2018-001823-38; Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03529890; Date of registration: 27 June 2018.

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial., Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management., Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference., Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference., Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus)., Results and Limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease., Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

This review summarises the treatment strategies of the last five decades for metastatic urothelial cancer. The introduction of combination chemotherapy in the mid-1980s led to clinically significant response rates and prolonged survival. Two years ago, the results of a phase-3 clinical trial with the PD1 inhibitor pembrolizumab for second-line treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma were published. These data were the first to show an overall survival benefit in comparison with a conventional chemotherapy with vinflunine, docetaxel or paclitaxel. Currently, PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors are also tested within randomized phase-3-trials for first-line treatment using different approaches either as a monotherapy or a combination with conventional chemotherapy or CTLA-4 inhibitors. Whereas data from single-arm phase-2 clinical trials have already been published, first phase-3 data are expected in 2019., Competing Interests: Die Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted radioligand therapy (RLT) is increasingly being used in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The objective of this study is to report our clinical experience with RLT using 177-lutetium-labeled PSMA-I&T. A total of 100 patients were treated under a compassionate use protocol with a total number of 319 cycles (median two cycles, range 1-6). Eligibility criteria included previous treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide, previous taxane-based chemotherapy or chemoineligibility, and positive PSMA-ligand uptake at positron-emission tomography scan. The 177 Lu-PSMA-I&T was given 6-8 weekly with an activity of 7.4 GBq up to six cycles. The median number of previous mCRPC regimens was 3 (range 1-6), and 35 patients had visceral metastases. Prostate-specific antigen decline of ≥50% was achieved in 38 patients, median clinical progression-free survival (cPFS) was 4.1mo, and median overall survival (OS) was 12.9mo. Subgroup analyses identified an association of visceral metastases with a poor prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response and shorter cPFS and OS, and an association of rising lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) with shorter cPFS and OS. Patients achieving PSA decline of ≥50% within 12wk of treatment showed longer cPFS and OS. Treatment-emergent hematologic grade 3/4 toxicities were anemia (9%), thrombocytopenia (4%), and neutropenia (6%). Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities were not observed. RLT with 177 Lu-PSMA-I&T showed good activity in more than one-third of patients with late-stage mCRPC at low toxicity. Presence of visceral metastases and rising LDH were associated with worse treatment outcome. PATIENT SUMMARY: We analyzed the treatment outcome and toxicity of prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted radioligand therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We found that a good treatment response could be achieved in a subgroup of patients with few side effects. We also observed that treatment outcome was worse in patients with organ metastases and elevated lactate dehydrogenase in blood tests., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Our aim was to retrospectively evaluate the feasibility of rechallenge 177 Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen ( 177 Lu-PSMA) radioligand therapy. Methods: Rechallenge radioligand therapy was defined as subsequent treatment with 177 Lu-PSMA after initial exposure with an excellent response followed by progression. Biochemical, radiographic, clinical antitumor response, and adverse events were analyzed. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were calculated. Results: Eight patients underwent a median of 2 (range: 1-4) cycles of rechallenge with 177 Lu-PSMA for imaging and therapy. A maximum PSA decrease of 50% was achieved in 3 patients (37.5%). Radiographic response was favorable in 3 patients, whereas 4 exhibited progressive disease. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was stable during therapy in all patients. No grade 4 toxicity was noticed, and grade 3 toxicity occurred in 3 patients (37.5%). The median PSA-PFS and overall survival were 3.2 mo (95% confidence interval, 2.6-3.7 mo) and 14.0 mo (95% confidence interval, 6.2-21.8 mo), respectively. Conclusion: In a small patient cohort with an initial excellent response, 177 Lu-PSMA rechallenge is still active, with lower efficacy and higher toxicity., (© 2019 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Background: The extent of lymph node dissection (LND) in bladder cancer (BCa) patients at the time of radical cystectomy may affect oncologic outcome., Objective: To evaluate whether extended versus limited LND prolongs recurrence-free survival (RFS)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective, multicenter, phase-III trial patients with locally resectable T1G3 or muscle-invasive urothelial BCa (T2-T4aM0)., Intervention: Randomization to limited (obturator, and internal and external iliac nodes) versus extended LND (in addition, deep obturator, common iliac, presacral, paracaval, interaortocaval, and para-aortal nodes up to the inferior mesenteric artery)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was RFS. Secondary endpoints included cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and complications. The trial was designed to show 15% advantage of 5-yr RFS by extended LND., Results and Limitations: In total, 401 patients were randomized from February 2006 to August 2010 (203 limited, 198 extended). The median number of dissected nodes was 19 in the limited and 31 in the extended arm. Extended LND failed to show superiority over limited LND with regard to RFS (5-yr RFS 65% vs 59%; hazard ratio [HR]=0.84 [95% confidence interval 0.58-1.22]; p=0.36), CSS (5-yr CSS 76% vs 65%; HR=0.70; p=0.10), and OS (5-yr OS 59% vs 50%; HR=0.78; p=0.12). Clavien grade ≥3 lymphoceles were more frequently reported in the extended LND group within 90d after surgery. Inclusion of T1G3 tumors may have contributed to the negative study result., Conclusions: Extended LND failed to show a significant advantage over limited LND in RFS, CSS, and OS. A larger trial is required to determine whether extended compared with limited LND leads to a small, but clinically relevant, survival difference (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01215071)., Patient Summary: In this study, we investigated the outcome in bladder cancer patients undergoing cystectomy based on the anatomic extent of lymph node resection. We found that extended removal of lymph nodes did not reduce the rate of tumor recurrence in the expected range., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This trial compared the sequential therapy with the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib (So) followed by pazopanib (Pa) or vice versa in advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients., Methods: This multicenter, randomized phase 3 study assessed the sequential use of So-Pa versus Pa-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy. Pts were randomized to So 2 × 400 mg/day followed by Pa 1 × 800 mg/day in case of progression or intolerable toxicity or vice versa. Primary endpoint was total PFS (tPFS), defined as time from randomization to progression, or death during second-line therapy. Key secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), first-line PFS, disease control rate (DCR) and safety., Results: A total of 377 pts were randomized (So-Pa, n = 189; Pa-So, n = 188). Recruitment of a total 544 pts was calculated, but actual accrual rate turned out to be lower than expected. The primary endpoint median tPFS was 8.6 mo (95% CI 7.7-10.2) for So-Pa and 12.9 mo (95% CI 10.8-15.2) for Pa-So with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.36 (upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1.68), which exceeded a predefined HR <1.225 as a one-sided 95% confidence interval. Non-inferiority of So-Pa regarding tPFS was not met. Secondary endpoints displayed marked statistical differences in favor of Pa-So in first-line PFS and DCR but not for OS and 2nd-line PFS. Side effect profiles were consistent with known toxicities of the respective multikinase-inhibitor including diarrhea, fatigue, hand-foot skin reaction and hypertension., Conclusions: Non-inferiority of the primary endpoint tPFS could not be demonstrated for So-Pa. The results for first-line PFS and DCR favored the Pa-So sequence., Trial Registration: NCT01613846, www.clinicaltrials.gov., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In November 2016, the results of a phase III clinical trial with the protein cell death (PD)-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab for second-line treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma were published and showed an overall survival benefit in comparison with conventional chemotherapy with vinflunine, docetaxel, or paclitaxel. In a similar trial the PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab showed no significant benefit in comparison to chemotherapy in the subgroup of PD-L1-positive patients and, thus, missed its primary endpoint. For other PD-1/PD-L1 directed substances, large phase I/II trials reported data concerning response rates and overall survival. This substance class will most likely become the new treatment standard in second-line treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer. Currently, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are also being tested within randomized phase III trials for first-line treatment using different approaches either as a monotherapy or a combination with conventional chemotherapy or cytotoxic T‑lymphocyte-associated protein (CTLA)-4 inhibitors. Whereas data from single-arm phase II clinical trials have already been published, preliminary phase III data are expected in 2018.

Purpose: Molecular lymph node (LN) analysis using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) detects LN metastases with higher sensitivity than histopathology. However, the prognostic role of molecular LN status in prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) and extended pelvic LN dissection (ePLND) is unclear. To investigate the association of molecular compared with histopathologic LN status with biochemical recurrence. Experimental Design: Patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer were prospectively enrolled and underwent RP with ePLND, including the obturator, internal, external, and the common iliac region. LNs ≥3 mm were bisected and examined by standard histopathology and qPCR for Kallikrein3 (KLK3) expression. Biochemical recurrence was defined by confirmed postoperative PSA > 0.2 ng/mL. Results: In 111 patients, 2,411 of 3,173 removed LNs were examined by both methods. Histopathology detected 68 LN metastases in 28 (25%) patients. Molecular analysis confirmed elevated KLK3 expression in 65 histopathologic LN metastases of all 28 pN1 patients (pN1/molN1) and additionally reclassified 224 histopathologic negative LNs and 32 (29%) pN0 patients as LN-positive (pN0/molN1).At a median follow-up of 48 months, 52 (47%) patients developed biochemical recurrence. Median biochemical recurrence-free survival was 9 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.0-20.1] in pN1/molN1 patients, 24 months (95% CI, 1.7-46.3) in pN0/molN1 patients and was not reached in pN0/molN0 patients ( P < 0.001). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, molecular LN status [HR 4.1 (95% CI, 1.9-8.8), P < 0.001] but not histopathologic LN status [HR 1.5 (95% CI, 0.8-3.0), P = 0.198] was confirmed as independent predictor of biochemical recurrence. Conclusions: Molecular LN analysis identified pN0 patients with a high risk of biochemical recurrence and provided superior prognostic information in comparison with histopathology alone. Clin Cancer Res; 24(10); 2342-9. ©2018 AACR ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent side effects in cytostatic therapy and a profound challenge during the therapy of cancer patients. Therefore, standardized guideline-orientated prophylaxis is essential and a fundamental contribution for the success of treatment. This review summarizes the current recommendations for CINV of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the S3-guideline Supportive Therapie of the Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie and shall facilitate its use in the daily routine.

The classic presentation of acute gastrointestinal (GI) parasitic infection including fever, diarrhea, nausea, and/or abdominal pain is not always a reliable measure. In these cases, parasitic infections require sensitive stool testing to be identified and treated effectively. The standard practice for stool analysis typically requires 3 separate stool specimens to be collected on 3 separate days to overcome the possibility of misdiagnosis due to intermittent shedding. Nonetheless, this practice is not often utilized due to very short periods of sample viability, which often leads to patient misdiagnosis. In this study, a patient with a history that eluded to possible acute GI parasitic infection, but without classic symptomology, was screened using a sodium acetate acetic acid formalin (SAF)-fixative triple-faeces test. Even though the patient's symptoms did not strongly suggest stool analysis, her history of travel was clinically relevant. The faeces test revealed the patient was positive for Blastocystis hominis, Dientamoeba fragilis trophs, Endolimax nana trophs, Entamoeba coli trophs, a-hemolytic Streptococcus, Enterobacter cloacae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and yeast. Subsequently, the patient was treated for GI infection and received significant symptom relief. This case supports the concept that physicians should fully evaluate a patient's clinical presentation and symptomology, including history and environmental exposures, and include highly sensitive testing for proper evaluation of potential GI parasitic infections.