RESUMO
Background and objective: Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have an increased risk of developing genitourinary cancers, including prostate cancer (PCa), which is expected to become more prevalent due to an aging KTR population. Thus, knowledge of surgical outcomes, including treatment of PCa, within this unique cohort is required. Methods: Data of 62 KTRs undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2006 and 2023 at nine urologic transplant centers were analyzed. Complications were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated, and a follow-up was conducted. Overall survival (OS), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), and death-censored graft survival were determined via the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank testing. Key findings and limitations: Overall, 50 open radical retropubic RPs and 12 robot-assisted RPs (RARPs) were included. The intraoperative blood loss was lower after RARP, but operative time was longer. Of the patients, 50% experienced no postoperative complication, and grade ≥3 complications were observed in 14.5%. There was no graft loss related to RP. A histopathologic analysis revealed pN1 in 8.1% and positive surgical margins in 25.8% of the cases. At a median follow-up of 48.5 mo, the median OS was 128 (95% confidence interval [CI] 71.2-184.8) mo, BRFS was 106 (95% CI 55.8; 156.2) mo, and graft survival was 127 (95% CI 66.7-187.3) mo. Limitations include the retrospective design, and variations between groups and centers. Conclusions and clinical implications: Our findings support RP as a feasible and safe treatment option for localized PCa in KTRs with acceptable oncologic outcome. Special care is required in screening and awareness for the risk of understaging. Patient summary: This study analyzed the safety and effectiveness of two prostate cancer surgery methods-open and robot-assisted surgery-in the special group of kidney transplant recipients. Both surgical methods were performed safely with acceptable oncologic outcomes; however, sample size was too small to draw definite conclusions between the two operative methods.
RESUMO
In clinical trials, laboratory values are assessed with high frequency. This can be stressful for patients, resource intensive, and difficult to implement, for example in office-based settings. In the prospective, multicentre phase 2 TITAN-RCC trial (NCT02917772), we investigated how many relevant changes in laboratory values would have been missed if laboratory values had been assessed less frequently. Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (n = 207) received a response-based approach with nivolumab and nivolumab+ipilimumab boosts for non-response. We simulated that laboratory values were obtained before every second dose instead of every dose of the study drug(s). We assessed elevated leukocyte counts, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, bilirubin, creatinine, amylase, lipase, and thyroid-stimulating hormone. Dose delay and discontinuation criteria were defined according to the study protocol. With the reduced frequency of laboratory analyses, dose delay criteria were rarely missed: in a maximum of <0.1% (3/4382) of assessments (1% [2/207] of patients) during nivolumab monotherapy and in a maximum of 0.2% (1/465) of assessments (1% [1/132] of patients) during nivolumab+ipilimumab boosts. An exception was lipase-related dose delay which would have been missed in 0.6% (25/4204) of assessments (7% [15/207] of patients) during nivolumab monotherapy and in 0.8% (4/480) of assessments (3% [4/134] of patients) during nivolumab+ipilimumab boosts, but would have required the presence of symptoms. Discontinuation criteria would have only been missed for amylase (<0.1% [1/3965] of assessments [0.5% (1/207) of patients] during nivolumab monotherapy, none during nivolumab+ipilimumab boosts) and lipase (0.1% [5/4204] of assessments [2% (4/207) of patients] during nivolumab monotherapy; 0.2% [1/480] of assessments [0.7% (1/134) of patients] during nivolumab+ipilimumab boosts). However, only symptomatic patients would have had to discontinue treatment due to amylase or lipase laboratory values. In conclusion, a reduced frequency of laboratory testing appears to be acceptable in asymptomatic patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab or nivolumab+ipilimumab.
RESUMO
Importance: Studies with nivolumab, an approved therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) after platinum-based chemotherapy, demonstrate improved outcomes with added high-dose ipilimumab. Objective: To assess efficacy and safety of a tailored approach using nivolumab + ipilimumab as an immunotherapeutic boost for mUC. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this phase 2 nonrandomized trial, patients with mUC composed 2 cohorts. Cohort 1 received first-line or second-/third-line nivolumab with escalating doses of ipilimumab, and cohort 2 received second-/third-line nivolumab with high-dose ipilimumab. Recruitment spanned 26 sites in Germany and Austria from August 8, 2017, to February 18, 2021. All patients had a 70% or higher Karnofsky Performance Score and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1. Interventions: All patients initiated 4 doses of 240-mg nivolumab (1× every 2 wk). Week 8 nonresponders received nivolumab + ipilimumab (1× every 3 wk). Cohort 1 received 2 doses of 3-mg/kg nivolumab + 1-mg/kg ipilimumab followed by 2 doses of 1-mg/kg nivolumab + 3-mg/kg ipilimumab if no response. Due to safety concerns, cohort 1 treatment was halted, and first-line cohort 2 treatment was not pursued. Cohort 2 received 2 to 4 doses of 1-mg/kg nivolumab + 3-mg/kg ipilimumab. Responders continued with nivolumab maintenance but could receive nivolumab + ipilimumab for later progression. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was objective response rate. Results: The study comprised 169 patients (118 [69.8%] men; median [range] age, 68 [37-84] years): 86 in cohort 1 (42 first-line; 44 second-/third-line) and 83 in cohort 2. The median (IQR) follow-up times were 10.4 (4.2-23.5) months (first-line cohort 1), 7.5 (3.1-23.8) months (second-/third-line cohort 1), and 6.2 (3.2-22.7) months (cohort 2). Response rates to nivolumab induction were 12/42 (29%, first-line cohort 1), 10/44 (23%, second-/third-line cohort 1), and 17/83 (20%, cohort 2). Response rates to a tailored approach were 20/42 (48% [90% CI, 34%-61%], first-line cohort 1), 12/44 (27% [90% CI, 17%-40%], second-/third-line cohort 1), and 27/83 (33% [90% CI, 23%-42%], cohort 2). Three-year overall survival rates for first-line cohort 1, second-/third-line cohort 1, and cohort 2 using the Kaplan-Meier method were 32% (95% CI, 17%-49%), 19% (95% CI, 8%-33%), and 34% (95% CI, 23%-44%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized trial, although first-line cohort 1 treatment improved objective response rates, considerable progression events urge caution with this as a first-line therapy. Second-/third-line cohort 1 treatment did not improve response rates compared with nivolumab monotherapy. However, added high-dose ipilimumab may improve tumor response and survival in patients with mUC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03219775.