Impact of COVID-19 crisis on medical care of patients with metastasized uro-oncologic disease under systemic cancer therapy: a multicenter study in German university hospitals.

PURPOSE: To date, over 4.2 million Germans and over 235 million people worldwide have been infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Uro-oncology (UO) patients are particularly vulnerable but in urgent need of life-saving systemic treatments. Our multicentric study examined the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the medical care of UO patients in German university hospitals receiving ongoing systemic anti-cancer treatment and to detect the delay of medical care, defined as deferred medical treatment or deviation of the pre-defined follow-up assessment. METHODS: Data of 162 UO patients with metastatic disease undergoing systemic cancer treatment at five university hospitals in Germany were included in our analyses. The focus of interest was any delay or change in treatment between February 2020 and May 2020 (first wave of the COVID-19 crisis in Germany). Statistical analysis of contingency tables were performed using Pearson's chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests, respectively. Effect size was determined using Cramér's V (V). RESULTS: Twenty-four of the 162 patients (14.8%) experienced a delay in systemic treatment of more than 2 weeks. Most of these received immuno-oncologic (IO) treatments (13/24, 54.2%, p = 0.746). Blood tests were delayed or canceled significantly more often in IO patients but with a small effect size (21.1%, p = 0.042, V = 0.230). Treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (12/73, 16.4%) and urothelial carcinoma (7/32, 21.9%) was affected the most. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the medical care of UO patients, but deferment remained modest. There was a tendency towards delays in IO and ADT treatments in particular.

Immunostimulatory CpG-DNA and PSA-peptide vaccination elicits profound cytotoxic T cell responses.

OBJECTIVE: Novel strategies for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (CaP), including immunotherapy or gene therapy, are currently under evaluation with Sipuleucel-T as first FDA-approved immunotherapeutic. Here, we examine cytosine-phosphorothioate-guanine (CpG)-DNA oligonucleotides (ODN) to boost cytokine responses and costimulatory molecule expression on murine bone marrow-derived dendritic cells (mBMDC). Furthermore, we evaluate the potency of a PSA-peptide based vaccine in combination with CpG-DNA to elicit specific cytotoxic T cell (CTL) responses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: mBMDC were stimulated with CpG-DNA (1668: 5'-TCCATGACGTTCCTGATGCT-3') or non-stimulatory control-ODN (1720: 5'-TCCATGAGCTTCCTGATGCT-3'). Subsequently, expression of the costimulatory molecules CD40 and CD86 and induction of proinflammatory cytokines (interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-12) were analyzed. For induction of PSA-peptide specific CTL, female C57BL/6 mice were immunized with PSA-peptide 65-73 (HCIRNKSVI) alone or in combination with 1668 or 1720-ODN. In vivo cytotoxicity assay determined PSA-peptide specific cytotoxicity 1 week after vaccination. RESULTS: Treatment of mBMDC with stimulatory CpG-DNA ODN resulted in pronounced up-regulation of costimulatory molecule expression on mBMDC in a dose-dependent manner. CpG-ODN significantly increased production of IL-6 and IL-12 in mBMDC (P < 0.001). Induction of PSA-peptide specific CTL responses in mice immunized with PSA-peptide and CpG-DNA were significantly greater than those of PSA-peptide and control-ODN immunized mice or PSA-peptide only vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: CpG-DNA acts as potent adjuvant for vaccination therapies and elicits profound PSA-peptide specific CTL responses in combination with an immunodominant PSA-peptide. CpG-ODN mediated immunotherapy represents a potentially inexpensive, safe, easy-to-produce, and easy-to-handle treatment alternative. Therefore, further evaluation of CpG-DNA in immunization therapies against CaP is warranted.

The sensitivity of [11C]choline PET/CT to localize prostate cancer depends on the tumor configuration.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the dependency of the sensitivity of [(11)C]choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for detecting and localizing primary prostate cancer (PCa) on tumor configuration in the histologic specimen. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Forty-three patients with biopsy-proven PCa were included. They underwent radical prostatectomy within 31 days after [(11)C]choline PET/CT. The transaxial image slices and the histologic specimens were analyzed by comparing the respective slices. Maximum standardized uptake values (SUV(max)) were calculated in each segment and correlated with histopathology. The tumor configuration in the histologic specimen was grouped as: I, unifocal; II, multifocal; III, rind-like shaped; IV, size <5 mm. Data analysis included the investigation of detection of PCa by SUV(max), the assessment of the influence of potential contributing factors on tumor prediction, and the evaluation of whether SUV could discriminate cancer tissue from benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), prostatitis, HGPIN (high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasm), or normal prostate tissue. General estimation equation models were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Tumor configuration in histology was classified as I in 21 patients, as II in 9, as III in 5, and as IV in 8. The prostate segment involved by cancer is identified in 79% of the patients. SUV(max) was located in the same side of the prostate in 95% of patients. Tumor configuration was the only factor significantly negatively influencing tumor prediction (P < 0.001). PCa-SUV(max) (median SUV(max) = 4.9) was not significantly different from BPH-SUV (median SUV(max) = 4.5) and prostatitis-SUV (median SUV(max) = 3.9), P = 0.102 and P = 0.054, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The detection and localization of PCa in the prostate with [(11)C]choline PET/CT is impaired by tumor configuration. Additionally, in our patient population, PCa tissue could not be distinguished from benign pathologies in the prostate.

The role of early adopter bias for new technologies in robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: We determined the potential influence of an early adopter bias in patients undergoing robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared baseline demographic, clinical and health related quality of life characteristics of patients undergoing 3 different surgical procedures for clinically localized prostate cancer following the introduction of robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy at our institution. Patients included in this analysis were participating in a prospective health related quality of life study using the SF-12(R) and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite validated questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 402 patients 159 (39%) underwent robot assisted laparoscopic, 144 (36%) underwent radical perineal and 99 (25%) underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. There were no statistically significant associations between procedure type and patient age (p = 0.267), race (p = 0.725), number of medical comorbidities (p = 0.490), income (p = 0.056) and level of education (p = 0.495). Mean prostate specific antigen was 5.9 +/- 3.3, 7.3 +/- 5.5 and 5.7 +/- 5.0 ng/ml for robot assisted laparoscopic, radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy, respectively (p = 0.030). The proportion of robot assisted laparoscopic, radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy patients with a final Gleason score of 4-6 was 55%, 45% and 39%, respectively (p = 0.037). The proportion of robot assisted laparoscopic, radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy patients with stage T2 disease was 91%, 68% and 80%, respectively (p = 0.001). Statistically significant associations of higher income and education with higher baseline health related quality of life scores were seen in the sexual and physical domains (each p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We failed to find evidence of an early adopter bias for patients undergoing robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Nevertheless, observational studies comparing robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy to radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy should account carefully for patient baseline characteristics to allow meaningful comparisons of surgical outcomes.

Prospective health-related quality-of-life assessment in an initial cohort of patients undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively assess the health-related quality-of-life outcomes of patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using a validated patient self-assessment questionnaire. METHODS: Patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy between September 2003 and May 2005 were given the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire preoperatively and 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18 months postoperatively. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 3 months were included in the analysis. The mean domain-specific health-related quality-of-life scores +/- SD and the proportion of patients achieving their baseline scores were calculated. Multivariate proportional hazards regression analysis was used to determine the potential prognostic factors for a return to baseline of the domain scores and continence. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 9.5 months. The median time to recovery of the baseline summary scores was 6.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.9 to 7.2) in the urinary domain, 2.8 months (95% CI 2.0 to 3.7) in the bowel domain, and 3.0 months (95% CI 2.2 to 3.9) in the hormonal domain. The baseline sexual summary score was recovered by 19.2% of patients at 12 months. The median time to return of continence (0 to 1 pads/day) was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.0 to 4.9). The median time to the return of erections firm enough for intercourse was 13.5 months (95% CI 9.9 to 17.1). On multivariate proportional hazards regression analysis, age, body mass index, prostate size, nerve-sparing technique, and number of comorbidities were not significantly associated with the time to recovery of the baseline domain scores or continence. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy have a favorable health-related quality-of-life recovery profile that appears comparable to those of established surgical approaches.