Impact of primary resistance to front-line targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on subsequent immune-checkpoint-inhibition.

INTRODUCTION: Synergistic effects have been discussed for tyrosine kinase (TKI) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Primary resistance to TKI might disturb subsequent ICI effectiveness. The objective was to investigate, if primary resistance to 1st line TKI monotherapy predicts response to ICI in subsequent therapy lines and impacts overall survival (OS) in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospectively, aRCC patients which received front-line TKI from 2016 to 2019 were analyzed for the outcomes primary resistance (1LR), response to sequential ICI therapy, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Kaplan-Meier-estimates, Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression were used. RESULTS: Primary resistance to front-line TKI was observed in 27 (53%) of 51 patients. Groups with disease control (DC) and 1st line TKI resistance (1LR) were not different at baseline with regard to clinicopathological features. Median duration on 1st line therapy was significantly shorter in the 1LR (5.1 months) than in the DC (14.7 months) group (p = 0.01). Sequential therapy was started in 21 (75%) and 12 (52%) patients of 1LR and DC groups using nivolumab in 16 (76%) vs. 11 (92%) cases (p > 0.05). Logistic regression revealed that 1LR status, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio < 3, IMDC favorable prognosis and clear cell histology had no significant impact on responsiveness to ICI in subsequent therapy lines. Cox proportional hazards demonstrated no significant association of 1LR status with PFS and OS in patients who received subsequent ICI treatment. CONCLUSION: Primary TKI resistance of aRCC was neither significantly associated with responsiveness to ICI during sequential therapy nor with PFS and OS. This adds the evidence for ICI based sequential therapy in primary TKI resistant aRCC.

First Comparison of Retroperitoneal Versus Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Nephroureterectomy with Bladder Cuff: A Single Center Study.

INTRODUCTION: After recent presentation of the first complete robot-assisted retroperitoneal nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff (RRNU) for patients with upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC), we aimed to compare this new surgical technique with robot-assisted transperitoneal nephroureterectomy (TRNU) representing the current standard of care. METHODS: Robot-assisted nephroureterectomies (NUs) were retrospectively analyzed and compared based on two groups: transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach. Baseline data were collected for patient demographics, tumor characteristics, intra- (EAUiaiC) and postoperative (Clavien-Dindo) complications, and perioperative variables. Tumor characteristics included grade of malignancy, clinical stage, and surgical margin status. Short-term follow-up data including 30-day readmission rates were collected. Statistical analyses were performed assuming a significant p-value of < 0.05. RESULTS: The analysis includes perioperative patient data after proven UTUC of 24 TRNU versus 12 RRNU (mean age: 70 versus 71 years; BMI: 25.9 versus 26.1 kg/m2; CCI score ≥ 4: 83% versus 75%; ASA score ≥ 3: 37% vs 33%). Intraoperative (16.4% vs 0%, p = 0.35) and postoperative (25% vs 12.5%, p = 0.64) complications demonstrated no significant discrepancy. Notably, RRNU demonstrated significantly shorter surgery time (p < 0.05) and length of stay (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in histopathological tumor characteristics, whereas significantly more lymph nodes were removed through RRNU (11.0±3.3 vs. 6.4±5.1, p < 0.05). Finally, no statistical difference was shown in short-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: We report the first head-to-head comparison between RRNU and TRNU. RRNU proves to be a safe and feasible approach which appears to be non-inferior to TRNU. RRNU expands the spectrum of minimally invasive treatment options, particularly for patients with major previous abdominal surgery.

First completely robot-assisted retroperitoneal nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff: a step-by-step technique.

INTRODUCTION: While various surgical techniques have been reported for open and minimally invasive treatment of upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC), the procedure of robot-assisted nephroureterectomy (NU) with bladder cuff has never been reported using only retroperitoneum without entering abdominal cavity. We developed a novel port placement and technique allowing to perform robot-assisted NU by a unique retroperitoneal approach. METHODS: Between February and June 2021 patients with history of UTUC were treated by robot-assisted NU completely restricted to retroperitoneal space using a singular trocar placement and a two-step docking without relocation of the surgical robot. Patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes and short-term follow-up were prospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The analysis included five patients [median age: 73 years; BMI: 27.2 kg/m2; Charlson comorbidity index 5]. All five patients had UTUC with a mean tumor size of 3.02 cm (range 0.9-6.0). UTUC was localized to distal ureter in two and to kidney in three cases. No positive surgical margins were noted for all patients with UTUC [1 low-grade and 4 high-grade]. Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in three patients did not reveal positive nodes. No intraoperative adverse events exceeding EAUiaiC classification ≥ 2 were observed, while median EBL was 150 ml (IQR 100-250). No patient experienced postoperative complications exceeding Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ 3a. Median hospital stay was 5.4d without any 30-d readmission. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate safety and feasibility of the first entire robot-assisted retroperitoneal nephroureterectomy (RRNU) with bladder cuff. This surgical technique is easily reproducible, while surgical outcomes are similar to other established techniques.

Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and relapse in patients with clinical stage IS testicular cancer.

PURPOSE: Clinical stage I (CSI) testicular germ cell tumors (TGCT) represents disease confined to the testis without metastasis and CSIS is defined as persistently elevated tumor markers (TM) after orchiectomy, indicating subclinical metastatic disease. This study aims at assessing clinical characteristics and oncological outcome in CSIS. METHODS: Data from five tertiary referring centers in Germany were screened. We defined correct classification of CSIS according to EAU guidelines. TM levels, treatment and relapse-free survival were assessed and differences between predefined groups (chemotherapy, correct/incorrect CSIS) were analyzed with Fisher's exact and Chi-square test. RESULTS: Out of 2616 TGCT patients, 43 (1.6%) were CSIS. Thereof, 27 were correctly classified (cCSIS, 1.03%) and 16 incorrectly classified (iCSIS). TMs that defined cCSIS were in 12 (44.4%), 10 (37%), 3 (11.1%) and 2 (7.4%) patients AFP, ß-HCG, AFP plus ß-HCG and LDH, respectively. In the cCSIS group, six patients were seminoma and 21 non-seminoma. Treatment consisted of active surveillance, carboplatin-mono AUC7 and BEP (bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin). No difference between cCSIS and iCSIS with respect to applied chemotherapy was found (p = 0.830). 5-year relapse-free survival was 88.9% and three patients (11%) in the cCSIS group relapsed. All underwent salvage treatment (3xBEP) with no documented death. CONCLUSION: Around 1% of all TGCT were classified as cCSIS patients. Identification of cCSIS is of critical importance to avoid disease progression and relapses by adequate treatment. We report a high heterogeneity of treatment patterns, associated with excellent long-term survival irrespective of the initial treatment approach.

Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy: a single-center comparison.

PURPOSE: Open simple prostatectomy (OSP) is a standard surgical technique for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia with prostate size larger than 80 ml. As a minimally invasive approach, robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) emerged as a feasible surgical alternative. Currently, there are no definite recommendations for the standard use of RASP. Therefore, we aimed at investigating various clinical outcomes comparing RASP with OSP. METHODS: In this retrospective single-center study, we evaluated clinical data from 103 RASP and 31 OSP patients. Both cohorts were compared regarding different clinical characteristics with and without propensity score matching. To detect independent predictive factors for clinical outcomes, multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy patients demonstrated a lower estimated blood loss and need for postoperative blood transfusions as well as less postoperative complications. OSP had a shorter operative time (125 min vs. 182 min) longer hospital stay (11 days vs. 9 days) and longer time to catheter removal (8 days vs. 6 days). In the multivariate analysis, RASP was identified as an independent predictor for longer operative time, lower estimated blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, shorter time to catheter removal, less postoperative complications and blood transfusions. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy is a safe alternative to OSP with less perioperative and postoperative morbidity. Whether OSP (shorter operative time) or RASP (shorter length of hospital stay) has a more favorable economic impact depends on the particular conditions of different health care systems. Further prospective comparative research is warranted to define the value of RASP in the current surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia.