Robotic or open superficial inguinal lymph node dissection as staging procedures for clinically node negative high risk penile cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perioperative and oncologic outcomes of a cohort of clinically node negative high-risk penile cancer patients undergoing robotic assisted inguinal lymph node dissection (RAIL) compared to patients undergoing open superficial inguinal lymph node dissection (OSILND). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical characteristics and outcomes of clinically node negative high-risk penile cancer patients undergoing RAIL at MDACC from 2013-2019. We sought to compare this to a contemporary open cohort of clinically node negative patients treated from 1999 to 2019 at MDACC and Moffit Cancer Center (MCC) with an OSILND. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study cohorts. Comparison analysis between operative variables was performed using Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's rank-sum test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival endpoints. RESULTS: There were 24 patients in the RAIL cohort, and 35 in the OSILND cohort. Among the surgical variables, operative time (348.5 minutes vs. 239.0 minutes, P < 0.01) and the duration of operative drain (37 vs. 22 days P = 0.017) were both significantly longer in the RAIL cohort. Complication incidences were similar for both cohorts (34.3% for OSILND vs. 33.3% for RAIL), with wound complications making up 33% of all complications for RAIL and 31% of complications for OSILND. No inguinal recurrences were noted in either cohort. The median follow-up was 40 months for RAIL and 33 months for OSILND. CONCLUSIONS: We observed similar complication rates and surgical variable outcomes in our analysis apart from operative time and operative drain duration. Oncological outcomes were similar between the two cohorts. RAIL was a reliable staging and potentially therapeutic procedure among clinically node negative patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma with comparable outcomes to an OSILND cohort.

Contemporary outcomes following robotic prostatectomy for locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer.

While radical prostatectomy (RP) plays a prominent role in the management of localized prostate cancer, its role in high risk or metastatic disease is less clear. Due to changes in prostate cancer screening patterns, particularly those made by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, data is suggesting increasing incidences of high risk and metastatic disease, underlying the importance of continued research in this area. While past approaches to management may have discouraged surgical intervention, more contemporary approaches have attempted to evaluate its effectiveness and utility. The purpose of this review is an updated discussion of the current literature regarding surgical approaches to high risk prostate cancer. The PubMed and Medline databases were queried for English language articles related to the surgical management of high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma. In this review, we examine the utility of surgery as a single or multimodal approach to management with patients with high risk, locally advanced, and metastatic prostate cancer. Outcomes measures are reviewed including data on survival and recurrence rates. Functional outcomes are an important consideration in prostate cancer management and while data is more limited, this review examines some of the key findings. Finally, a discussion regarding surgical complication rates and ongoing clinical trials is addressed. While surgery appears to be promising in this patient cohort, there remains significant heterogeneity in the data that ongoing trials may be able to address. At its current level of understanding, surgery should be considered as a potential tool in patient management, but may play a more prominent role in a multi-modality setting for optimal outcomes.

Whole-exome Sequencing in Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma Uncovers Novel Prognostic Categorization and Drug Targets Similar to Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC) is rare with limited treatment options. We report the first whole-exome sequencing (WES) analysis and compare the molecular landscape of PSCC with other squamous cell carcinomas (SCC), with the goal to identify common novel targets. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: PSCC and matched normal penile tissues from 34 prospectively followed patients, underwent genomic WES and human papilloma virus testing. We performed tumor mutation signature estimation by two methods, first to identify APOBEC-related mutation enrichments and second to classify PSCC-enriched mutational patterns based on their association with the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer mutation signatures. We performed an extensive genomic comparison between our PSCC cohort and other SCCs in The Cancer Genome Atlas studies. RESULTS: We identified that most PSCC samples showed enrichment for Notch pathway (n = 24, 70.6%) alterations, comparable with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSC). PSCC mutation signatures are most comparable with HNSC signatures. PSCC samples showed an enrichment of two distinct mutational signatures, the first, associated with oncogenic activity of AID/APOBEC, and the second, associated with defective DNA mismatch repair and microsatellite instability. MP1 enrichment was positively correlated with increased tumor mutation burden (TMB; CC, 0.71; P < 0.0001) and correlated with significantly worse survival in comparison with those with the MP2 subset [HR, 10.2 (1.13-92.9); P = 0.039]. We show that a subset of PSCC (38%), with enrichment of APOBEC-related mutation signature, had significantly higher TMB and worse overall survival in comparison with non-APOBEC-enriched subset [HR, 2.41 (1.11-6.77); P = 0.042]. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified novel druggable targets and similarities in mutational signatures between PSCC and HNSC with potential clinical implications.See related commentary by McGregor and Sonpavde, p. 2375.

Outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid dedifferentiation to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid dedifferentiation (sRCC) is associated with poor survival outcomes. We aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with sRCC comparing clear-cell (sccRCC) to non-clear cell epithelial histology (snccRCC). METHODS: We performed retrospective analysis of sRCC patients who received ICI at MD Anderson Cancer Center (n = 48, 41 with ccRCC and 7 with nccRCC) to determine the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). Additionally, we performed a prespecified multivariable Cox regression comparing survival outcomes between sccRCC and snccRCC. RESULTS: The ORR for the entire cohort was 35.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.4%, 49.6%), including 8 (16.7%) patients (95% CI: 8.7%, 29.6%) who achieved a complete remission. The disease control rate was 52% (95% CI: 38.3%, 65.5%). In patients with sccRCC, the ORR was 39% (95% CI: 25.7%, 54.3%) and disease control rate 58.5% (43.4%, 72.2%). Among 7 snccRCC patients, only one (14.3%) achieved an objective partial response. At a median follow-up of 51.1 months, the median PFS was 4.9 months (95% CI: 2.7, 16.3) and the median OS was 28.4 months (95% CI: 15.8, NA) for the entire cohort. For patients with sccRCC, the median PFS was 8.9 months, with median OS of 30.1 months, compared with median PFS of 2.3 months (HR 0.25 [95% CI: 0.08, 0.78]; P= 0.0145) and median OS of 6.7 months (HR 0.13 [95% CI 0.04, 0.44]; P=0.0009) for patients with snccRCC. CONCLUSION: ICIs appear to be effective in sccRCC while the treatment of snccRCC remains challenging.

Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: Current status of its use as a treatment endpoint and early management strategies.

Prostate cancer is one of the most common urological malignancies managed by a practicing urologist. Treatment strategies are varied, but radical prostatectomy (RP) remains a viable and commonly used option for many patients. A continuing challenge in the management is how to approach a patient who has biochemical recurrence (BCR) after RP. There are no consensus guidelines on the appropriate strategy, and the current recommendations, although useful, are at times confusing. The natural history of BCR is heterogeneous. Published studies aid in the clinician's ability to predict patients most likely to recur; however, this remains inexact. In addition, recent changes in the recommendations for disease screening, as well as technological advances, have added to the already challenging task of the clinician. The objective of this review is to provide an up-to-date summary of the definitions, diagnosis, and management strategies of BCR after RP. This narrative review was conducted by searching Medline for all relevant articles in English with the key terms of biochemical recurrence, prostate cancer, management, and other relevant terms. Information was compiled and reviewed for relevance to the article. Consideration was given to all articles with sufficient evidence including systematic review, retrospective studies, and clinical trials.

Adjuvant therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Locally advanced, non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is conventionally managed with surgery. However, patients are at a high risk of RCC recurrence and have poor survival outcomes. An effective adjuvant systemic treatment is needed to improve on these outcomes. Targeted molecular and immune-based therapies have been investigated, or are under investigation, but their role in this setting remains unclear. Areas covered: A comprehensive search of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for relevant literature. The following topics pertinent to adjuvant therapy in RCC were evaluated: strategies for patient selection, cytokine-based immunotherapy, vaccine therapy, VEGF and non-VEGF targeted molecular agents, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Expert commentary: Strong evidence for the incorporation of adjuvant therapy in high-risk RCC is lacking. Multiple targeted molecular therapies have been examined with only one approved for use. Genetic and molecular-based prognostic models are needed to determine who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. Developing adjuvant therapy strategies in the future depends on the results of important ongoing trials with immunotherapy and targeted agents.

Is surgeon intuition equivalent to models of operative complexity in determining the surgical approach for nephron sparing surgery?

INTRODUCTION: The choice of approach for partial nephrectomy often depends on surgical complexity. We aimed to determine if surgeon intuition was equivalent to markers of operative complexity, such as RENAL nephrometry and Mayo adhesive probability (MAP) score, in determining the surgical approach for partial nephrectomy (PN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 119 masses removed for suspected renal cell carcinoma from January 2012 to September 2014 by a single surgeon who intuitively chose treatment with one of three surgical approaches: Open PN (OPN), robotic-assisted transperitoneal PN (RATPN), or robotic-assisted retroperitoneal PN (RARPN). Clinicodemographic characteristics, pathological features, and postoperative outcomes were compared for each approach. Logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of open surgical resection, our primary endpoint. RESULTS: Fifty-four tumors (45%) were resected via OPN, 40 (34%) via RATPN, and 25 (21%) via RARPN. OPN was performed in patients with more comorbidities (P = 0.02), lower baseline renal function (P < 0.01), more solitary kidneys (P < 0.01), and more multifocal disease (P < 0.01). Patients undergoing OPN had higher median nephrometry scores compared to RATPN and RARPN patients (8 vs. 7 vs. 7, respectively; P = 0.03), but MAP scores were no different among all three groups (P = 0.36). On multivariate analysis, higher nephrometry scores (odds ratio: 1.41, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-1.81; P = 0.007) were independently associated with open surgical resection. Nephrometry score was predictive of OPN (area under curve = 0.64, P = 0.01) with a score of 6.5 having the highest sensitivity and specificity (76% and 42%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: RENAL nephrometry score was associated with surgical approach intuitively chosen by an experienced surgeon, but the presence of adherent perinephric fat did not correlate with decision-making.