Oncological and safety profiles in patients undergoing simultaneous transurethral resection (TUR) of bladder tumour and TUR of the prostate.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the oncological impact and adverse events of performing simultaneous transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURB) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), as evidence on the outcomes of simultaneous TURB for bladder cancer and TURP for obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia is limited and contradictory. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from 12 European hospitals treated with either TURB alone or simultaneous TURB and TURP (TURB+TURP) were retrospectively analysed. A propensity score matching (PSM) 1:1 was performed with patients from the TURB+TURP group matched to TURB-alone patients. Associations between surgery approach with recurrence-free (RFS) and progression-free (PFS) survivals were assessed in Cox regression models before and after PSM. We performed a subgroup analysis in patients with risk factors for recurrence (multifocality and/or tumour size >3 cm). RESULTS: A total of 762 men were included, among whom, 76% (581) underwent a TURB alone and 24% (181) a TURB+TURP. There was no difference in terms of tumour characteristics between the groups. We observed comparable length of stay as well as complication rates including major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥III) for the TURB-alone vs TURB+TURP groups, while the latest led to longer operative time (P < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 44 months, there were more recurrences in the TURB-alone (47%) compared to the TURB+TURP group (28%; P < 0.001). Interestingly, there were more recurrences at the bladder neck/prostatic fossa in the TURB-alone group (55% vs 3%, P < 0.001). TURB+TURP procedures were associated with improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.53; P < 0.001), but not PFS (HR 1.63, 95% CI 0.90-2.98; P = 0.11). Within the PSM cohort of 254 patients, the simultaneous TURB+TURP was still associated with improved RFS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.22-0.49; P < 0.001). This was also true in the subgroup of 380 patients with recurrence risk factors (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28-0.62; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In our contemporary cohort, simultaneous TURB and TURP seems to be an oncologically safe option that may, even, improve RFS by potentially preventing disease recurrence at the bladder neck and in the prostatic fossa.

Pembrolizumab outperforms tyrosine kinase inhibitors as adjuvant treatment in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy.

We determined the oncologic outcomes and safety profiles of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) compared to adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients at high risk after nephrectomy for clinically nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Network meta-analyses were conducted for disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) with placebo as the common comparator arm. Six trials (KEYNOTE-564, S-TRAC, ASSURE, PROTECT, ATLAS, and SORCE) were included in our analysis. Compared to placebo, both pembrolizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.92) and pazopanib 800 mg (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.97) were significantly associated with better DFS. Adjuvant pembrolizumab (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.97) was significantly associated with better OS compared to TKIs (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-1.04). Analysis of treatment ranking revealed that pembrolizumab was the best treatment with regard to both DFS and OS and had the lowest likelihood of any-grade and high-grade AEs in comparison to TKIs. The superior oncologic benefit of pembrolizumab and its better toxicity profile support it as the new standard of care in the adjuvant setting for nephrectomy patients at high risk of RCC relapse. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with kidney cancer at high risk of relapse after surgical removal of their kidney, postoperative therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab offers the best risk/benefit ratio.

Accuracy and Clinical Utility of a Tumor Grade- and Stage-based Predictive Model in Localized Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Among various clinicopathologic factors used to identify low-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), tumor grade and stage are of utmost importance. The clinical value added by inclusion of other risk factors remains unproven. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of a tumor grade- and stage-based (GS) model to identify patients with UTUC for whom kidney-sparing surgery (KSS) could be attempted. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this international study, we reviewed the medical records of 1240 patients with UTUC who underwent radical nephroureterectomy. Complete data needed for risk stratification according to the European Association of Urology (EAU) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines were available for 560 patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine if risk factors were associated with the presence of localized UTUC. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the GS, EAU, and NCCN models in predicting pathologic stage were calculated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 198 patients (35%) had clinically low-grade, noninvasive tumors, and 283 (51%) had ≤pT1disease. On multivariable analyses, none of the EAU and NCCN risk factors were associated with the presence of non-muscle-invasive UTUC among patients with low-grade and low-stage UTUC. The GS model exhibited the highest accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value among all three models. According to the GS, EAU, and NCCN models, the proportion of patients eligible for KSS was 35%, 6%, and 4%, respectively. Decision curve analysis revealed that the net benefit of the three models was similar within the clinically reasonable range of probability thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The GS model showed favorable predictive accuracy and identified a greater number of KSS-eligible patients than the EAU and NCCN models. A decision-making algorithm that weighs the benefits of avoiding unnecessary kidney loss against the risk of undertreatment in case of advanced carcinoma is necessary for individualized treatment for UTUC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: We assessed the ability of three models to predict low-grade, low-stage disease in patients with cancer of the upper urinary tract. No risk factors other than grade assessed on biopsy and stage assessed from scans were associated with better prediction of localized cancer. A model based on grade and stage may help to identify patients who could benefit from kidney-sparing treatment of their cancer.

Adjuvant therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors for localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been widely used in the management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the use of systemic therapies in the adjuvant setting of localized and locally advanced RCC has shown conflicting results across the literature. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of TKIs in the adjuvant setting for patients with localized and locally advanced RCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched in December 2020 to identify phase III randomized controlled trials of patients receiving adjuvant therapies with TKI for RCC. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were the primary endpoints. The secondary endpoints included treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of high and any grade. RESULTS: Five trials (S-TRAC, ASSURE, PROTECT, ATLAS, and SORCE) were included in our meta-analysis comprising 6,531 patients. The forest plot revealed that TKI therapy was associated with a significantly longer DFS compared to placebo (pooled HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81-0.96, P= 0.004). The Cochrane's Q test (P = 0.51) and I2 test (I2 = 0%) revealed no significant heterogeneity. Adjuvant TKI was not associated with improved OS compared to placebo (pooled HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83-1.04, P= 0.23). The Cochrane's Q test (P = 0.74) and I2 test (I2 = 0%) revealed no significant heterogeneity. The forest plot revealed that TKI therapy, compared to placebo, was associated with higher rates of high grade TRAEs (OR: 5.20, 95% CI: 4.10-6.59, P< 0.00001) as well as any grade TRAEs (OR: 3.85, 95% CI: 1.22-12.17, P= 0.02). The Cochrane's Q tests (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.00001, respectively) and I2 tests (I2 = 79% and I2 = 90%, respectively) revealed significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our analyses suggest an improved DFS in patients with localized and locally advanced RCC receiving adjuvant TKI as compared to placebo; however, this did not translate into any significant OS benefit. Additionally, TKI therapy led to significant toxicity. Adjuvant TKI does not seem to offer a satisfactory risk and/orbenefit balance for all patients. Select patients with very poor prognosis may be considered in a shared decision-making process with the patient. With the successful arrival of immune-based therapies in RCC, these may allow a more favorable risk/benefit profile.

Trimodal therapy with high-dose-rate brachytherapy and hypofractionated external beam radiation combined with long-term androgen deprivation for unfavorable-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the outcomes of high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy and hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) combined with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in very-high-risk (VHR) versus high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa), as defined in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria. METHODS: Data from 338 consecutive HR or VHR PCa patients who had undergone this tri-modal therapy between 2005 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free, progression-free, overall, and cancer-specific survival (BCRFS/PFS/OS/CSS) rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Wilcoxon test. Cox regression models were used to evaluate candidate prognostic factors for survival. C­indexes were used to assess model discrimination. RESULTS: Within a median follow-up of 84 months, 68 patients experienced BCR, 58 had disease progression including only 3 with local progression, 27 died of any cause, and 2 died from PCa. The 5­year BCRFS, PFS, OS, and CSS rates were 82.2% (HR 86.5%; VHR 70.0%), 90.0% (HR 94.3%; VHR 77.6%), 95.7% (HR, 97.1%; VHR, 91.8%), and 99.6% (HR, 100%; VHR, 98.0%), respectively. In multivariable analyses that adjusted for standard clinicopathologic features, the risk subclassification was associated both PFS and OS (p = 0.0003 and 0.001, respectively). Adding the risk subclassification improved the accuracy of models in predicting BCRFS, PFS, and OS. CONCLUSION: While the outcome of this trimodal approach appears favorable, VHR PCa patients had significantly worse oncological outcomes than those with HR PCa. The NCCN risk subclassification should be integrated into prognostic tools to guide risk stratification, treatment, and follow-up for unfavorable PCa patients receiving this trimodal therapy.

The recurrence and progression risk after simultaneous endoscopic surgery of urothelial bladder tumour and benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate recurrence and progression risk after simultaneous endoscopic surgery of bladder cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), as simultaneous surgery is not an unusual scenario and theoretically simultaneous transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) can lead to an increased risk of recurrence in the bladder neck and prostatic urethra (BN/PU). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the risk of recurrence (i.e. whole bladder and/or BN/PU) and tumour progression as outcomes after a simultaneous endoscopic surgery of bladder tumour and BPH, as compared to TURBT alone. We queried PubMed and Web of Science database on 1 January 2020. We used random- and/or fixed-effects meta-analytic models in the presence or absence of heterogeneity according to the I2 statistic, respectively. RESULTS: Nine retrospective and three clinical trial studies were selected after considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. We conducted the meta-analysis on retrospective and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) separately. Eight retrospective and three RCT studies were included to assess the BN/PU recurrence risk and the summarised risk ratio (RR) was 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.41) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.47-1.84), respectively. Five retrospective and two RCT studies were included to assess the progression risk and the summarised RR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.56-1.48) and 1.16 (95% CI 0.30-4.51), respectively. Eight retrospective and three RCT studies were included to assess the whole bladder recurrence risk and the summarised RR was 0.87 (95% CI 0.78-0.97) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.65-1.21), respectively. CONCLUSION: We did not observe any increased risk of total bladder recurrence, BN/PU recurrence, or progression after a simultaneous endoscopic surgery of bladder tumour and BPH, as compared to TURBT alone.