Improving detection of carcinoma in situ in bladder cancer: urinary cytology vs the Xpert® BC Monitor.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare the performance of urinary cytology and the Xpert BC Monitor test in the detection of bladder cancer in various clinically significant patient cohorts, including patients with carcinoma in situ (CIS), in a prospective multicentre setting, aiming to identify potential applications in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 756 patients scheduled for transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) were prospectively screened between July 2018 and December 2020 at six German University Centres. Central urinary cytology and Xpert BC Monitor tests were performed prior to TURBT. The diagnostic performance of urinary cytology and the Xpert BC Monitor was evaluated according to sensitivity (SN), specificity (SC), negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV). Statistical comparison of urinary cytology and the Xpert BC Monitor was conducted using the McNemar test. RESULTS: Of 756 screened patients, 733 (568 male [78%]; median [interquartile range] age 72 [62-79] years) were included. Bladder cancer was present in 482 patients (65.8%) with 258 (53.5%) high-grade tumours. Overall SN, SC, NPV and PPV were 39%, 93%, 44% and 92% for urinary cytology, and 75%, 69%, 59% and 82% for the Xpert BC Monitor. In patients with CIS (concomitant or solitary), SN, SC, NPV and PPV were 59%, 93%, 87% and 50% for urinary cytology, and 90%, 69%, 95% and 50% for the Xpert BC Monitor. The Xpert BC Monitor missed four tumours (NPV = 98%) in patients with solitary CIS, while potentially avoiding 63.3% of TURBTs in inconclusive or negative cystoscopy and a negative Xpert result. CONCLUSION: Positive urinary cytology may indicate bladder cancer and should be taken seriously. The Xpert BC Monitor may represent a useful diagnostic tool for correctly identifying patients with solitary CIS and unsuspicious or inconclusive cystoscopy.

Side effects of drug-antibody conjugates enfortumab-vedotin and sacituzumab-govitecan in targeted therapy in cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), enfortumab-vedotin (EV) and sacituzumab-govitecan are new drugs in the treatment of urologic tumors, whose safety profile has not been fully investigated. Therefore, the aim of our study was to evaluate adverse events related to both agents reported to VigiBase, the World Health Organization's global pharmacovigilance database. METHODS: We employed Bayesian disproportionality analysis based on the information component (IC) to explore the safety profile associated with both therapies. Additionally, we used the proportional reporting ratio approach to examine the safety profile further. RESULTS: We identified 41,752 reports connected to ADC therapy (EV: n=5359; SG: n=36,393). In the EV subgroup, most reports were associated with dermatologic (38.6%), neurologic adverse events (16.5%), or adverse laboratory assessments (19.4%). In contrast, reports in the SG subgroup were mainly associated with gastrointestinal adverse events (24.2%) and adverse laboratory assessments (39.0%). Adverse laboratory assessments in both cohorts were often based on haematotoxic adverse events. CONCLUSION: We could provide a comprehensive real-world safety profile of EV and SG using a global pharmacovigilance database. Based on the safety signals explored in this study, further research regarding the impact of these side effects on patient outcomes is justified.

Xpert bladder cancer monitor to predict the need for a second TURB (MoniTURB trial).

To determine whether Xpert bladder cancer monitor, a noninvasive PCR-based biomarker test, can predict the need for 2nd transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) better than clinical assessment. Patients scheduled for TURB were prospectively screened. After initial TURB, patients were assigned to 2nd TURB or follow-up cystoscopy at 3 months (FU) by clinicians' discretion. Central urine cytology and Xpert monitor tests were performed prior to the 1st TURB and 2nd TURB or FU, respectively. Statistical analysis to compare clinical assessment and Xpert monitor comprised sensitivity (SENS), specificity (SPEC), NPV and PPV. Of 756 screened patients, 171 were included (114 with 2nd TURB, 57 with FU). Residual tumors were detected in 34 patients who underwent 2nd TURB, and recurrent tumors were detected in 2 patients with FU. SENS and SPEC of Xpert monitor were 83.3% and 53.0%, respectively, PPV was 32.6% and NPV was 92.1%. Clinical risk assessment outperformed Xpert monitor. In patients with pTa disease at initial TURB, Xpert monitor revealed a NPV of 96%. Xpert monitor was not superior than clinical assessment in predicting the need for 2nd TURB. It might be an option to omit 2nd TURB for selected patients with pTa disease.

Striking a balance: outcomes of short-term Mono-J placement following ureterorenoscopy.

To evaluate factors affecting the outcomes of short-term Mono-J insertion for 6 h following ureteroscopic stone removal. Patients treated with a Mono-J for 6 h after ureterorenoscopy and stone removal were analysed. FaST 1 and 2 (Fast Track Stent Studies), two consecutive single academic centre studies, were conducted between August 2014 and April 2018. In each study, we randomized patients with renal or ureteral calculi to two groups before ureterorenoscopy. FaST 1 compared a Mono-J insertion for 6 h versus Double-J insertion for 3-5 days after ureterorenoscopy. FaST 2 compared a Mono-J insertion to a tubeless procedure in the same clinical setting. All patients were pre-stented for 3-5 days before URS. The study endpoint was stent-related symptoms as assessed by a validated questionnaire (USSQ). Results were stratified by clinical parameters, stone characteristics and operation details. 108 of 156 initially randomized patients undergoing ureterorenoscopy were included. USSQ scores covering the time 3-5 weeks after stone removal showed a significantly reduced urinary symptoms and pain index compared to the scores before ureterorenoscopy. USSQ results before and after stone removal did not correlate with stone size or operation time and did not differ significantly depending on stone localization, the treating endourologist, or ureterorenoscopic device used (p > 0.05). Six patients (5%) required reintervention. Following secondary ureterorenoscopy and ureteral drainage with a Mono-J for 6 h, quality of life is independent of stone size and localization, operation time, the treating endourologist, and the URS device used.