[Rare tumors and tumor types of the urinary system in the 5th edition of the WHO classification 2022]. / Seltenere Tumoren und Tumortypen des ableitenden Harnsystems in der 5. Aufl. der WHO-Klassifikation 2022.

The 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumors of the urinary tract and male genital organs introduced both general and specific changes in structure, classification, and nomenclature. This also applies to rarer tumors and tumor subtypes of the urinary system. Knowledge of these changes is relevant for routine histopathological work. This article provides an overview of the main new features of the rarer tumors and tumor subtypes of the urinary system in the new edition of the WHO classification.

Characterization of Responses to Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma at the Final Prespecified Survival Analysis of the Phase 3 CLEAR Study.

In the phase 3 CLEAR trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (L + P) showed superior efficacy versus sunitinib in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The combination treatment was associated with a robust objective response rate of 71%. Here we report tumor responses for patients in the L + P arm in CLEAR, with median follow-up of ∼4 yr at the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis. Tumor responses were assessed by independent review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Patients with a complete response (CR; n = 65), partial response (PR) with maximum tumor shrinkage ≥75% (near-CR; n = 59), or PR with maximum tumor shrinkage <75% (other PR; n = 129), were characterized in terms of their baseline characteristics. The median duration of response was 43.7 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.2-not estimable) for the CR group, 30.5 mo (95% CI 22.4-not estimable) for the near-CR group, and 17.2 mo (95% CI 12.5-21.4) for the other PR group. The 36-mo OS rates were consistently high in the CR (97%), near-CR (86%), and other PR (62%) groups. Robust objective response rates were observed across International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium favorable-risk (69%, 95% CI 60-78%), intermediate-risk (73%, 95% CI 67-79%), and poor-risk (70%, 95% CI 54-85%) subgroups. The robust response to L + P supports this combination as a standard-of-care first-line treatment for patients with aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: The CLEAR trial enrolled patients with advanced kidney cancer who had not previously received any treatment for their cancer. Here we report results for tumor shrinkage observed in the group that received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab combination treatment during the trial. Shrinkage of target tumors with this combination was long-lasting and was observed in patients irrespective of their disease severity. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02811861.

NECTIN4 Amplification Is Frequent in Solid Tumors and Predicts Enfortumab Vedotin Response in Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.

PURPOSE: The anti-NECTIN4 antibody-drug conjugate enfortumab vedotin (EV) is approved for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). However, durable benefit is only achieved in a small, yet uncharacterized patient subset. NECTIN4 is located on chromosome 1q23.3, and 1q23.3 gains represent frequent copy number variations (CNVs) in urothelial cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate NECTIN4 amplifications as a genomic biomarker to predict EV response in patients with mUC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We established a NECTIN4-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay to assess the predictive value of NECTIN4 CNVs in a multicenter EV-treated mUC patient cohort (mUC-EV, n = 108). CNVs were correlated with membranous NECTIN4 protein expression, EV treatment responses, and outcomes. We also assessed the prognostic value of NECTIN4 CNVs measured in metastatic biopsies of non-EV-treated mUC (mUC-non-EV, n = 103). Furthermore, we queried The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data sets (10,712 patients across 32 cancer types) for NECTIN4 CNVs. RESULTS: NECTIN4 amplifications are frequent genomic events in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (TCGA bladder cancer data set: approximately 17%) and mUC (approximately 26% in our mUC cohorts). In mUC-EV, NECTIN4 amplification represents a stable genomic alteration during metastatic progression and associates with enhanced membranous NECTIN4 protein expression. Ninety-six percent (27 of 28) of patients with NECTIN4 amplifications demonstrated objective responses to EV compared with 32% (24 of 74) in the nonamplified subgroup (P < .001). In multivariable Cox analysis adjusted for age, sex, and Bellmunt risk factors, NECTIN4 amplifications led to a 92% risk reduction for death (hazard ratio, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.34]; P < .001). In the mUC-non-EV, NECTIN4 amplifications were not associated with outcomes. TCGA Pan-Cancer analysis demonstrated that NECTIN4 amplifications occur frequently in other cancers, for example, in 5%-10% of breast and lung cancers. CONCLUSION: NECTIN4 amplifications are genomic predictors of EV responses and long-term survival in patients with mUC.

Diagnostic Accuracy of 68Ga-FAPI Versus 18F-FDG PET in Patients with Various Malignancies.

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-labeled fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) and 18F-labeled FDG PET for the detection of various tumors, we performed a head-to-head comparison of both imaging modalities across a range of tumor entities as part of our ongoing 68Ga-FAPI PET observational trial. Methods: The study included 115 patients with 8 tumor entities who received imaging with 68Ga-FAPI for tumor staging or restaging between October 2018 and March 2022. Of those, 103 patients received concomitant imaging with 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET and had adequate lesion validation for accuracy analysis. Each scan was evaluated for the detection of primary tumor, lymph nodes, and visceral and bone metastases. True or false positivity and negativity to detected lesions was assigned on the basis of histopathology from biopsies or surgical excision, as well as imaging validation. Results: 68Ga-FAPI PET revealed higher accuracy than 18F-FDG PET in the detection of colorectal cancer (n = 14; per-patient, 85.7% vs. 78.6%; per-region, 95.6% vs. 91.1%) and prostate cancer (n = 22; per-patient, 100% vs. 90.9%; per-region, 96.4% vs. 92.7%). 68Ga-FAPI PET and 18F-FDG PET had comparable per-patient accuracy in detecting breast cancer (n = 16, 100% for both) and head and neck cancers (n = 10, 90% for both modalities). 68Ga-FAPI PET had lower per-patient accuracy than 18F-FDG PET in cancers of the bladder (n = 12, 75% vs. 100%) and kidney (n = 10, 80% vs. 90%), as well as lymphoma (n = 9, 88.9% vs. 100%) and myeloma (n = 10, 80% vs. 90%). Conclusion: 68Ga-FAPI PET demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy than 18F-FDG PET in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and prostate cancer, as well as comparable diagnostic performance for cancers of the breast and head and neck. Accuracy and impact on management will be further assessed in an ongoing prospective interventional trial (NCT05160051).

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

Management of Adverse Reactions Related to Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Treatment Among Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma is the predominant histological type of kidney cancer with historically poor patient outcomes. Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab is an approved first-line regimen for people with advanced renal cell carcinoma that showed clinically meaningful improvements in efficacy over sunitinib in the CLEAR trial; however, reduced patient exposure to treatment (often stemming from adverse reactions) is a potential therapeutic barrier that must be addressed. Here, we present management strategies for adverse reactions associated with this treatment combination: fatigue, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, hypertension, stomatitis, decreased appetite, rash, nausea, and proteinuria. Dosing modification of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab should be made according to the prescribing information for each medication. Clinicians should consider that some adverse reactions, such as diarrhea, may be attributable to lenvatinib, or may be a symptom of immune-related adverse reactions to pembrolizumab (such as colitis). Adverse reactions can generally be managed by: (1) advising the patient on precautionary measures (eg, for stomatitis, practice dental hygiene, avoid irritating foods, and maintain adequate hydration), (2) monitoring for changes in symptoms from baseline (eg, changes in bowel movements, blood pressure or level of fatigue), (3) interrupting/dose reducing lenvatinib or interrupting pembrolizumab, if warranted, and advising the patient to manage their current symptoms via self-care (managing diarrhea with antidiarrheal agents and hydration), and (4) implementing medical interventions (eg, thyroid replacement or antihypertensive therapy) when needed. Through successful management of adverse reactions, oncology clinicians can improve the well-being of their patients and likely enhance adherence rates to treatment with lenvatinib and pembrolizumab.

Updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma with extended follow-up data.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapies are the recommended first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, no head-to-head phase-3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of different ICI-based combination therapies. Here, we compared the efficacy of various first-line ICI-based combination therapies in patients with mRCC using updated survival data from phase-3 RCTs. Three databases were searched in June 2023 for RCTs that analyzed oncologic outcomes in mRCC patients treated with ICI-based combination therapies as first-line treatment. A network meta-analysis compared outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response (CR) rate. Subgroup analyses were based on the International mRCC Database Consortium risk classification. The treatment ranking analysis of the entire cohort showed that nivolumab + cabozantinib (81%) had the highest likelihood of improving OS, followed by nivolumab + ipilimumab (75%); pembrolizumab + lenvatinib had the highest likelihood of improving PFS (99%), ORR (97%), and CR (86%). These results remained valid even when the analysis was limited to patients with intermediate/poor risk, except that nivolumab + ipilimumab had the highest likelihood of achieving CR (100%). Further, OS benefits of ICI doublets were not inferior to those of ICI + tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations. Recommendation of combination therapies with ICIs and/or tyrosine kinase inhibitors based on survival benefits and patient pretreatment risk classification will help advance personalized medicine for mRCC.

[Emergencies in cancer immunotherapy]. / Notfälle in der Medikamentösen Tumortherapie.

BACKGROUND: Immunomodulatory therapies are becoming increasingly important in uro-oncology. For this reason, we will probably be increasingly confronted with side effects. In addition, there is an increasing number of combinations with other mechanisms of action. Immune-mediated side effects may occur as a consequence of this therapy. These are different from the side effects of chemotherapy and other targeted therapies and therefore require different treatment strategies. AIM: Based on the current literature, the data on graduation and stage-dependent management will be presented as well as illustrated with examples from practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature review on the detection and therapeutic management of adverse events mediated in the setting of immuno-oncologic therapy. RESULTS: Treatment-related events can in principle affect all organ systems. Toxicities in the area of the skin, such as rash or pruritus, hypo- or hyperthyreosis, arthritis, muscle pain and gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently seen. In terms of frequency, most side effects are grade 1 to 2, but grade 3 to 4 toxicities are also generally well treatable if detected early. Rare complications such as neurological toxicities, pneumonitis or carditis can develop a fulminant course if diagnosed too late. CONCLUSIONS: Even emergencies are manageable if we know the most important side effects and the therapeutic options. Immune-mediated side effects are of particular importance because they can affect any organ system. However, as long as we consider the possibility of toxicity from checkpoint inhibitors when the patient presents with symptoms, most side effects are easy to treat and therefore manageable.

On-treatment Modified Glasgow Prognostic Score Provides Predictive Information Complementary to Radiological Staging in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma on Immunotherapy.

In the immunotherapy era it is difficult to predict patient prognosis on the basis of radiological staging alone, especially for the subgroup with stable disease (SD), which encompasses a wide range of clinical outcomes. Thus, there is need for reliable and, ideally, cost-efficient biomarkers to improve the accuracy of outcome prediction. We evaluated the on-treatment modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS)-a known predictor of outcomes in several cancers that is based on serum C-reactive protein and albumin-in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in the phase 2 IMvigor210 and phase 3 IMvigor211 trials. On-treatment mGPS provides valuable prognostic information complementary to radiological staging, particularly for patients with SD. In IMvigor210, on-treatment mGPS predicts outcomes as early as 6 wk after ICI initiation, considerably before the first routine staging typically performed after 10-12 wk. Our study suggests that on-treatment mGPS complements radiological imaging in predicting outcomes for patients with mUC undergoing ICI. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with metastatic bladder cancer receiving immunotherapy, it is difficult to predict treatment outcomes from imaging scans alone. Our study results suggest that a score called the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score based on just two proteins (C-reactive protein and albumin) measured in blood can accurately predict outcomes. Use of the mGPS along with imaging scans may be better in predicting the survival benefit from immunotherapy.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma in real-life clinical practice: results of a multicentric, retrospective study.

Clinical trials revealed significant antitumor activity for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Due to their strict eligibility criteria, clinical trials include selected patient cohorts, and thus do not necessarily represent real-world population outcomes. In this multicentric, retrospective study, we investigated real-world data to assess the effectiveness of pembrolizumab and atezolizumab and to evaluate the prognostic value of routinely available clinicopathological and laboratory parameters. Clinical and follow-up data from mUC patients who received ICIs (01/2017-12/2021) were evaluated. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and duration of response (DOR) were used as endpoints. Patients' (n = 210, n = 76 atezolizumab and 134 pembrolizumab) median OS and PFS were 13.6 and 5.9 months, respectively. Impaired ECOG-PS, the presence of visceral, liver or bone metastases, and hemoglobin levels were independently associated with poor OS and DCR. Furthermore, Bellmunt risk factors and the enhanced Bellmunt-CRP score were shown to be prognostic for OS, PFS and DCR. In conclusion, ICIs are effective treatments for a broad range of mUC patients. Our results confirmed the prognostic value of numerous risk factors and showed that Bellmunt risk scores can further be improved when adding CRP to the model.

New Prognostic Score (Essen Score) to Predict Postoperative Morbidity after Resection of Lung Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary metastasectomy (PM) is a widely accepted surgical procedure. This study aims to investigate postoperative morbidity and mortality after PM and develop a score to predict high-risk patients. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated all patients undergoing a PM in our institution from November 2012 to January 2023. Complications were defined as the diagnosis of any new disease after the PM up to 30 days after the operation. RESULTS: 1284 patients were identified. At least one complication occurred in 145 patients (11.29%). Only one patient died during the hospital stay. Preoperative cardiovascular comorbidities (OR: 2.99, 95% CI: 1.412-3.744, p = 0.01), major lung resections (OR: 2.727, 95% CI: 1.678-4.431, p < 0.01), repeated pulmonary metastasectomy (OR: 1.759, 95% CI: 1.040-2.976, p = 0.03) and open thoracotomy (OR: 0.621, 95% CI: 0.415-0.930, p = 0.02) were identified as independent factors for postoperative complications. Based on the above independent factors for postoperative morbidity, the Essen score was developed (overall correct classification: 94.6%, ROC-Analysis: 0.828, 95% CI: 0.795-0.903). CONCLUSION: PM is a safe surgical procedure with acceptable morbidity and low mortality. The aim of the Essen score is to identify patients that are associated with risk for postoperative complications after PM.

Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms.

Introduction: The phase 3 CLEAR study demonstrated that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved efficacy versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Prognostic features including presence and/or site of baseline metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features have been associated with disease and treatment success. This subsequent analysis explores outcomes in patients with or without specific prognostic features. Methods: In CLEAR, patients with clear cell RCC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg/day) plus everolimus (5 mg/day), or sunitinib alone (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). In this report, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were all assessed in the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and the sunitinib arms, based on baseline features: lung metastases, bone metastases, liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid histology. Results: In all the assessed subgroups, median PFS was longer with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab than with sunitinib treatment, notably among patients with baseline bone metastases (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52) and patients with sarcomatoid features (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.84). Median OS favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib irrespective of metastatic lesions at baseline, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features. Of interest, among patients with baseline bone metastases the HR for survival was 0.50 (95% CI 0.30-0.83) and among patients with sarcomatoid features the HR for survival was 0.91 (95% CI 0.32-2.58); though for many groups, median OS was not reached. ORR also favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib across all subgroups; similarly, complete responses also followed this pattern. Conclusion: Efficacy outcomes improved following treatment with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in patients with RCC-irrespective of the presence or absence of baseline lung metastases, baseline bone metastases, baseline liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, or sarcomatoid features. These findings corroborate those of the primary CLEAR study analysis in the overall population and support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a standard of care in 1L treatment for patients with advanced RCC. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02811861.

Nivolumab Switch Maintenance Therapy After Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Induction in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial by the Interdisciplinary Working Group on Renal Tumors of the German Cancer Society (NIVOSWITCH; AIO-NZK-0116ass).

BACKGROUND: The role of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) maintenance therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is undefined. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether switch maintenance therapy with nivolumab improves clinical outcomes in patients with mRCC with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sensitivity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This open-label phase 2 trial randomized patients with a partial response or stable disease after 10-12-wk TKI induction therapy to either TKI or nivolumab maintenance. Key inclusion criteria were measurable disease, clear cell histology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-2, and adequate organ function. INTERVENTION: Intravenous nivolumab 8 × 240 mg every 2 wk, followed by 480 mg every 4 wk or sunitinib 50 mg (4-2 regimen) or pazopanib 800 mg once daily orally. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES: The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were the objective response rate (ORR; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), safety (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03), and patient-reported outcomes (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index). The Kaplan-Meier method, two-sided log-rank tests, and Cox regression models were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Maintenance therapy was nivolumab for 25 patients (51.0%) and TKI for 24 (48.9%). The median age was 65 yr (range 35-79). Nine patients (18.4%) were female, 31 (63.3%) had ECOG PS of 0, and 15 (30.6%) had favorable risk. OS data are immature (17 deaths, 34.7%). The ORR was 20.0% (n = 5) for nivolumab and 52.2% (n = 12) for TKI. PFS was worse with nivolumab (hazard ratio 2.57, 95% confidence interval 1.36-4.89; p = 0.003). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 14 patients (56.0%) with nivolumab and 17 (70.8%) with TKI. A major limitation is early termination of our study. CONCLUSIONS: TKI treatment achieved superior ORR and PFS in comparison to nivolumab maintenance therapy. Our data do not indicate a role for nivolumab switch maintenance in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with metastatic kidney cancer who experienced a tumor response or disease stabilization after a short period of targeted treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor did not benefit from a switch to the immunotherapy drug nivolumab. Patients who continued their original treatment achieved better responses and a longer time without disease progression. This trial is registered on EudraCT as 2016-002170-13 and on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02959554.

Summary of Research: Adjuvant Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Placebo for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma After Nephrectomy (CheckMate 914): A Double-Blind, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial.

This is a summary of a research article reporting Part A of the CheckMate 914 study (NCT03138512; EudraCT 2016-004502-34). Following surgery to remove renal cell carcinoma (RCC), people with a high risk of the cancer returning received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (adjuvant therapy) or placebo to see if this risk was reduced. The results of this study showed that the risk of RCC returning or death was not changed with adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment compared with placebo. In addition, people treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had more side effects compared with people treated with placebo (89% versus 57%).

A Podcast Discussion on the Current Treatment Landscape for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

During the last 15 years, tremendous efforts have been made in the medical treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Immune-oncological (IO) combinations are the current standard of care in the first-line setting of mRCC. Here, the current phase 3 trials CM214 (nivolumab/ipilimumab vs. sunitinib), KN426 (axitinib/pembrolizumab vs. sunitinib), Javelin-ren-101 (axitinib/avelumab vs. sunitinib), CM9ER (cabozantinib/nivolumab vs. sunitinib), and CLEAR (lenvatinib/pembrolizumab vs. sunitinib) were discussed. In the mentioned phase 3 trials, primary and secondary endpoints were discussed. Strengths and weaknesses of each trial were reflected in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival, objective remission, health quality of life, and safety. Reflecting on the data, as well as the current ESMO guidelines, we discuss choosing the appropriate medical treatment for patients' individualized treatment journey and relay the strength and weaknesses of each combination-starting with the appropriate first-line therapy.

Enfortumab Vedotin in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Survival and Safety in a European Multicenter Real-world Patient Cohort.

Background: Treatment options for patients with urothelial cancer (UC) refractory to platinum and immunotherapy are limited and survival is short. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is a monoclonal anti-NECTIN4 antibody conjugated to monomethyl auristatin. It was recently approved because of superior survival in comparison to standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy. Real-world patients, however, often have worse characteristics than patients included in clinical trials. Objective: To analyze the efficacy and safety of EV in a cohort of real-world patients. Design setting and participants: Retrospective data were collected from 23 hospitals and private practices for patients with metastatic and previously treated UC who received EV either when reimbursed by their insurance company before European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval, within a compassionate use program, or as SOC treatment after EMA approval. Imaging and therapy management were in accordance with local standards. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Adverse events (AEs) were reported according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0 criteria. Objective responses were evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results and limitations: The median age for the 125 eligible patients was 66 yr (range 31-89). The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) was 0-1 for 76.0%, 2-4 for 13.6%, and unknown for 10.4% of patients. EV was administered in the fourth or later line for 44.8% of patients. The overall response rate was 41.6% (partial response 39.2%, complete response 2.4%). Median OS was 10.0 months (mo) (95% confidence interval 7.20-12.80) and median PFS was 5.0 mo (95% confidence interval 4.34-5.67). For patients with ECOG PS of 0-1, median OS was 14 mo. Any-grade AEs were observed in 67.2% and CTCAE grade ≥3 AEs in 30.4%. The most common AEs were peripheral sensory neuropathy and skin toxicity. Three fatal events (pneumonia, pneumonitis) occurred. Limitations include the retrospective design and short follow-up. Conclusions: Administration of EV for real-world patients was feasible with an acceptable toxicity profile. No new safety signals were reported. Antitumor activity in our cohort was comparable to data previously reported for trials. In summary, our results support the use of EV in patients with metastatic UC. Patient summary: Enfortumab vedotin is a medication that improved the survival of patients with bladder cancer in comparison to standard chemotherapy in clinical trials. However, patients included in clinical trials are highly selected and results for toxicities and improvements in survival do not always transfer to the real-world setting. We analyzed data for 125 patients who were treated with enfortumab vedotin. Our results are comparable to the outcomes from clinical trials regarding the safety and efficacy of this treatment.

First Line Medical Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Podcast on Choosing Wisely and Managing Safely.

During the last 15 years, tremendous efforts have been made toward medical treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) dominate the therapeutic armamentarium, as a combination of either CPIs or CPI/TKI, while the value of TKI monotherapy is decreasing. With increasing efficiency, however, toxicity also increases. Appropriate management of adverse events is therefore pivotal. Recognizing adverse events, judging their etiology and appropriate management, and sometimes expanding the diagnostics of adverse events are mandatory and demand experience and vigilance. Ultimately, appropriate safety management achieves optimal oncological outcomes and maintains patient quality of life.

Ten recommendations for sarcoma surgery: consensus of the surgical societies based on the German S3 guideline "Adult Soft Tissue Sarcomas".

PURPOSE: The evidence-based (S3) guideline "Adult Soft Tissue Sarcomas" (AWMF Registry No. 032/044OL) published by the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO) covers all aspects of sarcoma treatment with 229 recommendations. Representatives of all medical specialties involved in sarcoma treatment contributed to the guideline. This paper compiles the most important recommendations for surgeons selected by delegates from the surgical societies. METHODS: A Delphi process was used. Delegates from the surgical societies involved in guideline process selected the 15 recommendations that were most important to them. Votes for similar recommendations were tallied. From the resulting ranked list, the 10 most frequently voted recommendations were selected and confirmed by consensus in the next step. RESULTS: The statement "Resection of primary soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities should be performed as a wide resection. The goal is an R0 resection" was selected as the most important term. The next highest ranked recommendations were the need for a preoperative biopsy, performing preoperative MRI imaging with contrast, and discussing all cases before surgery in a multidisciplinary sarcoma committee. CONCLUSION: The evidence-based guideline "Adult Soft Tissue Sarcomas" is a milestone to improve the care of sarcoma patients in Germany. The selection of the top ten recommendations by surgeons for surgeons has the potential to improve the dissemination and acceptance of the guideline and thus improve the overall outcome of sarcoma patients.