Search

Radical cystectomy with lymph node dissection and urinary diversion is the gold-standard treatment for non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, in patients who refuse cystectomy, or in whom cystectomy carries a high risk, bladder-preserving therapies remain potential options. Bladder preservation therapies can include maximal debulking transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT), concurrent chemoradiation therapy, followed by cystoscopy to assess response. At this time, maximal TURBT is recommended for patients prior to the initiation of chemoradiation therapy or in patients with residual bladder tumors after the completion of chemoradiation therapy. That being said, TURBT carries significant risks such as bladder perforation, bleeding, and infection, ultimately risking delayed systemic treatment. Hence, understanding its role within trimodal therapy is crucial to avoid undue suffering in patients. Herein, we review the current literature on the impact of debulking TURBT in non-metastatic MIBC.

Standard-of-care first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is platinum-based chemotherapy (CTx). Maintenance immunotherapy is a treatment option for patients without progressive disease (PD) after induction CTx. IMvigor130 was a randomised, phase 3 study evaluating atezolizumab plus platinum-based CTx (arm A), atezolizumab monotherapy (arm B), or placebo plus platinum-based CTx (arm C) as first-line treatment for mUC. The primary progression-free survival (PFS) analysis showed a statistically significant PFS benefit favouring arm A versus arm C, which did not translate into overall survival (OS) benefit at the final OS analysis. We report exploratory analyses based on response to combination induction treatment (arm A vs arm C) using final OS data. Post-induction OS was analysed for patients without PD during induction (4–6 CTx cycles) who received at least one dose of single-agent atezolizumab/placebo maintenance treatment. Post-progression OS was analysed for patients with PD during induction CTx. Addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not impact OS outcomes, regardless of response to induction CTx, with hazard ratios of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63–1.10) for patients without PD and 0.75 (95% CI 0.54–1.05) for those with PD during induction CTx. Treatment effects appeared to be greatest for patients treated with cisplatin and for those with PD-L1–high tumours. Patient summary: The IMvigor130 trial showed that addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy (CTx) did not improve survival over CTx alone in patients with bladder cancer. Overall, patients whose cancer did not progress during initial treatment tended to live longer than patients whose cancer did progress, but addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not help either group live longer in comparison to CTx alone. However, the results suggest that patients who received a certain CTx drug (cisplatin) or who had high levels of a marker called PD-L1 in their tumour may get the most improvement from addition of atezolizumab to CTx.The IMvigor130 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02807636.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and safety in patients with previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Although most phase 3 clinical trials exclude patients with brain metastases, the ongoing, multicohort phase 3b/4 CheckMate 920 trial (ClincalTrials.gov identifier NCT02982954) evaluated the safety and efficacy of NIVO + IPI in a cohort that included patients with aRCC and brain metastases, as reported here. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated aRCC and asymptomatic brain metastases received NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 followed by NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks. The primary end point was the incidence of grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of the last dose of study drug. Key secondary end points were progression-free survival and the objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (both determined by the investigator). Exploratory end points included overall survival, among others. RESULTS: After a minimum follow-up of 24.5 months (N = 28), no grade 5 imAEs occurred. The most common grade 3 and 4 imAEs were diarrhea/colitis (n = 2; 7%) and hypophysitis, rash, hepatitis, and diabetes mellitus (n = 1 each; 4%). The objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 14.9%-53.5%) with a median duration of response of 24.0 months; 4 of 8 responders remained without reported progression. Seven patients (25%) had intracranial progression. The median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 2.9-12.0 months), and the median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 14.1 months to not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who had previously untreated aRCC and brain metastases-a population with a high unmet medical need that often is underrepresented in clinical trials-the approved regimen of NIVO + IPI followed by NIVO showed encouraging antitumor activity and no new safety signals.

Immunotherapy remains to be an appealing treatment option for prostate cancer with some documented promise. Prostate cancer is traditionally considered as an immunologically "cold" tumor with low tumor mutation burden, low expression of PD-L1, sparse T-cell infiltration, and a immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). Sipuleucel-T (Provenge) is the first FDA approved immunotherapeutic agent for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); demonstrating a benefit in overall survival. However various clinical trials by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and their combinations with other drugs have shown limited responses in mCRPC. Up to now, only a small subset of patients with mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability high and CDK12 mutations can clinically benefit from ICIs and/or their combinations with other agents, such as DNA damage agents. The existence of a large heterogeneity in genomic alterations and a complex TME in prostate cancer suggests the need for identifying new immunotherapeutic targets. As well as designing personalized immunotherapy strategies based on patient-specific molecular signatures. There is also a need to adjust strategies to overcome histologic barriers such as tissue hypoxia and dense stroma. The racial differences of immunological responses between men of diverse ethnicities also merit further investigation to improve the efficacy of immunotherapy and better patient selection in prostate cancer.

Urachal cancer is a rare malignancy of the urachus that is treated with surgical resection if localized and systemic chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a single-stranded or double-stranded DNA released by tumor cells into the blood and harbored the mutations of the original tumor, shedding new light on molecular diagnosis and monitoring of cancer. We report a case of resected localized urachal cancer with clear surgical margins and negative lymph node dissection but elevated ctDNA that progressed to metastatic disease. We also highlight the possibility of using ctDNA levels to assist in adjuvant therapy.

Abstract Background Spinal cord compression (SCC) in metastatic prostate cancer (MPC) is a critical complication and multiple factors influence the optimal therapeutic strategy. We investigated the differences in practice patterns between teaching hospitals (TH) and non‐teaching hospitals (NTH) across the United States. Method Using the National Inpatient Sample Database (NIS), we performed a retrospective study on hospitalizations with MPC and SCC between 2016 and 2020 in US. We compared demographic factors, comorbidities, treatment modalities, duration of hospitalization, financial expenditures, and mortality between TH and NTH. We also examined the patients' characteristics and outcomes in TH and NTH based on their chosen therapeutic strategy. Results We identified 11,380 admissions with metastatic prostate cancer and SCC; 9610 in TH and 1770 in NTH. The median cost of hospitalization was $21,922 in TH and $15,141 in NTH. Although the median age and Charlson comorbidity score did not differ between two groups, patients in TH were more likely to receive intervention (radiation or surgery) compared to NTH (Surgery: 28.2% in TH vs. 23.0% in NTH & Radiation: 12.1% in TH vs. 8.2% in NTH). Mortality was lower in TH than NTH (4.5% vs. 7.9%). In both TH and NTH, a higher proportion of patients with private insurance underwent surgery (TH: Surgery 25.1% vs. Radiation 18.8% & NTH: Surgery 27.0% vs. 6.9%). Black patients were more likely to receive radiation than surgery in TH (34.2% vs. 26.8%). Conclusion This study showed a greater percentage of patients underwent surgical intervention at TH compared to NTH. Additionally, the type of insurance and racial background were associated with distinctive treatment approaches.

Background: Erdafitinib is indicated for the treatment of adults with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations progressing on/after one or more lines of prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Objective: To better understand the frequency and management of select treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) to enable optimal fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor (FGFRi) treatment. Design, setting, and participants: Longer-term efficacy and safety results of the BLC2001 (NCT02365597) trial in patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma were studied. Intervention: Erdafitinib schedule of 8 mg/d continuous in 28-d cycles, with uptitration to 9 mg/d if serum phosphate level was

Urachal cancer is a rare genitourinary malignancy that arises from the embryologic remnant of the urachus. The malignancy is considered to be aggressive, with no clear consensus on appropriate management for advanced disease. Although traditionally considered to be related to bladder cancer given its embryologic origin, several next generation sequencing studies have revealed the genomic profile of this genitourinary malignancy most closely resembles colorectal cancer. Moreover, these studies have identified potentially actionable mutations including EGFR, KRAS and MET. In addition, recent data suggests that immunotherapy may benefit some patients with advanced urachal cancer. Nonetheless, continued research is warranted to better understand how to treat this rare genitourinary cancer.

Prostate cancer is a common cancer among men, and risk factors include age, family history, and certain genetic alterations. Dietary patterns and gut microbiota may also contribute to prostate cancer development. While pre-clinical studies have shown promise for certain vitamins and minerals in preventing or treating prostate cancer, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials found no significant reduction in prostate cancer development, mortality, or improvement in survival with vitamin use. In fact, some studies showed an increased risk of prostate cancer with vitamin E supplementation. Therefore, individuals should be informed about the lack of proven benefits when considering vitamin use for prostate cancer. [Extracted from the article]

The treatment landscape of metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) remained unchanged for over 30 years until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in 2016. Since then, several ICIs have been approved for the treatment of mUC. In addition, recent molecular characterization of bladder cancer has revealed several subtypes, including those harboring fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) mutations and fusion proteins. Erdafitinib, a pan-FGFR inhibitor, was approved for the treatment of metastatic/advanced UC in 2019. Some available evidence suggests ICI may have inferior response in advanced FGFR+ UC for unclear reasons, but may possibly be related to the tumor microenvironment. Several ongoing trials are evaluating erdafitinib in metastatic/advanced UC including the ongoing phase IB/II NORSE trial combining erdafitinib plus ICI, which may prove to offer a more robust and durable response in patients with FGFR+ metastatic/advanced UC.

Objectives The non-randomised, open-label, phase IIIb/IV multicohort CheckMate 920 trial explored the safety and efficacy with a less frequent, but continual nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) dosing regimen (cohort 1) to determine whether this modification could potentially retain efficacy benefits while improving on the manageable safety profile previously observed with this combination in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).Setting Patients were enrolled from 48 largely community-based sites in the USA.Participants 106 patients with previously untreated, predominantly clear cell aRCC received treatment.Interventions Patients received NIVO 6 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg on day 1 of the first week of each 8-week cycle; the combination alternated with NIVO 480 mg monotherapy on day 1 of the fifth week of each 8-week cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent or study end. The maximum treatment duration was 2 years. The primary endpoint was the incidence of high-grade (grade 3/4 and grade 5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs) within 100 days of the last dose. Select secondary endpoints included time to onset and resolution of high-grade IMAEs, progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events and the overall survival (OS) were the exploratory endpoints.Results The most common grade 3/4 IMAEs were diarrhoea/colitis (7.5%) and rash (6.6%) and no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, with a minimum follow-up of 28.5 months. The median PFS was 4.8 (95% CI 3.0 to 8.3) months, the ORR in evaluable patients (n=96) was 34.4% (95% CI 25.0 to 44.8), and the median OS was not reached (95% CI 24.8 months to not estimable).Conclusions While no new safety signals were reported with less frequent, but continual NIVO+IPI dosing in CheckMate 920, the modified regimen was not associated with clinical benefits relative to the approved NIVO+IPI dose. These results support the continued use of the currently approved NIVO+IPI combination dosing schedule for patients with aRCC.Trial registration number NCT02982954.

While immunotherapy with nivolumab is promising for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), overactivation of the immune system can lead to serious side effects. Immune-related meningoencephalitis without a viral or microbial etiology is a rare complication that may occur in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors (CPI). Herein, we report a 66-year-old man who underwent a partial nephrectomy which revealed a papillary RCC with clear cell component. Three years later, an abdomen and pelvic CT revealed metastatic lesions in the left psoas muscle and in the left 12th rib. The patient was treated with pazopanib which was discontinued after 2 weeks due to significant hepatic and renal toxicity. He subsequently started sunitinib. Two months later, a chest, abdomen, and pelvic CT demonstrated progressive metastatic RCC in the retroperitoneal mass of the left psoas muscle and paraspinal musculature as well as a left renal mass. The patient was treated with 7 cycles of the CPI nivolumab. He was subsequently hospitalized for 3 weeks after experiencing bilateral lower extremity weakness, lethargy, several falls, hyperthermia, confusion, and gait abnormalities. A CSF analysis demonstrated a lymphocyte pleocytosis with elevated protein and no bacterial or viral growth. The patient was treated with high-dose steroids after which his symptoms resolved. Chest, abdomen, and pelvic CT scans over the next 3 years revealed no evidence of metastatic disease, reflecting a progression-free survival of 40 months. We highlight the unique case of a patient with metastatic RCC who experienced immune-related meningoencephalitis following immunotherapy with nivolumab. Medical oncologists should be alert to the potential development of immune-related encephalitis in patients treated with nivolumab and should promptly diagnose and treat this concerning condition. The excellent oncologic outcome of this case emphasizes the need for continued aggressive measures for management of CNS toxicity resulting from CPI therapy.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is often metastatic at diagnosis. Conventional therapies such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy have generally proven ineffective in the treatment of RCC. The abscopal effect, specifically, the ability of localized radiation to trigger systemic antitumor effects, has been reported to lead to regression of non-irradiated distant tumor lesions. Herein, we report 3 patients with non-metastatic clear cell RCC (CCRCC) who underwent a nephrectomy and experienced metachronous pulmonary/mediastinal metastases confirmed as CCRCC. No patients underwent radiation post-nephrectomy or pulmonary metastasectomy. The mean duration was 7.24 weeks from the last negative chest CT prior to the nephrectomy and 96.2 weeks post-nephrectomy. All patients achieved durable complete response by RECIST criteria, with a mean follow-up duration of 115 months. Our case series represents the largest in the literature of patients who underwent a nephrectomy for CCRCC with no pre-existing pulmonary/mediastinal metastatic disease confirmed by chest CT, did not undergo radiotherapy, and developed significantly delayed CCRCC pulmonary/mediastinal metastases. We highlight the spontaneous regression of delayed metastatic disease and the role of immune responses in curtailing the growth of pulmonary metastasis in CCRCC.

Background CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954) is a multicohort, phase 3b/4 clinical trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment in predominantly US community-based patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and clinical features mostly excluded from phase 3 trials. We report safety and efficacy results from the advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) cohort of CheckMate 920.Methods Patients with previously untreated advanced/metastatic nccRCC, Karnofsky performance status ≥70%, and any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk received up to four doses of nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks for ≤2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS; both investigator-assessed), time to response (TTR), and duration of response (DOR), all using RECIST V.1.1. Overall survival (OS) was exploratory.Results Fifty-two patients with nccRCC (unclassified histology, 42.3%; papillary, 34.6%; chromophobe, 13.5%; translocation-associated, 3.8%; collecting duct, 3.8%; renal medullary, 1.9%) received treatment. With 24.1 months minimum study follow-up, median duration of therapy (range) was 3.5 (0.0–25.8) months for nivolumab and 2.1 (0.0–3.9) months for ipilimumab. Median (range) number of doses received was 4.5 (1–28) for nivolumab and 4.0 (1–4) for ipilimumab. Grade 3–4 immune-mediated AEs were diarrhea/colitis (7.7%), rash (5.8%), nephritis and renal dysfunction (3.8%), hepatitis (1.9%), adrenal insufficiency (1.9%), and hypophysitis (1.9%). No grade 5 immune-mediated AEs occurred. ORR (n=46) was 19.6% (95% CI 9.4 to 33.9). Two patients achieved complete response (papillary, n=1; unclassified, n=1), seven achieved partial response (papillary, n=4; unclassified, n=3), and 17 had stable disease. Median TTR was 2.8 (range 2.1–14.8) months. Median DOR was not reached (range 0.0+−27.8+); eight of nine responders remain without reported progression. Median PFS (n=52) was 3.7 (95% CI 2.7 to 4.6) months. Median OS (n=52) was 21.2 (95% CI 16.6 to not estimable) months.Conclusions Nivolumab plus ipilimumab for previously untreated advanced nccRCC showed no new safety signals and encouraging antitumor activity.Trial registration number NCT02982954.

Checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 have revolutionized oncologic care delivery, including clinical management of genitourinary malignancies. Despite significant associated improvement in patient outcomes, molecular heterogeneity of tumors, variable tumor engagement with the immune response, and unique patient factors likely account for different clinical responses to immunotherapy agents. A search for predictive biomarkers of treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors is underway and several candidates, although imperfect, have been identified. Multiple checkpoint inhibitors have received approval as monotherapies or in combination with other agents in genitourinary cancers and clinical trial data continues to rapidly evolve. This review summarizes key published evidence involving use of checkpoint inhibitors in management of urothelial carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, prostate adenocarcinoma, and penile squamous cell carcinoma. This review aims to help oncology practitioners develop an up-to-date, evidence-based approach to using these agents when managing patients with genitourinary cancers in clinical practice.