Patient’s regret (PatR) concerning the choice of therapy represents a crucial endpoint for treatment evaluation after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCA). This study aims to compare PatR following robot-assisted (RARP) and open surgical approach (ORP). A survey comprising perioperative-functional criteria was sent to 1000 patients in 20 German centers at a median of 15 months after RP. Surgery-related items were collected from participating centers. To calculate PatR differences between approaches, a multivariate regressive base model (MVBM) was established incorporating surgical approach and demographic, center-specific, and tumor-specific criteria not primarily affected by surgical approach. An extended model (MVEM) was further adjusted by variables potentially affected by surgical approach. PatR was based on five validated questions ranging 0–100 (cutoff >15 defined as critical PatR). The response rate was 75.0%. After exclusion of patients with laparoscopic RP or stage M1b/c, the study cohort comprised 277/365 ORP/RARP patients. ORP/RARP patients had a median PatR of 15/10 (p < 0.001) and 46.2%/28.1% had a PatR >15, respectively (p < 0.001). Based on the MVBM, RARP patients showed PatR >15 relative 46.8% less frequently (p < 0.001). Consensual decision making regarding surgical approach independently reduced PatR. With the MVEM, the independent impact of both surgical approach and of consensual decision making was confirmed. This study involving centers of different care levels showed significantly lower PatR following RARP.

Certification as a prostate cancer center requires the offer of several supportive measures to patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). However, it remains unclear how patients estimate the relevance of these measures and whether the availability of these measures differs between certified prostate cancer centers (CERTs) and non-certified centers (NCERTs). In 20 German urologic centers, a survey comprising questions on the relevance of 15 supportive measures was sent to 1000 patients at a median of 15 months after RP. Additionally, patients were asked to rate the availability of these measures using a four-item Likert scale. The aim of this study was to compare these ratings between CERTs and NCERTs. The response rate was 75.0%. In total, 480 patients underwent surgery in CERTs, and 270 in NCERTs. Patients rated 6/15 supportive measures as very relevant: preoperative medical counselling concerning treatment options, a preoperative briefing answering last questions, preoperative pelvic floor exercises (PFEs), postoperative PFEs, postoperative social support, and postoperative rehabilitation addressing physical fitness recovery. These ratings showed no significant difference between CERTs and NCERTs (p = 0.133–0.676). In addition, 4/9 of the remaining criteria were rated as more detailed by patients in CERTs. IMPROVE represents the first study worldwide to evaluate a patient-reported assessment of the supportive measures accompanying RP. Pertinent offers vary marginally between CERTs and NCERTs.

Background: Increasing life expectancy and demographic change result in a rising number of geriatric patients, but knowledge about geriatric treatment options and adapted diagnostic pathways is low. Simultaneously, urinary tract infections (UTIs) are common in older people and often difficult to treat. Methods: Patients with a UTI at a urological outpatient department between January 01, 2016, and December 31, 2017, were retrospectively identified in the data system. One thousand one hundred fifteen patients with “N30” and “N39” diagnosis were included in this study, 965 of which were under the age of 75 (group 1) and 150 of which 75 years or older (group 2). Results: Of 150 patients in group 2, 41.6% had nitrite-positive urine (vs. 20.9% in group 1, p < 0.05 in χ2 testing). Patients in group 2 often had indwelling devices (30.3 vs. 6.0%, p < 0.05) and presented a sterile urine culture in only 20.7% (vs. 40.1% in group 1). Regarding calculated antibiotic therapy, there were significant differences concerning prescription of ciprofloxacin (34.9 vs. 25%, p < 0.05) and fosfomycin (12.7 vs. 40.7%, p < 0.05). Conclusion: UTI in geriatric patients should be treated differently than in younger patients because antibiotic resistance is high. The group with indwelling devices is complex. Individual strategies for geriatric patients should be considered.

The integration of artificial intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), has the potential to significantly enhance therapeutic decision-making in clinical oncology. Initial studies across various disciplines have demonstrated that LLM-based treatment recommendations can rival those of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs); however, such data are currently lacking for urological cancers. This preparatory study establishes a robust methodological foundation for the forthcoming CONCORDIA trial, including the validation of the System Causability Scale (SCS) and its modified version (mSCS), as well as the selection of LLMs for urological cancer treatment recommendations based on recommendations from ChatGPT-4 and an MTB for 40 urological cancer scenarios. Both scales demonstrated strong validity, reliability (all aggregated Cohen’s K > 0.74), and internal consistency (all Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.9), with the mSCS showing superior reliability, internal consistency, and clinical applicability (p < 0.01). Two Delphi processes were used to define the LLMs to be tested in the CONCORDIA study (ChatGPT-4 and Claude 3.5 Sonnet) and to establish the acceptable non-inferiority margin for LLM recommendations compared to MTB recommendations. The forthcoming ethics-approved and registered CONCORDIA non-inferiority trial will require 110 urological cancer scenarios, with an mSCS difference threshold of 0.15, a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.025, and a beta of 0.1. Blinded mSCS assessments of MTB recommendations will then be compared to those of the LLMs. In summary, this work establishes the necessary prerequisites prior to initiating the CONCORDIA study and validates a modified score with high applicability and reliability for this and future trials.

Introduction: Combinations of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the standard of care (SOC) for treatment-naive metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. In this multicenter study, we evaluated the RW safety and efficacy of cabozantinib plus nivolumab in mRCC patients. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from twelve cancer centers in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Patients with advanced or mRCC were eligible. The investigator-based objective response rate (ORR) and progression free survival (PFS) were calculated from the start of the treatment to progression or death. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan–Meier (KM) plots were utilized where appropriate. Results: In total, 96 eligible patients (66.6% male) with a median age of 66.0 years were included. The most common histology was clear-cell RCC (ccRCC) in 63.4% (n = 61). A prior nephrectomy was performed in 60.4% (n = 58). ECOG 0-1 was 68.8% (n = 66). A partial response was documented in 43.8% of patients (n = 42), a stable disease in 32.3% (n = 31), and a progressive disease in 8.3% (n = 8) as the best overall response. Response data were not evaluable in 13.5% (n = 13). The median follow-up time was 12.7 months (95% CI, 10.0–15.3). The PFS rate at 6 months was 89.8% in the overall population (86.8% for ccRCC; 90.0% for non-ccRCC). Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 82.3% (n = 79) for all grades and 41.7% (n = 40) for grades 3–5. Elevated liver enzymes (34.4%), diarrhea (31.3%), and hand–foot syndrome (29.2%) were the three most frequent AEs of any grade and causality. Discussion/Conclusions: In this real-world cohort of mRCC patients, the application of cabozantinib plus nivolumab was shown to be safe and feasible. Our data support the use of cabozantinib plus nivolumab as a first-line standard therapy in mRCC patients. Major limitations were the retrospective data capture and short follow-up time of our study.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are standard of care in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) ineligible for cisplatin, and as second-line therapy after platinum-based chemotherapy. To date, few data exist about the efficacy of the former second-line chemotherapeutic agent vinflunine after the failure of sequential platinum-based chemotherapy and ICI treatment. The aim of this analysis was to examine the efficacy of vinflunine in a post-ICI third- or later-line setting. Methods: In this retrospective German multicenter study, data of mUC patients treated with vinflunine were reviewed in six centers between February 2010 and December 2021. All of the 105 included patients had radiologic progression after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The objective was to describe the efficacy of vinflunine in terms of overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) for post-ICI and ICI-naïve patients, respectively. Results: In our cohort, 61 patients (58.1%) had preceding immunotherapy before vinflunine administration, and 44 patients (41.9%) were ICI-naïve. Patients with ICI pretreatment showed an ORR of 22.4% compared to 15.6% within ICI-naïve patients (p = 0.451), and CBR was 51.0% vs. 25.0% (p = 0.020), respectively. Post-ICI patients showed longer OS (8.78 vs. 5.72 months; p = 0.467) and longer PFS (3.09 vs. 2.14 months; p = 0.105). Conclusion: This analysis supports the sequential use of vinflunine in post-ICI patients since the vinca-alkaloid retains a measurable clinical activity in these heavily pretreated patients. The therapeutic benefit may be higher than demonstrated in previous studies.