Purpose: To analyze and summarize the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) alone or in combination therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and urothelial carcinoma (UC) stratified by sex. Methods: Three databases were queried in October 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzing RCC and UC patients treated with ICIs. We analyzed the association between sex and the efficacy of ICIs in RCC and UC patients across several clinical settings. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival for the metastatic setting and disease-free survival (DFS) for the adjuvant setting. Results: Overall, 16 RCTs were included for meta-analyses and network meta-analyses. In the first-line treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC) and UC (mUC) patients, ICI-based combination therapies significantly improved OS compared to the current standard of care, regardless of sex. Adjuvant ICI monotherapy reduced the risk of disease recurrence in female patients with locally advanced RCC (pooled hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55–0.93) but not in male patients, and, conversely, in male patients with muscle-invasive UC (pooled HR: 0.80, 95%CI 0.68–0.94) but not in female patients. Treatment ranking analyses in the first-line treatment of mRCC and mUC showed different results between sexes. Of note, regarding adjuvant treatment for RCC, pembrolizumab (99%) had the highest likelihood of improved DFS in males, whereas atezolizumab (84%) in females. Conclusions: OS benefit of first-line ICI-based combination therapy was seen in mRCC and mUC patients regardless of sex. Sex-based recommendations for ICI-based regimens according to the clinical setting may help guide clinical decision-making.

This study aimed to assess both efficacy and safety outcomes of lowering the dose of BCG compared to intravesical chemotherapies in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients using a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis approach. A comprehensive literature search was performed through Pubmed®, Web of Science™, and Scopus® in December 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the oncologic and/or safety outcomes of reduced dose intravesical BCG and/or intravesical chemotherapies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The outcomes of interest were risk of recurrence, progression, treatment-related adverse events, and discontinuation. Overall, 24 studies were eligible for quantitative synthesis. Among 22 studies that adopted induction followed by maintenance intravesical therapy, with reference to the lower-dose BCG, epirubicin was associated with a significantly higher risk of recurrence (Odds ratio [OR]: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.54-5.15), but not other intravesical chemotherapies. There were no significant differences in risk of progression among the intravesical therapies. On the other hand, standard-dose BCG was associated with a higher risk of any AEs (OR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.07-3.41) but other intravesical chemotherapies had a comparable risk of AEs compared to lower-dose BCG. The discontinuation rate did not significantly differ between lower-dose and standard-dose BCG (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 0.81-2.43) as well as other intravesical. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, gemcitabine, and standard-dose BCG were preferable to lower-dose BCG in terms of recurrence risk; gemcitabine was also preferable to lower-dose BCG in terms of risk of AEs. In patients with NMIBC, lowering the dose of BCG decreases the risks of AEs and discontinuation rate compared to standard-dose BCG, but there is no difference in these endpoints compared to other intravesical chemotherapies. Standard-dose of BCG is preferred for all intermediate and high-risk NMIBC patients based on oncologic efficacy; however, lower-dose BCG and intravesical chemotherapies, especially gemcitabine, could be considered a reasonable alternative to BCG in selected patients who suffer from significant AEs or in case standard-dose BCG is not available.

(1) Background: Several phase II studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), assessed the efficacy of adding androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as a neoadjuvant treatment in patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). Summarizing the early results of these studies could help in designing phase III trials and patient counseling. (2) Methods: We queried three databases in January 2023 for studies that included PCa patients treated with neoadjuvant ARSI-based combination therapy before RP. The outcomes of interest were oncologic outcomes and pathologic responses, such as pathologic complete response (pCR) and minimal residual disease (MRD). (3) Results: Overall, twenty studies (eight RCTs) were included in this systematic review. Compared to ADT or ARSI alone, ARSI + ADT was associated with higher pCR and MRD rates; this effect was less evident when adding a second ARSI or chemotherapy. Nevertheless, ARSI + ADT resulted in relatively low pCR rates (0–13%) with a high proportion of ypT3 (48–90%) in the resected specimen. PTEN loss, ERG positive, or intraductal carcinoma seem to be associated with worse pathologic response. One study that adjusted for the effects of possible confounders reported that neoadjuvant ARSI + ADT improved time to biochemical recurrence and metastasis-free survival compared to RP alone. (4) Conclusions: Neoadjuvant ARSI + ADT combination therapy results in improved pathologic response compared to either alone or none in patients with non-metastatic advanced PCa. Ongoing phase III RCTs with long-term oncologic outcomes, as well as biomarker-guided studies, will clarify the indication, oncologic benefits, and adverse events of ARSI + ADT in patients with clinically and biologically aggressive PCa.

(1) Background: Intravesical chemotherapy is the standard of care in intermediate-risk non-muscleinvasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Different agents are used across the world based on availability, cost, and practice patterns. Epirubicin (EPI), one of these agents, has been used by many centers over many decades. However, its true differential efficacy compared to other agents and its tolerability are still poorly reported. We aimed to assess the differential efficacy and safety of intravesical EPI in NMIBC patients. (2) Methods: This study aimed to systematically review the efficacy and safety profile of Epirubicin (EPI) in the management of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) compared to other adjuvant therapies. A systematic search of the PUBMED, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases was conducted on 31 December 2023, using relevant terms related to EPI, bladder cancer, and NMIBC. The inclusion criteria targeted studies that evaluated patients treated with EPI following the transurethral resection of bladder tumors (TURBT) for NMIBC and compared oncological outcomes such as recurrence and progression with other adjuvant therapies, including Mitomycin C (MMC), Gemcitabine (GEM), and Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG). Additionally, studies investigating the safety profile of EPI administered intravesically at room temperature and under hyperthermia, as well as oncological outcomes associated with hyperthermic intravesical EPI administration, were included. (3) Results: Eleven studies reported adverse events after adjuvant intravesical instillations with EPI; the most frequently reported adverse events included cystitis (34%), dysuria, pollakiuria, hematuria, bladder irritation/spasms, fever, nausea and vomiting, and generalized skin rash (2.3%). Nine studies compared EPI to BCG in terms of recurrence and progression rates; BCG instillations showed a lower recurrence rate compared to EPI, with limited or non-significant differences in progression rates. Two studies found no significant differences between EPI and MMC regarding progression and recurrence rates. One study showed statistically significant lower recurrence and progression rates with GEM in high-risk NMIBC patients. Another study found no significant differences between EPI and GEM regarding recurrence and progression. (4) Conclusions: EPI exhibits similar oncological performances to Gemcitabine and Mitomycin C currently used for adjuvant therapy in NMIBC. Novel delivery mechanisms such as hyperthermia are interesting newcomers.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients stratified by chronological age. Methods: Accordin... Plain language summary Scientists have found a special way to treat a type of cancer called metastatic renal cell carcinoma. They use a combination of medicines that help the body's immune system f... Tweetable abstract We assessed the differential efficacy of first-line ICI-based combinations in mRCC patients stratified by chronological age. We found that ICI-based combinations improve overall ...

Objective: To compare the differential efficacy of first‐line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)‐based combined therapies among patients with intermediate‐ and poor‐risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), as recently, the efficacy of triplet therapy comprising nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib has been published. Patients and Methods: Three databases were searched in December 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysing oncological outcomes in patients with mRCC treated with first‐line ICI‐based combined therapies. We performed network meta‐analysis (NMA) to compare the outcomes, including progression‐free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORRs), in patients with intermediate‐ and poor‐risk mRCC; we also assessed treatment‐related adverse events. Results: Overall, seven RCTs were included in the meta‐analyses and NMAs. Treatment ranking analysis revealed that pembrolizumab + lenvatinib (99%) had the highest likelihood of improved PFS, followed by nivolumab + cabozantinib (79%), and nivolumab + ipilimumab + cabozantinib (77%). Notably, compared to nivolumab + cabozantinib, adding ipilimumab to nivolumab + cabozantinib did not improve PFS (hazard ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.72–1.43). Regarding ORRs, treatment ranking analysis also revealed that pembrolizumab + lenvatinib had the highest likelihood of providing better ORRs (99.7%). The likelihoods of improved PFS and ORRs of pembrolizumab + lenvatinib were true in both International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. Conclusions: Our analyses confirmed the robust efficacy of pembrolizumab + lenvatinib as first‐line treatment for patients with intermediate or poor IMDC risk mRCC. Triplet therapy did not result in superior efficacy. Considering both toxicity and the lack of mature overall survival data, triplet therapy should only be considered in selected patients.