[Reports of prostate needle biopsies-what pathologists provide and urologists want]. / Befundbericht zu Prostatastanzbiopsien ­ was Pathologen liefern und Urologen wollen.

BACKGROUND: The prostate biopsy report is key for risk stratification of prostate cancer patients and subsequent therapeutic decision-making. However, due to the inclusion of a multitude of additional parameters its interpretation is becoming more challenging. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine how urologists currently interpret prostate biopsy reports, in particular how they consider different histopathological parameters for therapy decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was sent to all urology practices in Germany with the help of the BDU (Berufsverband der Deutschen Urologen e. V.). In total, there were 106 complete responses that could be included for further analyses. RESULTS: Most urologists consider the number of positive cores and relative tumor burden (%) per core as crucial for the assessment of tumor extension. In case of targeted biopsies, the majority of urologists prefers a separate statement of positive cores per random biopsy scheme and per region of interest, respectively. The core with the highest Gleason score is mostly the basis for therapy decision-making (versus the overall Gleason score). Proportion of Gleason 4 pattern also seems to be critical for prostate cancer management. Only half of the urologists demand reporting of the new ISUP/WHO (International Society of Urological Pathology/World Health Organization) grade groups. Additional parameters claimed are Ki67, prostate-specific membrane antigen status, presence of intraductal or neuroendocrine component of the tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey shows that there is no standardized reporting for prostate biopsies and that the interpretation of prostate biopsy reports varies among urologists. Further studies and guideline recommendations are necessary to establish a standardized reporting scheme for prostate biopsies.

The new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 prostate cancer grade group system: first résumé 5 years after introduction and systemic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: To systematically and comprehensively review and summarize the most recent literature assessing the value of the new grading system introduced by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) in 2014 and accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2016. METHODS: A systematic literature search in the PubMed database was performed up to November 2018. Overall, 15 studies in the period from 2016 to 2018 evaluating the new grading system have been selected for evidence synthesis. RESULTS: The main goals of the new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 grading system were to establish (I) a more accurate and simplified grade stratification, (II) less overtreatment of indolent prostate cancer as well as (III) an improved patient communication. The majority of the studies chose biochemical recurrence as an endpoint for evaluation and statistically assigns the new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 grading system a higher prognostic accuracy than the former Gleason grading. However, in only a subset of studies it was clearly evident that the historical samples were not only re-grouped according to the new grade groups but also re-graded according to the new histomorphological 2014 ISUP criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of the studies support an improved prognostic accuracy of the ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 grade groups and endorse its worldwide application.

[Molecular tumor board-urothelial cancer]. / Molekulares Tumorboard ­ Urothelkarzinom.

BACKGROUND: Molecular tumor boards (MTB) are becoming more common. There are several molecular alterations in urothelial cancer a molecular tumor board can potentially rely on. OBJECTIVES: The aim is to specify molecular alterations and their correlations with different clinical endpoints and to highlight potential questions addressed to a MTB for urothelial cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Descriptive review of the literature based on PubMed. RESULTS: The landscape of molecular alterations in urothelial cancer is heterogeneous. Thus, recent biomarker research has been focusing on biomarker panels and classifiers instead of single biomarkers. Recently, molecular subtypes of urothelial cancer have been identified and correlated with different clinical endpoints. Furthermore, circulating tumor cells and tumor DNA are under investigation as potential biomarkers. In addition to treatment response and prognosis, molecular markers are also needed to improve clinical staging prior to radical cystectomy or for proper patient selection for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Erdafitinib is the first targeted therapy (fibroblast growth factor receptor [FGFR] alteration) in urothelial cancer that was recently approved (in the USA). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of external validation, none of the identified biomarkers is currently established in clinical routine. In addition, there is no single driver mutation in urothelial cancer that facilitates the development of biomarkers and targeted therapies.

[Inhibitors of the androgen receptor N­terminal domain : Therapies targeting the Achilles' heel of various androgen receptor molecules in advanced prostate cancer]. / Inhibitoren des Androgenrezeptor-N-Terminus' : Zielgerichtete Therapien gegen die Achillesferse verschiedener Androgenrezeptormoleküle im fortgeschrittenen Prostatakarzinom.

Although prostate cancer responds well to primary endocrine therapies, tumor progression with castration resistant tumor cells almost invariably occurs within a few years. Unfortunately, some CRPC patients do not respond to second-line therapies with abiraterone or enzalutamide. Moreover, patients who initially responded well to second-line hormone therapy develop resistance to abiraterone and/or enzalutamide within a short period of time. Besides an increase of intracellular androgen receptor (AR) levels, the predominant resistance mechanisms include AR aberrations (point mutations, AR splice variants) occurring predominantly at the androgen or ligand binding domain of the AR. The following review delineates recent progress in the development of AR inhibitors that do not depend on androgen binding and represent a putative third generation of AR inhibitors.

[Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Bladder Cancer?]. / Neo- oder adjuvante Chemotherapie beim Harnblasenkarzinom?

Advanced urothelial carcinoma of the bladder is associated with a high metastatic potential. Life expectancy for metastatic patients is poor and rarely exceeds more than one year without further therapy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy can decrease the tumour burden while reducing the risk of death. Adjuvant chemotherapy has been discussed controversially. Patients with lymph node-positive metastases seem to benefit the most from adjuvant chemotherapy. In selected patients, metastasectomy can prolong survival. In metastastic patients, the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin has become the new standard regimen due to a lower toxicity in comparison to the combination of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC). For second-line treatment, vinflunine is the only approved therapeutic agent.