[The cancer registry notification seen from the perspective of the German Society of Uro-Oncologists (d-uo)]. / Die Krebsregistermeldung aus der Sicht der Deutschen Uro-Onkologen (d-uo).

The current cancer registry notification, which was introduced in Germany as a mandatory institution in 2015, has its starting point in the National Cancer Plan of 2008. Other milestones include the Federal Cancer Registry Data Act (2009), the Cancer Early Detection and Registry Act (2013), the Uniform Oncological Basic Data Set (2014/2021) with its modules (e.g. the module prostate carcinoma 2017) as well as the Cancer Registry Data Merger Act (2021). At the beginning of 2017, the German Society of Uro-Oncologists (d-uo) had the idea of designing a documentation platform that would enable d-uo members to report to the cancer registry and transfer data to d-uo's own database - without a double effort. The cancer registry reimburses the first notification of a tumour with € 18. As the only provider, d-uo reimburses its members for the documentation effort associated with the additional notification to d-uo with a further € 18. In addition to the basic oncological data set, further parameters were defined by d-uo. This data is collected, evaluated and interpreted as part of the VERSUS study. The realisation that the parameters of the basic data set are limited in their informative value led d-uo to establish the two national registries for urothelial carcinoma (UroNAT) and prostate carcinoma (ProNAT). This underscores d-uo's leading position in uro-oncological healthcare research in Germany.

[Real-world data on prostate cancer: the VERSUS trial by d-uo]. / Ergebnisse aus der VERSUS-Studie von d-uo am Beispiel des Prostatakarzinoms.

At the beginning of 2017, the German Society of Uro-Oncologists (d-uo) had the idea of designing a documentation platform that would enable d-uo members to report cancer cases to the cancer registry and transfer data to d-uo's own database - without a double effort. The cancer registry reimburses the first notification of a tumour with €18. As the only provider, d-uo reimburses its members for the documentation effort associated with the additional notification to d-uo with a further €18. In addition to the basic oncological data set, further parameters were defined by d-uo. This data is collected, evaluated and interpreted as part of the VERSUS study. At the end of 2022, 14,834 patients with a newly diagnosed urological tumour were included in the VERSUS study. Almost two thirds of all patients had prostate cancer. About half of all patients with prostate cancer were diagnosed as part of an early detection measure. These patients then also had more favourable tumour stages. Overall, almost every eighth patient already had metastases at the time of initial diagnosis. Data from the VERSUS study are available for 2,167 operations on prostate cancer with tumour category T2 or T3. There were 1,360 operations in patients with a T2 tumour (62.8%) and 807 operations in patients with T3 tumours (37.2%). A positive margin was present in 25.5% of all operated-on patients. In relation to tumour categories T2 and T3, the proportion of a positive resection margin was 14.3% and 44.2%, respectively. The VERSUS study will continue to provide answers to many questions from the uro-oncological field with reference to the "real world" situation in Germany.

[National Registries for Urothelial Cancer (UroNAT) and Prostate Cancer (ProNAT) by d-uo]. / Nationale Register Urothelkarzinom (UroNAT) und Prostatakarzinom (ProNAT) von d-uo.

The German Society of Uro-Oncologists ("Deutsche Uro-Onkologen e.V.", d-uo) provides a national registry for urothelial cancer (UroNat) and a national registry for prostate cancer (ProNAT). These registries aim to evaluate the standard of care for urothelial cancer of the bladder and the upper urinary tract as well as prostate cancer by office-based urologists, oncologists and outpatient hospital departments in Germany. This includes, but is not limited to, adherence to guidelines during the treatment of patients with urothelial cancer and prostate cancer. The registries aim to capture and analyse scientifically how patients with these two most frequent urological tumours are treated and how quality assurance is implemented to improve the quality of their outpatient treatment in Germany. Both registries may share basic patient data supplied by the non-interventional, prospective, multicentre VERSUS registry by d-uo, which has been ongoing since 2018 and today includes more than 15,000 patients with different urological malignancies. In the UroNAT and ProNAT registries, additional items and parameters are included to allow for more detailed analyses of outcomes of outpatient treatments in Germany, which have so far been unavailable from the German Cancer Registry. By documenting the current treatment landscape of urothelial and prostate cancer in the outpatient setting, the registries intend to identify potential improvements of patient care and to initiate their implementation into clinical practice. These non-interventional prospective registries only document daily routine diagnostics, clinical courses and procedures.

[Osteoprotection in patients with non-metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) receiving androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT): Real-world data from Germany, presented by d-uo]. / Osteoprotektion beim nichtmetastasierten hormonsensitiven Prostatakarzinom (nmHSPC) unter androgendeprivativer Therapie (ADT): Aktuelle Daten aus Deutschland, vorgelegt von d-uo.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with prostate cancer often present with reduced bone mineral density. We herein present real-world data (RWD) regarding osteoprotection in patients with non-metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (nmHSPC) receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) treated by German urologists in private practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a questionnaire-based study including members of d-uo ("Deutsche Uro-Onkologen", German uro-oncologists). Patients with nmHSPC between July 2019 and June 2020 were included. They were asked about start, type and duration of osteoprotection as well as supplementation with calcium and vitamin D. RESULTS: Between July 2019 and June 2020, a total of 3,692 patients with prostate cancer were seen at least once in one of the private practices of 15 urologists (all d-uo members). There were 844 patients (22.9%) with nmHSPC treated with ADT. Osteoprotection using denosumab or a bisphosphonate to prevent skeletal-related events (SRE) was applied in 183/844 patients (21.7%) with nmHSPC. In patients receiving osteoprotection, denosumab was chosen in 73.2% of patients and a bisphosphonate was chosen in 26.8% of patients. Supplementation with calcium and vitamin D was given in 84.7% of patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with nmHSPC received osteoprotection in 1/5 of patients. Of these, 3/4 received denosumab and 1/4 received a bisphosphonate. The majority of patients were additionally treated with calcium and vitamin D. In our study, osteoprotection in patients with nmHSPC was rather an exception.

[Osteoprotection in patients with bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): real-world data from Germany, presented by d-uo]. / Osteoprotektion beim ossär metastasierten kastrationsresistenten Prostatakarzinom (mCRPC): Aktuelle Daten aus Deutschland, vorgelegt von d-uo.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with bone metastasis due to prostate cancer often present allover reduced bone mineral density. Additionally, patients with bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have a relevant risk for skeletal-related events (SRE). We herein present real-world data (RWD) regarding osteoprotection in mCRPC patients with bone metastasis treated by German urologists in private practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a questionnaire-based study including members of d-uo ("Deutsche Uro-Onkologen", German uro-oncologists). All patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer seen at least once in the surveyed urology practice between July 2019 and June 2020 were included. Questions included start, type and duration of osteoprotection as well as supplementation with calcium and vitamin D. RESULTS: Between July 2019 and June 2020, a total of 3,692 patients with prostate cancer were seen at least once in 15 urology practices. There were 410 mCRPC patients (11.1%) with bone metastasis. Osteoprotection with denosumab or a bisphosphonate to prevent SRE was applied in 274/410 mCRPC patients (66.4%) with bone metastasis. In patients receiving osteoprotection, denosumab was chosen for 67.9% of patients and a bisphosphonate was chosen for 32.1%. Supplementation with calcium and vitamin D was performed in 93.4% of the patients. The median duration of treatment was 25.3 months for denosumab compared with 39.6 months for bisphosphonates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mCRPC with bone metastasis received osteoprotection in 2/3 of cases. Of these, 2/3 received denosumab and 1/3 received a bisphosphonate. The majority of patients were also treated with calcium and vitamin D. According to guideline recommendations regarding osteoprotection in mCRPC patients with bone metastasis, our RWD data showed some lack of guideline adherence.

[Retrospective practice-related care research study on therapy of mCPRC with radium-223 dichloride]. / Retrospektive Versorgungsstudie von d-uo zur Therapie des mCRPC mit Radium-223-dichlorid.

During phase III study ERA-223, patients under combination therapy with radium-223 and abiraterone showed an increased risk of bone fractures and a possible higher risk of death. This observation led to a change in the German therapeutic guidelines in 2018. Radium-223 is now only allowed as a third-line monotherapy (besides ADT) in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with symptomatic bone lesions without known visceral metastases or for patients with mCRPC, for whom no other available systematic therapy is suitable. Since almost no data on practice-related care research on the use of radium-223 exist, we consulted members of d-uo (German Uro-Oncologists) over their therapy algorithms. This study analysed data of patients treated with radium-223 between 2014 and 2019. It could be shown that 50% of mCRPC-patients had received radium-223 in the past as third-line therapy. Half of these were treated in combination with new androgen receptor targeted therapies (ARTA) and no increase in bone fractures was observed. This was most likely due to the additional use of bone protecting agents. Despite the late cancer stage, treatment response was seen in almost half of the patients.

LHRH sparing therapy in patients with chemotherapy-naïve, mCRPC treated with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone: results of the randomized phase II SPARE trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the benefit of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) continuation in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains controversial, clinical evidence is lacking. Recent results indicated that treatment with abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone (P) further suppresses serum testosterone levels over ADT alone, suggesting that continuation of ADT in the treatment of mCRPC may not be necessary. METHODS: In this exploratory phase 2 study, mCRPC patients were randomized with a 1:1 ratio to receive either continued ADT plus AA + P (Arm A) or AA + P alone (Arm B). The primary endpoint was the rate of radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) at month 12. Secondary endpoints included PSA-response rate, objective response, time to PSA progression and safety. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients were equally randomized between the two study arms. Median testosterone-levels remained below castrate-levels throughout treatment in all patients. According to the intention-to-treat analysis the rPFS rate was 0.84 in Arm A and 0.89 in Arm B. Moderate and severe treatment-emergent adverse events were reported for 72% of the patients in Arm A and for 85% of the patients in Arm B. CONCLUSIONS: AA + P treatment without ADT may be effective in mCRPC patients and ADT may not be necessary in patients receiving AA + P.

Pooled Analysis on the Effectiveness and Safety of Lipegfilgrastim in Patients With Urological Malignancies in the Real-World Setting.

Lipegfilgrastim is a long-acting glycopegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) approved for the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. In general, there is little information on the use of any G-CSFs specifically in patients with urological malignancies receiving chemotherapy. This report combines information from two prospective non-interventional studies on the prophylactic use of lipegfilgrastim in urological cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in the real-world setting. Data were derived from two phase IV studies (NADIR and LEOS) with similar protocols conducted in nine European countries. Analysis included 228 patients (142 prostate, 50 testicular, 27 bladder, and 9 other urological cancers). Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia risk was classified as high (43.0%), intermediate (49.1%), or low (7.5%). Lipegfilgrastim was administered as primary (n=180, 78.9%) or secondary (n=29, 12.7%) prophylaxis. The incidence of febrile neutropenia over all chemotherapy cycles (n=998) and first cycles (n=228) for which lipegfilgrastim was administered for prophylaxis was 2.6% and 1.3%, respectively. Corresponding results for Grade 3/4 neutropenia were 2.2% and 0.9%, respectively. Adverse drug reactions occurred in 24 patients (10.5%): those in more than one patient were bone pain (n=6, 2.6%) and pyrexia (n=3, 1.3%). The use of lipegfilgrastim for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia was effective and well tolerated in patients with urological malignancies in the real-world setting.

Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms und Unmet Medical Need.

Männer mit Prostatakarzinom haben eine gute Prognose, wenn die Erkrankung in einem frühen Stadium erkannt und behandelt wird. In späteren Stadien steigt das Progressions- und Mortalitätsrisiko hingegen deutlich. Das gilt auch für das nicht-metastasierte kastrationsresistente Prostatakarzinom (M0CRPC, nm-CRPC), bei dem das Progressionsrisiko insbesondere bei kurzer PSA-Verdopplungszeit deutlich erhöht ist. Für entsprechende Patienten gab es lange - außer der klassischen Androgendeprivation - keine Therapieoptionen.

Risk factors for unplanned discontinuation of scheduled treatment in elderly patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer: results of the IBuTu study.

PURPOSE: To gain knowledge about the factors associated with discontinuation of scheduled treatment in elderly men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). METHODS: Patients ≥ 70 years with CRPC starting a new line of treatment were included in a prospective cohort study. A geriatric assessment (CGA) was performed at baseline, including comorbidity, mobility, functional/mental/nutritional status, as well as depression. Furthermore, pain intensity, quality of life, ECOG-performance status, and physicians' and patients' perception of health were documented. Reasons for and factors associated with discontinuation of scheduled treatment were analysed by univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: After inclusion of 177 of 300 planned patients, the study was closed due to slow recruitment. 160 patients were eligible for final analysis. Median age was 77.5 years. 46% received chemotherapy, and 54% hormonal treatment. Discontinuation of scheduled treatment occurred in 91 patients (57.6%). The main reasons were progressive disease/death in 63%, adverse events/toxicity in 22%, and withdrawal of consent in 8%. In bivariate analyses, factors associated with discontinuation of treatment were age ≥ 80 years, ECOG PS ≥ 2, compromised/poor health status (physicians'/patients' assessment), and compromised functional or nutritional status. In multivariate analysis, the only remaining factor independently associated with discontinuation of scheduled treatment was impairment of activities of daily living (ADL < 100 points) (OR = 4.2 for discontinuation; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite limitations due to early termination of the study, our results demonstrate that discontinuation of scheduled treatment was common, and that compromised ADL seems to be a significant risk factor for treatment failure in elderly patients with CRPC.