Comparison Between Urothelial and Non-Urothelial Urethral Cancer

Prostate ductal adenocarcinoma exhibiting a late recurrence in the anterior urethra 13 years post-total prostatectomy: a case report

BACKGROUND

Prostate ductal adenocarcinoma, a rare histology observed in 0.4-0.8% of all prostate cancers, is treated similarly to acinar adenocarcinoma but tends to have a higher likelihood of metastasis, recurrence, and poorer prognosis.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 73-year-old Asian-Japanese male presented with gross hematuria, with investigations revealing a prostate ductal adenocarcinoma. Subsequent radical prostatectomy indicated a Gleason score of 8 with no lymph node metastasis. Despite initial prostate-specific antigen level reductions post-prostatectomy and salvage radiation therapy due to recurring elevated prostate-specific antigen levels, no recurrence was evident until 13 years later. A tumor in the anterior urethra was identified as metastasis of his prostate ductal adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSION

This report presents an uncommon case of prostate ductal adenocarcinoma exhibiting a late recurrence in the anterior urethra 13 years post-radical prostatectomy.

Research Progress of PD 1/PD L1 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Urological Tumors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) offer significant advantages for the treatment of urologic tumors, enhancing the immune function of anti-tumor T cells by inhibiting PD-1 and PDL1 binding. They have been shown to be well tolerated and remarkably effective in clinical practice, offering hope to many patients who are not well treated with conventional drugs. Clinical trials in recent years have shown that anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies have good efficacy and safety in the treatment of urologic tumors. These antibodies can be applied to a variety of urologic tumors, such as bladder cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and prostate cancer. They have been approved for the first-line treatment or as an option for follow-up therapy. By blocking the PD-1/PD-L1 signaling pathway, ICIs can release immune functions that are suppressed by tumor cells and enhance T-cell killing, thereby inhibiting tumor growth and metastasis. This therapeutic approach has achieved encouraging efficacy and improved survival for many patients. Although ICIs have shown remarkable results in the treatment of urologic tumors, some problems remain, such as drug resistance and adverse effects in some patients. Therefore, further studies remain important to optimize treatment strategies and improve clinical response in patients. In conclusion, PD-1/PD-L1 signaling pathway blockers have important research advances for the treatment of urologic tumors. Their emergence brings new hope for patients who have poor outcomes with traditional drug therapy and provides new options for immunotherapy of urologic tumors. The purpose of this article is to review the research progress of PD-1 and PD-L1 signaling pathway blockers in urologic tumors in recent years.

Current and Emerging Strategies to Treat Urothelial Carcinoma

Urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC, bladder cancer, BC) remains a difficult-to-treat malignancy with a rising incidence worldwide. In the U.S., UCC is the sixth most incident neoplasm and ~90% of diagnoses are made in those >55 years of age; it is ~four times more commonly observed in men than women. The most important risk factor for developing BC is tobacco smoking, which accounts for ~50% of cases, followed by occupational exposure to aromatic amines and ionizing radiation. The standard of care for advanced UCC includes platinum-based chemotherapy and programmed cell death (PD-1) or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors, administered as frontline, second-line, or maintenance therapy. UCC remains generally incurable and is associated with intrinsic and acquired drug and immune resistance. UCC is lethal in the metastatic state and characterized by genomic instability, high PD-L1 expression, DNA damage-response mutations, and a high tumor mutational burden. Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) achieve long-term durable responses in other cancers, their ability to achieve similar results with metastatic UCC (mUCC) is not as well-defined. Here, we discuss therapies to improve UCC management and how comprehensive tumor profiling can identify actionable biomarkers and eventually fulfill the promise of precision medicine for UCC patients.

Radical cystectomy in non-metastatic sarcomatoid bladder cancer: A direct comparison vs urothelial bladder cancer

INTRODUCTION

The effect of radical cystectomy (RC) on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) is unclear in non-metastatic sarcomatoid bladder cancer (SBC) patients. We aimed to test the benefit of RC in SBC, and to perform a direct comparison vs urothelial bladder cancer (UCB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (SEER 2001-2018) all non-metastatic SBC and UBC patients were identified. Endpoint of interest was CSM. Propensity score matching (PSM), cumulative incidence plots, competing risks regression (CRR) analyses, three-months landmark analyses, and sensitivity analyses were performed. All results were stratified according to organ-confined (OC: T₂N₀M₀) vs non-organ-confined (NOC: T_3-4N₀M₀ or T_anyN_1-3M₀) stages.

RESULTS

Of 554 SBC patients, 49 vs 51% harbored OC vs NOC stages. Of 47,741 UBC patients, 62 vs 38% harbored OC vs NOC stages. RC rates were 33 vs 67% in OC vs NOC-SBC patients, and 40 vs 60% in OC vs NOC-UBC patients. After 1:1 PSM, comparison between RC vs no-RC was performed in OC-SBC (67 patients per group), OC-UBC (7611 patients per group), NOC-SBC (63 patients per group), and NOC-UBC patients (4644 patients per group). CRR hazard ratios associated with RC vs no-RC were 0.37 (p < 0.001) in OC-SBC vs 0.45 (p < 0.001) in OC-UBC, and 0.56 (p = 0.01) in NOC-SBC vs 0.68 (p < 0.001) in NOC-UBC. These results were replicated in sensitivity and landmark analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The protective effect of RC vs no-RC is stronger in SBC than UBC patients, regardless of OC vs NOC stages.

A brief review on the diagnostic and therapeutic principles of primary urethral cancer

Objective

Primary urethral carcinoma (PUC) is a rare malignant carcinoma but with limited therapeutic options. This review aims to provide an overview of the current strategies on this patient settings.

Methods

Recent literature ranging from January 1987 and December 2021 was assessed through PubMed search to assess the diagnostic and therapeutic principles of PUC.

Results

A complete of examination including cystoscopy, imaging, and biopsy should be conducted for these patients. Once diagnosed, the clinical decision of PUC should be made according to the tumor location, pathological pattern, and extent of the tumor. For patients with superficial and distal urethral lesions, organ sparing approaches or radical reconstructive procedures can be utilized. While for more advanced disease or nodal involvement, an optimal multimodal treatment strategy consisted of surgery and radiochemotherapy should be adopted. For patients with urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, the management including transurethral resection of the prostate followed by bacille Calmette-Guerin or radical cystoprostatectomy should depend on the infiltration depth of PUC.

Conclusion

A complete of examination is important for the diagnosis of PUC. The management of PUC should be determined by the location, pathological pattern, and extent of the tumor. More multi-institutional collaborations should be held to investigate better treatment modalities for PUC.

Isolated recurrence of prostate cancer to the anterior urethra 5 years after radiation therapy

INTRODUCTION

Primary or metastatic urethral tumors are extremely rare. However, treatment strategies differ between primary and metastatic tumors. Therefore, establishing an accurate diagnosis is critically needed for initiating timely and appropriate therapy.

CASE PRESENTATION

We describe the case of a 79-year-old man with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy. He presented with macroscopic hematuria as a symptom of anterior urethral tumor at follow-up. Endoscopic tumor resection was performed. Hematoxylin and eosin staining showed adenocarcinoma component. Immunohistochemical staining revealed presence of metastatic prostate cancer to the urethra.

CONCLUSION

Regarding urethral tumors diagnosis, urologists should consider the possibility of metastasis from prostate cancer and perform immunohistochemical examination for establishing accurate diagnosis. Furthermore, if androgen deprivation therapy fails to suppress symptoms, radiotherapy or urethrectomy might be considered.

Temporal trends, tumor characteristics and stage-specific survival in penile non-squamous cell carcinoma vs. squamous cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

To compare Cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in patients with Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) vs. non-SCC penile cancer, since survival outcomes may differ between histological subtypes.

METHODS

Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004-2016), penile cancer patients of all stages were identified. Temporal trend analyses, cumulative incidence and Kaplan-Meier plots, multivariable Cox regression and Fine and Gray competing-risks regression analyses tested for CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC penile cancer patients.

RESULTS

Of 4,120 eligible penile cancer patients, 123 (3%) harbored non-SCC vs. 4,027 (97%) SCC. Of all non-SCC patients, 51 (41%) harbored melanomas, 42 (34%) basal cell carcinomas, 10 (8%) adenocarcinomas, eight (6.5%) skin appendage malignancies, six (5%) epithelial cell neoplasms, two (1.5%) neuroendocrine tumors, two (1.5%) lymphomas, two (1.5%) sarcomas. Stage at presentation differed between non-SCC vs. SCC. In temporal trend analyses, non-SCC diagnoses neither decreased nor increased over time (p > 0.05). After stratification according to localized, locally advanced, and metastatic stage, no CSM differences were observed between non-SCC vs. SCC, with 5-year survival rates of 11 vs 11% (p = 0.9) for localized, 33 vs. 37% (p = 0.4) for locally advanced, and 1-year survival rates of 37 vs. 53% (p = 0.9) for metastatic penile cancer, respectively. After propensity score matching for patient and tumor characteristics and additional multivariable adjustment, no CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC were observed.

CONCLUSION

Non-SCC penile cancer is rare. Although exceptions exist, on average, non-SCC penile cancer has comparable CSM as SCC penile cancer patients, after stratification for localized, locally invasive, and metastatic disease.

Incidence rates and contemporary trends in primary urethral cancer

PURPOSE

We assessed contemporary incidence rates and trends of primary urethral cancer.

METHODS

We identified urethral cancer patients within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry (SEER, 2004-2016). Age-standardized incidence rates per 1,000,000 (ASR) were calculated. Log linear regression analyses were used to compute average annual percent change (AAPC).

RESULTS

From 2004 to 2016, 1907 patients with urethral cancer were diagnosed (ASR 1.69; AAPC: -0.98%, p = 0.3). ASR rates were higher in males than in females (2.70 vs. 0.55), respectively and did not change over the time (both p = 0.3). Highest incidence rates were recorded in respectively ≥75 (0.77), 55-74 (0.71) and ≤54 (0.19) years of age categories, in that order. African Americans exhibited highest incidence rate (3.33) followed by Caucasians (1.72), other race groups (1.57) and Hispanics (1.57), in that order. A significant decrease occurred over time in Hispanics, but not in other race groups. In African Americans, male and female sex-stratified incidence rates were higher than in any other race group. Urothelial histological subtype exhibited highest incidence rate (0.92), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (0.41), adenocarcinoma (0.29) and other histologies (0.20). In stage stratified analyses, T₁N₀M₀ stage exhibited highest incidence rate. However, it decreased over time (-3.00%, p = 0.02) in favor of T_1-4N_1-2M₀ stage (+ 2.11%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Urethral cancer is rare. Its incidence rates are highest in males, elderly patients, African Americans and in urothelial histological subtype. Most urethral cancer cases are T₁N₀M₀, but over time, the incidence of T₁N₀M₀ decreased in favor of T_1-4N_1-2M₀.