The SUB-urothelial DUrvalumab InjEction-1 (SUBDUE-1) trial: first-in-human trial in patients with bladder cancer

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety of sub-urothelial injection of durvalumab and examine the impact on tissue and circulating immune cell populations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The patients were chemotherapy and immunotherapy naïve (bacille Calmette-Guérin allowed) with non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer or non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer planned for radical cystectomy (RC). The study was a Phase Ib 3 + 3 dose-escalation design with sub-urothelial injection of durvalumab at three pre-determined doses (25, 75, 150 mg) diluted in 25 mL normal saline, injected at 25 locations (25 × 1 mL injections), at least 2 weeks before RC.

RESULTS

A total of 11 patients were recruited (10 male, one female). No significant changes were reported on American Urological Association Symptom Score or O'Leary Interstitial Cystitis Scale. In all, 14 adverse events (AEs) were reported (10 Grade 1, three Grade 2, one Grade 3), none considered immune-related. No Grade 4 or 5 AEs were recorded. All the patients underwent RC. Tissue immune populations changed following durvalumab injection (P = 0.012), with a statistically significant increase in M2-macrophage (CD163) when comparing the 25-150 mg dose (P = 0.021). Basal/mixed cancers showed a larger CD163 increase than luminal cancers (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

Sub-urothelial injection of durvalumab is feasible and safe without immune-related AEs and shows local immunological effects.

A phase 2 pilot study of water irrigation after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (WATIP) demonstrating safety, feasibility and activity

PURPOSE

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) can recur, partly due to seeding of free tumour cells after transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). Intravesical chemotherapy post-TURBT can reduce the risk but is used infrequently and inconsistently due to cost, complexity and side effects. The objective of this study was to prospectively assess continuous bladder irrigation using water, which may be a safer and easier alternative with comparable effectiveness.

METHODS

WATIP was a prospective, single-arm phase 2 study of water irrigation during and for at least 3 h after TURBT for bladder tumours noted on imaging or flexible cystoscopy. Participants were assessed clinically for adverse effects and with blood tests within 24 h for sodium, haemoglobin and lactate dehydrogenase. The primary endpoints were safety (defined as < 10% adverse events of CTCAE grade ≥ 3), and feasibility (defined as the intervention being delivered as planned in > 90% of cases) and secondary endpoint was recurrence-free rates (RFR).

RESULTS

Water irrigation was delivered as planned in 29 (97%) of 30 participants (median age 67 years, 25 (83%) males). The only adverse event (grade 2) was clot retention in one (3.3%) participant. Water irrigation significantly reduced urothelial cell counts in catheter effluent over time, unlike saline irrigation which did not. RFR was 56.2% (9/16 participants with low-risk NMIBC) at first cystoscopy (median interval 108 days) and 62.5% (5/8 evaluable low-risk NMIBC) at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Water irrigation during and after TURBT is feasible and safe. Prospective assessment of its effect on NMIBC recurrence compared to post-TURBT intravesical chemotherapy is needed before recommending its use in routine clinical practice. Trial registration ANZCTR registration ID ACTRN12619000517178 on 1 April 2019.

The Dedicated Imaging Post-Prostatectomy for Enhanced Radiotherapy outcomes (DIPPER) trial protocol: a multicentre, randomised trial of salvage radiotherapy versus surveillance for low-risk biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Salvage radiation therapy (SRT) and surveillance for low-risk prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence have competing risks and benefits. The efficacy of early SRT to the prostate bed with or without pelvic lymph nodes compared to surveillance in patients with PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy and no identifiable recurrent disease evident on prostate specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) is unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

The Dedicated Imaging Post-Prostatectomy for Enhanced Radiotherapy outcomes (DIPPER) is an open-label, multicentre, randomised Phase II trial.

ENDPOINTS

The primary endpoint is 3-year event-free survival, with events comprising one of PSA recurrence (PSA ≥0.2 ng/mL higher than baseline), radiological evidence of metastatic disease, or initiation of systemic or other salvage treatments. Secondary endpoints include patient-reported outcomes, treatment patterns, participant perceptions, and cost-effectiveness.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible participants have PSA recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, defined by serum PSA level of 0.2-0.5 ng/mL, deemed low risk according to modified European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence risk criteria (International Society for Urological Pathology Grade Group ≤2, PSA doubling time >12 months), with no definite/probable recurrent prostate cancer on PSMA-PET/CT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 100 participants will be recruited from five Australian centres and randomised 1:1 to SRT or surveillance. Participants will undergo 6-monthly clinical evaluation for up to 36 months. Androgen-deprivation therapy is not permissible. Enrolment commenced May 2023.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN: ACTRN12622001478707).

Experiences of sexual well-being interventions in males affected by genitourinary cancers and their partners: an integrative systematic review

PURPOSE

Sexual well-being has been identified as an unmet supportive care need among many individuals with genitourinary (GU) cancers. Little is known about the experiences of using sexual well-being interventions among men and their partners.

METHODS

This review was reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and followed a systematic review protocol. Data extraction and methodological quality appraisal were performed, and a narrative synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 21 publications (reporting on 18 studies) were included: six randomised control trials, seven cross-sectional studies, three qualitative studies, and five mixed methods studies. Sexual well-being interventions comprised medical/pharmacological and psychological support, including counselling and group discussion facilitation. The interventions were delivered using various modes: face-to-face, web-based/online, or telephone. Several themes emerged and included broadly: (1) communication with patient/partner and healthcare professionals, (2) educational and informational needs, and (3) timing and/or delivery of the interventions.

CONCLUSION

Sexual well-being concerns for men and their partners were evident from diagnosis and into survivorship. Participants benefited from interventions but many articulated difficulties with initiating the topic due to embarrassment and limited access to interventions in cancer services. Noteworthy, all studies were only representative of men diagnosed with prostate cancer, underscoring a significant gap in other GU cancer patient groups where sexual dysfunction is a prominent consequence of treatment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

This systematic review provides valuable new insights to inform future models of sexual well-being recovery interventions for patients and partners with prostate cancer, but further research is urgently needed in other GU cancer populations.