Introduction There is a growing interest in achieving higher survival rates with the lowest morbidity in localized prostate cancer (PC) treatment. Consequently, minimally invasive techniques such as low-dose rate brachytherapy (BT) and robotic-assisted prostatectomy (RALP) have been developed and improved. Comparative analysis of functional outcomes and quality of life in a prospective series of 51BT and 42Da Vinci prostatectomies DVMaterials and Methods Comparative analysis of functional outcomes and quality of life in a prospective series of 93 patients with low-risk localized PC diagnosed in 2011. 51patients underwent low-dose rate BT and the other 42 patients RALP. IIEF to assess erectile function, ICIQ to evaluate continence and SF36 test to quality of life wee employed.Results ICIQ at the first revision shows significant differences which favour the BT group, 79% present with continence or mild incontinence, whereas in the DV group 45% show these positive results. Differences disappear after 6 months, with 45 patients (89%) presenting with continence or mild incontinence in the BT group vs. 30 (71%) in the DV group. 65% of patients are potent in the first revision following BT and 39% following DV. Such differences are not significant and cannot be observed after 6 months. No significant differences were found in the comparative analysis of quality of life.Conclusions ICIQ after surgery shows significant differences in favour of BT, which disappear after 6 months. Both procedures have a serious impact on erectile function, being even greater in the DV group. Differences between groups disappear after 6 months.

Metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) management has undergone a paradigm shift in recent decades. The first revolution came with the emergence of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors; there was a second wave with the unprecedented success of checkpoint inhibitors, and then the latest approach, which is becoming the new care standard in mRCC, of combining these two strategies in different ways. Updated results of Checkmate-214 after 42 mo of follow-up were consistent with previously published results showing the superiority of nivolumab/ipilimumab over sunitinib in progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate and high-risk patients. However, several studies presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 suggested that the best place, and so far, the only one for nivolumab/ipilimumab is the frontline setting. The update on Keynote-426 after 23 mo of follow-up showed no superiority of pembroli-zumab/axitinib over sunitinib in favorable-risk mRCC, suggesting that it should no longer be the first line of choice in low-risk patients. Finally, the phase III Checkmate 9ER trial results revealed the superiority of nivolumab/cabozantinib vs sunitinib in PFS, OS, and ORR, providing a new first-line option among all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk patients. Some phase II clinical trials also presented this year showed promising results with new combination therapies such as nivolumab/sitravatinib, cabozantinib/atezolizumab, and lenvatinib/pembrolizumab, providing promising grounds upon which to start phase III studies. In addition, other works are using novel therapeutic agents with different mechanisms of action, including telaglenastat (a glutaminase inhibitor), entinostat [an inhibitor of histone deacetylases (HDACs)], and olaparib and talazoparib, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors widely used in other tumors. However, some questions regarding mRCC management still need to be addressed, such as head-to-head comparisons between the current options, treatment sequencing, non-clear cell mRCC, and the role of biomarkers to ascertain the best treatment choice.

No abstract

Nivolumab is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody that selectively blocks the interaction between PD-1, which is expressed on activated T cells, and its ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, which are expressed on immune cells and tumour cells. Patients with severe renal dysfunction and haemodialysis are not enrolled in clinical trials. However, in daily clinical practice, we have patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The scientific evidence about the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in these patients is scarce. We report three cases of mRCC patients with ESRD treated with second-line nivolumab therapy. They received both biweekly and monthly schemes. None of our patients showed grade 2-4 toxicities. Two patients achieved partial response and one progressive disease as best response. Our patients did not show increased toxicity by ESRD; also, two of the three patients had objectifiable clinical benefit. Nivolumab seems to be similarly safe for ESRD or dialysis patients as for patients without impaired kidney function (IKF). Dose adjustments might not be necessary. We suggest that patients on dialysis could be treated with nivolumab in the same way as populations without IKF.