Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Immune-based Approach for Renal Cell Carcinoma: Pros, Cons, and Future Directions.

CONTEXT: Immune-oncology strategies are revolutionising the perioperative treatment in several tumour types. The perioperative setting of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is an evolving field, and the advent of immunotherapy is producing significant advances. OBJECTIVE: To critically review the potential pros and cons of adjuvant and neoadjuvant immune-based therapeutic strategies in RCC, and to provide insights for future research in this field. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a collaborative narrative review of the existing literature. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is a new standard of care for patients at a higher risk of recurrence after nephrectomy, demonstrating a disease-free survival and overall survival benefit in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial. Current data do not support neoadjuvant therapy use outside clinical trials. While both adjuvant and neoadjuvant immune-based approaches are driven by robust biological rationale, neoadjuvant immunotherapy may enable a stronger and more durable antitumour immune response. If neoadjuvant single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrated limited activity on the primary tumour, immune-based combinations may show increased activity. Overtreatment and a risk of relevant toxicity for patients who are cured by surgery alone are common concerns for both neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies. Biomarkers helping patient selection and treatment deintensification are lacking in RCC. No results from randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant or perioperative immune-based therapy with adjuvant immunotherapy are available. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant immunotherapy is a new standard of care in RCC. Both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy strategies have potential advantages and disadvantages. Optimising perioperative treatment strategies is nuanced, with the role of neoadjuvant immune-based therapies yet to be defined. Given strong biological rationale for a pre/perioperative approach, there is a need for prospective clinical trials to determine clinical efficacy. Research investigating biomarkers aiding patient selection and treatment deintensification strategies is needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: Immunotherapy is transforming the treatment of kidney cancer. In this review, we looked at the studies investigating immunotherapy strategies before and/or after surgery for patients with kidney cancer to assess potential pros and cons. We concluded that both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy strategies may have potential advantages and disadvantages. While immunotherapy administered after surgery is already a standard of care, immunotherapy before surgery should be better investigated in future studies. Future trials should also focus on the selection of patients in order to spare toxicity for patients who will be cured by surgery alone.

A protocol for the development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials and clinical audits in renal cell cancer (R-COS).

Background: There is inconsistency in outcomes collected in renal cell cancer (RCC) intervention effectiveness studies and variability in their definitions. This makes critical summaries of the evidence base difficult and sub-optimally informative for clinical practice guidelines and decision-making by patients and healthcare professionals. A solution is to develop a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a clinical area. Objectives: To develop three COS for (a) localised, (b) locally advanced and (c) metastatic. RCC study design participants and methods: The methods are the same for each of our three COS and are structured in two phases. Phase 1 identifies potentially relevant outcomes by conducting both a systematic literature review and patient interviews (N ~ 30 patients). Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis. In phase 2, all outcomes identified in phase 1 will be entered in a modified eDelphi, whereby patients and healthcare professionals (50 of each) will score each outcome's importance (Likert scale from 1 [not important] to 9 [critically important]). Outcomes scored in the 7-9 range by ≥70% and 1-3 by ≤15% will be regarded as 'consensus in', and the vice versa of this will constitute 'consensus out'. All other combinations will be regarded as equivocal and discussed at consensus meetings (including 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals) in order to vote on them and ratify the results of the eDelphi. Discussion: The R-COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity and improve the evidence base for RCC. Study registration: The study is registered with the COMET initiative: https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1406.

A Systematic Review of Heterogeneity in Outcome Definition and Reporting in Localised Renal Cancer.

Context: Outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported inconsistently, with variability in definitions and measurement. Hence, it is difficult to compare intervention effectiveness and synthesise outcomes for systematic reviews and to create clinical practice guidelines. This uncertainty in the evidence makes it difficult to guide patient-clinician decision-making. One solution is a core outcome set (COS): an agreed minimum set of outcomes. Objective: To describe outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement heterogeneity as the first stage in co-creating a COS for localised renal cancer. Evidence acquisition: We systematically reviewed outcome reporting heterogeneity in effectiveness trials and observational studies in localised RCC. In total, 2822 studies (randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, systematic reviews) up to June 2020 meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers; in cases of disagreement, a third reviewer arbitrated. Data extractions were double-checked. Evidence synthesis: We included 149 studies and found that there was inconsistency in which outcomes were reported across studies and variability in the definitions used for outcomes that were conceptually the same. We structured our analysis using the outcome classification taxonomy proposed by Dodd et al. Outcomes linked to adverse events (eg, bleeding, outcomes linked to surgery) and renal injury outcomes (reduced renal function) were reported most commonly. Outcomes related to deaths from any cause and from cancer were reported in 44% and 25% of studies, respectively, although the time point for measurement and the analysis methods were inconsistent. Outcomes linked to life impact (eg, global quality of life) were reported least often. Clinician-reported outcomes are more frequently reported than patient-reported outcomes in the renal cancer literature. Conclusions: This systematic review underscores the heterogeneity of outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement in research on localised renal cancer. It catalogues the variety of outcomes and serves as a first step towards the development of a COS for localised renal cancer. Patient summary: We reviewed studies on localised kidney cancer and found that multiple terms and definitions have been used to describe outcomes. These are not defined consistently, and often not defined at all. Our review is the first phase in developing a core outcome set to allow better comparisons of studies to improve medical care.

The 2022 Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines on the Use of Adjuvant Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

In KEYNOTE-564, adjuvant pembrolizumab, a PD-1 antibody, significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) in localised clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) with a high risk of relapse. In 2021, the European Association of Urology RCC Guidelines Panel issued a weak recommendation for adjuvant pembrolizumab for high-risk ccRCC as defined by the trial until final overall survival data and results from other trials were available. Meanwhile, the primary DFS endpoints were not met for adjuvant atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor; IMmotion010), adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 914), or perioperative nivolumab (PROSPER). Owing to heterogeneity, a meta-analysis is not recommended. Pembrolizumab remains the only immune checkpoint inhibitor currently recommended in this setting. Overall survival data are immature and biomarkers to predict outcome are lacking. Uncertainty exists and overtreatment is occurring. Treatment decisions should be made with caution and with the involvement of each patient. PATIENT SUMMARY: New results from three trials of immunotherapy after surgery for kidney cancer to reduce the risk of recurrence showed no improvement with these treatments. These results are in contrast to an earlier study that showed that the antibody pembrolizumab did extend the time before kidney cancer recurrence, even though it is not yet clear if overall survival is longer. Thus, we cautiously recommend pembrolizumab as additional treatment in high-risk kidney cancer after surgery, but patient preference should be carefully considered and the risk of overtreatment should be discussed.

European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel on Renal Cell Carcinoma Update on the New World Health Organization Classification of Kidney Tumours 2022: The Urologist's Point of View.

The fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of urogenital tumours published in 2022 will be implemented in the European Association of Urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma for 2023. Here we provide an update summarising changes in the new WHO classification of renal tumours from a clinician perspective.

A Renewal of the TNM Staging System for Patients with Renal Cancer To Comply with Current Decision-making: Proposal from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel.

Over the past decade, only minor changes have been introduced in the TNM staging system for renal cancer. Conversely, many milestones and modifications in management of the disease have been achieved, especially for patients with locally advanced and metastatic cancers. The European Association of Urology guidelines panel proposes a new TNM classification scheme for staging of renal cell carcinoma to reflect these breakthrough clinical improvements.

Multidisciplinary integrated care pathway for von Hippel-Lindau disease.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pathways are care plans established to describe essential steps in the care of patients with a specific clinical problem. They translate (inter)national guidelines into local applicable protocols and clinical practice. The purpose of this article is to establish a multidisciplinary integrated care pathway for specialists and allied health care professionals in caring for individuals with von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi consensus-making process, a multidisciplinary panel from 5 Dutch University Medical Centers produced an integrated care pathway relating to the provision of care for patients with VHL by medical specialists, specialized nurses, and associated health care professionals. Patient representatives cocreated the pathway and contributed quality criteria from the patients' perspective. RESULTS: The panel agreed on recommendations for the optimal quality of care for individuals with a VHL gene mutation. These items were the starting point for the development of a patient care pathway. With international medical guidelines addressing the different VHL-related disorders, this article presents a patient care pathway as a flowchart that can be incorporated into VHL expertise clinics or nonacademic treatment clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Medical specialists (internists, urologists, neurosurgeons, ophthalmologists, geneticists, medical oncologists, neurologists, gastroenterologists, pediatricians, and ear-nose-throat specialists) together with specialized nurses play a vital role alongside health care professionals in providing care to people affected by VHL and their families. This article presents a set of consensus recommendations, supported by organ-specific guidelines, for the roles of these practitioners in order to provide optimal VHL care. This care pathway can form the basis for the development of comprehensive, integrated pathways for multiple neoplasia syndromes.

Large scale genotype- and phenotype-driven machine learning in Von Hippel-Lindau disease.

Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease is a hereditary cancer syndrome where individuals are predisposed to tumor development in the brain, adrenal gland, kidney, and other organs. It is caused by pathogenic variants in the VHL tumor suppressor gene. Standardized disease information has been difficult to collect due to the rarity and diversity of VHL patients. Over 4100 unique articles published until October 2019 were screened for germline genotype-phenotype data. Patient data were translated into standardized descriptions using Human Genome Variation Society gene variant nomenclature and Human Phenotype Ontology terms and has been manually curated into an open-access knowledgebase called Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer. In total, 634 unique VHL variants, 2882 patients, and 1991 families from 427 papers were captured. We identified relationship trends between phenotype and genotype data using classic statistical methods and spectral clustering unsupervised learning. Our analyses reveal earlier onset of pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma and retinal angiomas, phenotype co-occurrences and genotype-phenotype correlations including hotspots. It confirms existing VHL associations and can be used to identify new patterns and associations in VHL disease. Our database serves as an aggregate knowledge translation tool to facilitate sharing information about the pathogenicity of VHL variants.

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: The 2022 Update.

CONTEXT: The European Association of Urology (EAU) Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Guideline Panel has prepared evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the management of RCC. OBJECTIVE: To present a summary of the 2022 RCC guideline, which is based on a standardised methodology including systematic reviews (SRs) and provides transparent and reliable evidence for the management of RCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: For the 2022 update, a new literature search was carried out with a cutoff date of May 28, 2021, covering the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. The data search focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective or controlled comparator-arm studies, SRs, and meta-analyses. Evidence synthesis was conducted using modified GRADE criteria as outlined for all the EAU guidelines. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: All chapters of the RCC guideline were updated on the basis of a structured literature assessment, and clinical practice recommendations were developed. The majority of the studies included were retrospective with matched or unmatched cohorts and were based on single- or multi-institution data or national registries. The exception was systemic treatment of metastatic RCC, for which there are several large RCTs, resulting in recommendations that are based on higher levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The 2022 RCC guidelines have been updated by a multidisciplinary panel of experts using the highest methodological standards. These guidelines provide the most reliable contemporary evidence base for the management of RCC in 2022. PATIENT SUMMARY: The European Association of Urology panel for guidelines on kidney cancer has thoroughly evaluated the research data available to establish up-to-date international standards for the care of patients with kidney cancer.

Co-creating with patients an impact framework across the medicine's life cycle: a qualitative study exploring patients' experiences of involvement in and perceptions of impact measures.

BACKGROUND: The biopharmaceutical industry is challenged with efficiently delivering medicines that patients truly value. This can be addressed by engaging patients and caregivers throughout a medicine's life cycle, ensuring that products meet the needs and expectations of those who take them. While isolated best practice examples of patient engagement exist, they remain relatively ad hoc and not fully embedded within Research & Development (R&D) practices. To encourage more patient engagement, the 'impact' of patient engagement projects (PEP) must be objectively measured and demonstrated. Some frameworks have been proposed; however, there is no evidence of widespread adoption, nor have patients' perspectives been robustly explored. The objective of this qualitative study was therefore to understand patients' perspectives of impact measurement that can be systematically applied within a biopharmaceutical company. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 patient organisation (PO) representatives exploring their experiences of engagement and reflections on 23 candidate patient engagement impact measures categorised into five groups: Medicines R&D Priorities; Clinical Trial Design; Regulatory & Market Access Submissions; Product Support & Information; and Disease Support & Information. Thematic analysis was undertaken and impact measures revised in line with interview participant feedback. Emerging themes and revisions to impact measures were validated at a joint workshop with 4 patient advisors representing 4 POs. RESULTS: The study revealed that PO representatives feel a deep sense of accomplishment and ownership when collaborating on PEPs with biopharmaceutical companies. They largely conceptualise 'impact' as positive, tangible and useful outcomes. The revisions made to the pre-defined patient engagement impact measures fell into three broad categories: (1) a requirement for greater context; (2) capturing the nature of patient influence; and (3) terminology changes. The greatest number of revisions concerned 'requiring greater context', for example, including additional descriptions, patient quotes, and satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds light on how patient advocates view 'impact'. Typically this means delivering 'value' important for them. Therefore, the authors of this paper created the term 'value-impact' to comprehensively characterise this conceptualisation, and propose a value-impact measurement plan, incorporating longitudinal data. Through this understanding and in light of other recently published work, wide-scale adoption and implementation of the measurement of value-impact across the biopharmaceutical industry can be realised.

Developing medicines involves multiple stages, all essential for pharmaceutical companies. However, this approach is becoming increasingly costly and patients are rarely involved in defining treatment outcomes. Patient insight is important for everyone involved in medicinal development and required by authorities reviewing new treatments. To identify best practices, the difference ('impact') made by engaging with patients must be measured continuously throughout the treatment development process. Possible impact measures have been proposed (for example, the PARADIGM initiative), but problems remain.This study aimed to work with patients and adapt standard measuring approaches that can be used to provide ongoing insight into the impact of patient engagement activities for companies and patients. Researchers interviewed 13 patient organisation (PO) representatives to explore their experiences of impact measures. Thematic analysis was conducted, and data used to adapt 23 potential impact measures in collaboration with patients.This study identified that PO representatives view impact as being positive, tangible, and useful outcomes, achieving a deep sense of accomplishment and ownership for those patients and representatives involved. The authors created the term 'value-impact' to describe how patients perceive such achievements. Furthermore, measures should be adapted to: 1) include greater context such as descriptions, patients quotes and satisfaction; 2) capture patient influence; and 3) use language that is understandable for all parties. Examples and suggestions for engagement at different stages and revised impact measures are presented in this report. It is our hope that this study will encourage more frequent and effective use of patient engagement strategies as medicines are developed.

Is There a Role for Biomarkers in Surveillance of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms in Von Hippel-Lindau Disease?

Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by the development of multi-organ neoplasms. Among the manifestations of VHL are pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (panNENs). In order to detect these lesions in a timely manner, patients are enrolled in a surveillance program, in accordance with the several existing VHL guidelines. However, these guidelines remain unclear about the role of biomarkers in diagnosing panNENs, despite the benefits a biomarker may offer regarding early detection of new lesions, thereby possibly limiting radiation exposure, and improving quality of life. The aim is to determine which biomarkers might be available in VHL patients and to assess their clinical relevance in diagnosing panNENs in VHL patients. We searched the databases of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science to identify relevant articles. Seven studies assessing the diagnostic or prognostic value of biomarkers were included. The results from these studies were conflicting. Since no evident association between VHL-related panNENs and biomarkers was established in studies with larger study populations, currently biomarkers do not play a significant role in early detection or follow-up for panNENs in VHL patients. The absence of evidence underscores the need for specific research to address this unmet need.

2021 Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines on the Use of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Adjuvant treatment of nonmetastatic high-risk renal cell carcinoma is an unmet medical need. In the past, several tyrosine kinase inhibitor trials have failed to demonstrate an improvement of disease-free survival (DFS) in this setting. Only one trial (S-TRAC) provided evidence for improved DFS with sunitinib but without an overall survival (OS) signal. Keynote-564 is the first trial of an immune checkpoint inhibitor that significantly improved DFS with adjuvant pembrolizumab, a programmed death receptor-1 antibody, in clear cell renal cell carcinoma with a high risk of relapse. The intention-to-treat population, which included a group of patients after metastasectomy and no evidence of disease (M1 NED), had a significant DFS benefit. The OS data are not mature as yet. The Renal Cell Carcinoma Guideline Panel issues a weak recommendation for the adjuvant use of pembrolizumab for high-risk clear cell renal carcinoma, as defined by the trial until final OS data are available. However, the trial reilluminates the discussion on when and in whom metastasectomy should be performed. Here, caution is necessary not to perform metastasectomy in patients with poor prognostic features and rapid progressive disease, which must be excluded by a confirmatory scan of disease status prior to planned metastasectomy. PATIENT SUMMARY: New data from the adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor trial with pembrolizumab (a programmed death receptor-1 antibody) for the treatment of high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) after surgery showed that the drug prolonged the period of being cancer free significantly, although whether it prolonged survival remained uncertain. Consequently, pembrolizumab is cautiously recommended as additional (ie, adjuvant) treatment in high-risk ccRCC after kidney cancer surgery.

Providing a Framework for Meaningful Patient Involvement in Clinical Practice Guideline Development and Implementation.

The importance of patient involvement in guideline development is internationally recognised, yet there is a lack of clear methodology for integrating patient preferences and values in guidelines and a need to identify the optimum stages for involving patients in guideline production. European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines have international reach, a rigorous guideline production process, an established patient information section, and existing links with European cancer patient organisations. This makes the EAU the ideal setting to test a framework for patient involvement in guideline development for genitourinary cancers. The EVOLVE study is a unique collaboration involving a professional society, guideline panels, researchers, clinicians, and patient organisations with the aim of designing a framework for meaningful patient involvement in guideline production. Stages for considering patient preferences and values were identified via systematic review and interviews with key stakeholders, then prioritised by patients and clinicians via an international Delphi study. The final EVOLVE framework will be tested within EAU guideline panels and a strategy to assess the impact of patient involvement in guidelines will be developed. PATIENT SUMMARY: There is increasing awareness of the need to include patient values and preferences when developing guidelines for medical practice. The EVOLVE study is designing a framework for patient involvement in guideline development. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: A framework for meaningful patient involvement in guideline development and implementation has been developed. The EVOLVE framework can help guideline developers to involve patients at the optimum stages of guideline production, which may improve the quality and relevance of guidelines.

The 2021 Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-based Combination Therapies for Treatment-naive Metastatic Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Are Standard of Care.

The recent randomized controlled phase III CLEAR trial results are the last to complement immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based doublet combination therapies for treatment-naïve metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. The CLEAR trial demonstrated an improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and an objective response rate (ORR) benefit for the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib. The CheckMate-9ER trial update demonstrated an ongoing PFS, OS, and quality-of-life benefit for cabozantinib plus nivolumab over sunitinib as did the update of Keynote-426 for axitinib plus pembrolizumab in the intention-to-treat population, with a PFS benefit seen across all International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) subgroups. In the IMDC intermediate- and poor-risk groups, the CheckMate-214 trial of ipilimumab plus nivolumab confirmed the OS benefit with a PFS plateauing after 30 months. The RCC Guidelines Panel recommends three tyrosine kinase inhibitors + ICI combinations of axitinib plus pembrolizumab, cabozantinib plus nivolumab, and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab across all IMDC risk groups in advanced first-line RCC, and dual immunotherapy of ipilimumab and nivolumab in IMDC intermediate- and poor-risk groups. PATIENT SUMMARY: New data from combination trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced kidney cancer confirm a survival benefit for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, cabozantinib plus nivolumab (with improved quality-of-life), axitinib plus pembrolizumab, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab. These combination therapies are recommended as first-line treatment for advanced kidney cancer.

Diagnostic and management strategies for pNETs in Von Hippel-Lindau: a systematic review.

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) in Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease have a relatively good prognosis. However, a subset of pNETs metastasize and significantly contribute to VHL-related mortality. Evidence-based guidelines are needed for timely detection, management and intervention of these tumors. However, the value of several diagnostic tools is controversial, and evidence-based management strategies are lacking. This systematic review aims to update current literature on diagnostic and management strategies of pNETs in VHL and proposes evidence-based recommendations. The databases of PubMed/Medline, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. Studies were screened independently and cross-checked by two authors to assess eligibility for inclusion. Eighty-four articles were eligible for full text reading, and thirteen were critically appraised using the modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies or modified Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. Six studies assessed the diagnostic value of imaging modalities, five focused on the optimal timing for surgical intervention, and one article studied the growth rate of pNETs. Quality of the available evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool. Studies recommended CT or MRI as the primary screening modalities for pNETs. For detection of metastases, 68Gallium-DOTATATE/TOC PET/CT is advised. For pNETs <2 cm a watch-and-wait approach is recommended, while for pNETs ≥2.5 cm surgical resection is advised. Due to limited data, no strong recommendations on surveillance could be proposed.