Overall Survival with Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy after surgery for renal-cell carcinoma was approved on the basis of a significant improvement in disease-free survival in the KEYNOTE-564 trial. Whether the results regarding overall survival from the third prespecified interim analysis of the trial would also favor pembrolizumab was uncertain. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had an increased risk of recurrence after surgery to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles (approximately 1 year) or until recurrence, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. A significant improvement in disease-free survival according to investigator assessment (the primary end point) was shown previously. Overall survival was the key secondary end point. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 496 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab and 498 to receive placebo. As of September 15, 2023, the median follow-up was 57.2 months. The disease-free survival benefit was consistent with that in previous analyses (hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.87). A significant improvement in overall survival was observed with pembrolizumab as compared with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.87; P = 0.005). The estimated overall survival at 48 months was 91.2% in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 86.0% in the placebo group; the benefit was consistent across key subgroups. Pembrolizumab was associated with a higher incidence of serious adverse events of any cause (20.7%, vs. 11.5% with placebo) and of grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to pembrolizumab or placebo (18.6% vs. 1.2%). No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant pembrolizumab was associated with a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival, as compared with placebo, among participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at increased risk for recurrence after surgery. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-564 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03142334.).

Novel endoscopic scoring system for immune mediated colitis: a multicenter retrospective study of 674 patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: No endoscopic scoring system has been established for immune-mediated colitis (IMC). This study aimed to establish such a system for IMC and explore its utility in guiding future selective immunosuppressive therapy (SIT) use compared to clinical symptoms. METHODS: This retrospective, international, 14-center study included 674 patients who developed IMC after immunotherapy and underwent endoscopic evaluation. Ten endoscopic features were selected by group consensus and assigned 1 point each to calculate an IMC endoscopic score (IMCES). IMCES cutoffs were chosen to maximize specificity for SIT use. This specificity was compared between IMCESs, and clinical symptoms were graded according to a standardized instrument. RESULTS: A total of 309 (45.8%) patients received SIT. IMCES specificity for SIT use was 82.8% with a cutoff of 4. The inclusion of ulceration as a mandatory criterion resulted in higher specificity (85.0% for a cutoff of 4). In comparison, the specificity of a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 3 was 74.6%, and the specificity of clinical symptom grading was much lower at 27.4% and 12.3%, respectively. Early endoscopy was associated with timely SIT use (P < .001; r = 0.4084). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest multicenter study to devise an endoscopic scoring system to guide IMC management. An IMCES cutoff of 4 has a higher specificity for SIT use than clinical symptoms, supporting early endoscopic evaluation for IMC.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.

Novel Approaches with HIF-2α Targeted Therapies in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Germline inactivation of the Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) tumor suppressor is the defining hallmark in hereditary VHL disease and VHL-associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, somatic VHL mutations are also observed in patients with sporadic RCC. Loss of function VHL mutations result in constitutive activation of hypoxia-inducible factor-2 alpha (HIF-2α), which leads to increased expression of HIF target genes that promote angiogenesis and tumor growth. As of 2023, belzutifan is currently the only approved HIF-2α inhibitor for both VHL-associated and sporadic metastatic RCC (mRCC). However, there is potential for resistance with HIF-2α inhibitors which warrants novel HIF-2α-targeting strategies. In this review, we discuss the potential resistance mechanisms with belzutifan and current clinical trials evaluating novel combinations of belzutifan with other targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors which may enhance the efficacy of HIF-2α targeting. Lastly, we also discuss newer generation HIF-2α inhibitors that are currently under early investigation and outline future directions and challenges with HIF-2α inhibitors for mRCC.

Outcome Prediction Using Multi-Modal Information: Integrating Large Language Model-Extracted Clinical Information and Image Analysis.

Survival prediction post-cystectomy is essential for the follow-up care of bladder cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate artificial intelligence (AI)-large language models (LLMs) for extracting clinical information and improving image analysis, with an initial application involving predicting five-year survival rates of patients after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Data were retrospectively collected from medical records and CT urograms (CTUs) of bladder cancer patients between 2001 and 2020. Of 781 patients, 163 underwent chemotherapy, had pre- and post-chemotherapy CTUs, underwent radical cystectomy, and had an available post-surgery five-year survival follow-up. Five AI-LLMs (Dolly-v2, Vicuna-13b, Llama-2.0-13b, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4.0) were used to extract clinical descriptors from each patient's medical records. As a reference standard, clinical descriptors were also extracted manually. Radiomics and deep learning descriptors were extracted from CTU images. The developed multi-modal predictive model, CRD, was based on the clinical (C), radiomics (R), and deep learning (D) descriptors. The LLM retrieval accuracy was assessed. The performances of the survival predictive models were evaluated using AUC and Kaplan-Meier analysis. For the 163 patients (mean age 64 ± 9 years; M:F 131:32), the LLMs achieved extraction accuracies of 74%~87% (Dolly), 76%~83% (Vicuna), 82%~93% (Llama), 85%~91% (GPT-3.5), and 94%~97% (GPT-4.0). For a test dataset of 64 patients, the CRD model achieved AUCs of 0.89 ± 0.04 (manually extracted information), 0.87 ± 0.05 (Dolly), 0.83 ± 0.06~0.84 ± 0.05 (Vicuna), 0.81 ± 0.06~0.86 ± 0.05 (Llama), 0.85 ± 0.05~0.88 ± 0.05 (GPT-3.5), and 0.87 ± 0.05~0.88 ± 0.05 (GPT-4.0). This study demonstrates the use of LLM model-extracted clinical information, in conjunction with imaging analysis, to improve the prediction of clinical outcomes, with bladder cancer as an initial example.

Durvalumab and guadecitabine in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma: results from the phase Ib/II study BTCRC-GU16-043.

Epigenetic modulation is well established in hematologic malignancies but to a lesser degree in solid tumors. Here we report the results of a phase Ib/II study of guadecitabine and durvalumab in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC; NCT03308396). Patients received guadecitabine (starting at 60 mg/m2 subcutaneously on days 1-5 with de-escalation to 45 mg/m2 in case of dose limiting toxicity) with durvalumab (1500 mg intravenously on day 8). The study enrolled 57 patients, 6 in phase Ib with safety being the primary objective and 51in phase II, comprising 2 cohorts: 36 patients in Cohort 1 were treatment naive to checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) with 0-1 prior therapies and 15 patients in Cohort 2 were treated with up to two prior systemic therapies including one CPI. The combination of guadecitabine 45 mg/m2 with durvalumab 1500 mg was deemed safe. The primary objective of overall response rate (ORR) in cohort 1 was 22%. Sixteen patients (44%) experienced stable disease (SD). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), clinical benefit rate, and safety as well as ORR for Cohort 2. Median PFS for cohort 1 and cohort 2 were 14.26 and 3.91 months respectively. Median OS was not reached. In cohort 2, one patient achieved a partial response and 60% achieved SD. Asymptomatic neutropenia was the most common adverse event. Even though the trial did not meet the primary objective in cohort 1, the tolerability and PFS signal in CPI naive patients are worth further investigation.

Clinical implications of AR alterations in advanced prostate cancer: a multi-institutional collaboration.

BACKGROUND: AR gene alterations can develop in response to pressure of testosterone suppression and androgen receptor targeting agents (ARTA). Despite this, the relevance of these gene alterations in the context of ARTA treatment and clinical outcomes remains unclear. METHODS: Patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who had undergone genomic testing and received ARTA treatment were identified in the Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine Multi-Institutional Collaborative Effort (PROMISE) database. Patients were stratified according to the timing of genomic testing relative to the first ARTA treatment (pre-/post-ARTA). Clinical outcomes such as time to progression, PSA response, and overall survival were compared based on alteration types. RESULTS: In total, 540 CRPC patients who received ARTA and had tissue-based (n = 321) and/or blood-based (n = 244) genomic sequencing were identified. Median age was 62 years (range 39-90) at the time of the diagnosis. Majority were White (72.2%) and had metastatic disease (92.6%) at the time of the first ARTA treatment. Pre-ARTA genomic testing was available in 24.8% of the patients, and AR mutations and amplifications were observed in 8.2% and 13.1% of the patients, respectively. Further, time to progression was longer in patients with AR amplifications (25.7 months) compared to those without an AR alteration (9.6 months; p = 0.03). In the post-ARTA group (n = 406), AR mutations and AR amplifications were observed in 18.5% and 35.7% of the patients, respectively. The most common mutation in post-ARTA group was L702H (9.9%). CONCLUSION: In this real-world clinicogenomics database-driven study we explored the development of AR alterations and their association with ARTA treatment outcomes. Our study showed that AR amplifications are associated with longer time to progression on first ARTA treatment. Further prospective studies are needed to optimize therapeutic strategies for patients with AR alterations.

Phase II Study of Erdafitinib in Patients With Tumors With FGFR Amplifications: Results From the NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN Trial (EAY131) Subprotocol K1.

PURPOSE: Despite fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors being approved in tumor types with select FGFR rearrangements or gene mutations, amplifications of FGFR represent the most common FGFR alteration across malignancies. Subprotocol K1 (EAY131-K1) of the National Cancer Institute-MATCH platform trial was designed to evaluate the antitumor efficacy of the oral FGFR1-4 inhibitor, erdafitinib, in patients with tumors harboring FGFR1-4 amplification. METHODS: EAY131-K1 was an open-label, single-arm, phase II study with central confirmation of presence of FGFR1-4 amplification in tumors. Patients with urothelial carcinoma were excluded. Enrolled patients received oral erdafitinib at a starting dose of 8 mg once daily continuously with escalation to 9 mg once daily continuously, on the basis of predefined time point assessments of phosphate levels, until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was centrally assessed objective response rate (ORR), with key secondary end points being 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6), PFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were enrolled into this study with 18 included in the prespecified primary efficacy analysis. The median age of the 18 patients was 60 years, and 78% had received ≥3 previous lines of therapy. There were no confirmed responses to erdafitinib; however, five patients experienced stable disease (SD) as best response. One patient with an FGFR1-amplified breast cancer had a prolonged PFS >168 days (5.5 months). The median PFS was 1.7 months (90% CI, 1.1 to 1.8 months) and the median OS was 4.2 months (90% CI, 2.3 to 9.3 months). The estimated PFS6 rate was 13.8% (90% CI, 3.3 to 31.6). The majority of toxicities were grade 1 to 2 in nature, although there was one grade 5 treatment-related adverse event. CONCLUSION: Erdafitinib did not meet its primary end point of efficacy as determined by ORR in treatment-refractory solid tumors harboring FGFR1-4 amplifications. Our findings support that rearrangements and gene mutations, but not amplifications, of FGFR remain the established FGFR alterations with approved indications for FGFR inhibition.

Clinical implications of Wnt pathway genetic alterations in men with advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Aberrant Wnt signaling has been implicated in prostate cancer tumorigenesis and metastasis in preclinical models but the impact of genetic alterations in Wnt signaling genes in men with advanced prostate cancer is unknown. METHODS: We utilized the Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine Multi-Institutional Collaborative Effort (PROMISE) clinical-genomic database for this retrospective analysis. Patients with activating mutations in CTNNB1 or RSPO2 or inactivating mutations in APC, RNF43, or ZNRF3 were defined as Wnt-altered, while those lacking such alterations were defined as Wnt non-altered. We compared patient characteristics and clinical outcomes as well as co-occurring genetic alterations according to Wnt alteration status. RESULTS: Of the 1498 patients included, 193 (12.9%) were Wnt-altered. These men had a statistically significant 2-fold increased prevalence of liver and lung metastases as compared with Wnt non-altered patients at the time of initial diagnosis, (4.66% v 2.15% ; 6.22% v 3.07%), first metastatic disease diagnosis (10.88% v 5.29%; 13.99% v 6.21%), and CRPC development (11.40% v 6.36%; 12.95% v 5.29%). Wnt alterations were associated with more co-occurring alterations in RB1 (10.4% v 6.2%), AR (38.9% vs 25.7%), SPOP (13.5% vs 4.1%), FOXA1 (6.7% vs 2.8%), and PIK3CA (10.9% vs 5.1%). We found no significant differences in overall survival or other clinical outcomes from initial diagnosis, first metastatic disease, diagnosis of CRPC, or with AR inhibition for mCRPC between the Wnt groups. CONCLUSIONS: Wnt-altered patients with prostate cancer have a higher prevalence of visceral metastases and are enriched in RB1, AR, SPOP, FOXA1, and PIK3CA alterations. Despite these associations, Wnt alterations were not associated with worse survival or treatment outcomes in men with advanced prostate cancer.

Adjuvant Everolimus in Patients with Completely Resected, Very High-risk Renal Cell Carcinoma of Clear Cell Histology: Results from the Phase 3 Placebo-controlled SWOG S0931 (EVEREST) Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: EVEREST is a phase 3 trial in patients with renal cell cancer (RCC) at intermediate-high or very high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy who were randomized to receive adjuvant everolimus or placebo. Longer recurrence-free survival (RFS) was observed with everolimus (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-1.00; p = 0.051), but the nominal significance level (p = 0.044) was not reached. To contextualize these results with positive phase 3 trials of adjuvant sunitinib and pembrolizumab, we conducted a secondary analysis in a similar population of EVEREST patients with very high-risk disease and clear cell histology. METHODS: Postnephrectomy patients with any clear cell component and very high-risk disease, defined as pT3a (grade 3-4), pT3b-c (any grade), T4 (any grade), or node-positive status (N+), were identified. A Cox regression model stratified by performance status was used to compare RFS and overall survival (OS) between the treatment arms. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 1499 patients, 717 had clear cell histology and very high-risk disease; 699 met the eligibility criteria, of whom 348 were randomized to everolimus arm, and 351 to the placebo arm. Patient characteristics were similar between the arms. Only 163/348 (47%) patients in the everolimus arm completed all treatment as planned, versus 225/351 (64%) in the placebo arm. Adjuvant everolimus resulted in a statistically significant improvement in RFS (HR 0.80; 95%CI 0.65-0.99, p = 0.041). Evidence of a survival benefit was not seen (HR 0.85; 95%CI 0.64-1.14, p = 0.3) CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In patients with clear cell RCC at very high-risk for recurrence, adjuvant everolimus resulted in significantly improved RFS compared to placebo but resulted in a high discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Although the treatment HR for OS was consistent with RFS findings, it did not reach statistical significance. With a focus on risk stratification tools and/or biomarkers to minimize toxicity risk in those not likely to benefit, this information can help inform the design of future adjuvant trials in high-risk RCC PATIENT SUMMARY: We assessed treatment with everolimus in comparison to placebo after complete surgical removal of clear-cell kidney cancer at very high risk of recurrence. We found that survival outcomes were better for patients treated with everolimus, although these patients had a higher rate of side effects.

Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancers with Deleterious CDK12 Alterations in the Phase 2 IMPACT Trial.

PURPOSE: CDK12 inactivation in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may predict immunotherapy responses. This phase 2 trial evaluated the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in patients with CDK12-altered mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had mCRPC with deleterious CDK12 alterations and any prior therapies except ICI. Cohort A received ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) with nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for up to four cycles, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. Cohort C received nivolumab alone 480 mg every 4 weeks. Patients with CDK12-altered nonprostate tumors were enrolled in cohort B and not reported. The primary endpoint was a 50% reduction in PSA (PSA50). Key secondary endpoints included PSA progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and safety. RESULTS: PSA was evaluable in 23 patients in cohort A and 14 in cohort C. Median lines of prior therapy were two in cohorts A and C, including any prior novel hormonal agent (74% and 79%) and chemotherapy (57% and 36%). The PSA50 rate was 9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 1%-28%] in cohort A with two responders; neither had microsatellite instability or a tumor mutational burden >10 mutations/megabase. No PSA50 responses occurred in cohort C. Median PSA progression-free survival was 7.0 months (95% CI, 3.6-11.4) in cohort A and 4.5 months (95% CI, 3.4-13.8) in cohort C. Median overall survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.2-12.3) in cohort A and 13.8 months (95% CI, 3.6-not reached) in cohort C. CONCLUSIONS: There was minimal activity with ICI therapy in patients with CDK12-altered mCRPC.

First-line Systemic Therapy Following Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma: An International Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but real-world data on sequential treatment are scarce. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of first-line (1L) systemic therapy following adjuvant immune oncology (IO)-based regimens. METHODS: A retrospective study including patients with recurrent RCC following adjuvant IO across 29 international institutions was conducted. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) on 1L systemic therapy estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Preplanned subanalyses of clinical outcomes by type of 1L systemic therapy, recurrence timing, and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups were performed. Treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, or corticosteroid use were assessed. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 94 patients were included. Most received adjuvant pembrolizumab (n = 37, 39%), atezolizumab (n = 28, 30%), or nivolumab + ipilimumab (n = 15, 16%). The cohort included 49 (52%) patients who had recurrence within 3 mo of the last adjuvant IO dose, whereas 45 (48%) recurred beyond 3 mo. Bone metastases were significantly higher in tumors recurring at <3 mo (10/49, 20%) than those recurring at >3 mo (1/45, 2.2%; p = 0.008). Most patients received 1L vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (VEGF-TT; n = 37, 39%), IO + VEGF-TT (n = 26, 28%), or IO + IO (n = 12, 13%). The remaining underwent local therapy. The median follow-up for the 1L systemic therapy cohort was 15 mo. The 18-mo PFS and OS rates were 45% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-60) and 85% (95% CI: 75-95), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (42%) patients and included skin toxicity (n = 7, 9.2%), fatigue (n = 6, 7.9%), and diarrhea/colitis (n = 4, 5.3%). Limitations included selecting patients from large academic centers and the short follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A subset of patients with recurrent RCC following adjuvant IO respond to systemic therapies, including VEGF-TT and IO-based regimens. Notably, patients with favorable-risk disease may derive more benefit from VEGF-TT than from IO therapies in this setting. Future approaches utilizing radiographic tools and biomarker-based liquid biopsies are warranted to detect occult metastatic disease and identify candidate patients for adjuvant IO therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). There are limited data on clinical outcomes after the recurrence of RCC tumors following adjuvant immunotherapy. In this study, we find that patients respond to subsequent systemic therapies across different treatment options.

Repeat Next-Generation Sequencing Testing on Progression in Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer Can Identify New Actionable Alterations.

PURPOSE: There are limited data available on the real-world patterns of molecular testing in men with advanced prostate cancer. We thus sought to evaluate next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing in the United States, focused on single versus serial NGS testing, the different disease states of testing (hormone-sensitive v castration-resistant, metastatic vs nonmetastatic), tissue versus plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays, and how often actionable data were found on each NGS test. METHODS: The Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine Multi-Institutional Collaborative Effort clinical-genomic database was used for this retrospective analysis, including 1,597 patients across 15 institutions. Actionable NGS data were defined as including somatic alterations in homologous recombination repair genes, mismatch repair deficiency, microsatellite instability (MSI-high), or a high tumor mutational burden ≥10 mut/MB. RESULTS: Serial NGS testing (two or more NGS tests with specimens collected more than 60 days apart) was performed in 9% (n = 144) of patients with a median of 182 days in between test results. For the second NGS test and beyond, 82.1% (225 of 274) of tests were from ctDNA assays and 76.1% (217 of 285) were collected in the metastatic castration-resistant setting. New actionable data were found on 11.1% (16 of 144) of second NGS tests, with 3.5% (5 of 144) of tests detecting a new BRCA2 alteration or MSI-high. A targeted therapy (poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor or immunotherapy) was given after an actionable result on the second NGS test in 31.3% (5 of 16) of patients. CONCLUSION: Repeat somatic NGS testing in men with prostate cancer is infrequently performed in practice and can identify new actionable alterations not present with initial testing, suggesting the utility of repeat molecular profiling with tissue or blood of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer to guide therapy choices.

Pathogenic Germline Mutational Landscape in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma and Associated Clinicopathologic Features.

PURPOSE: A subset of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cases occur because of a hereditary predisposition. However, the prevalence and profiling of germline alterations in RCC have not been fully characterized. Additionally, clinicopathologic factors associated with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline variants in patients with RCC remain poorly understood. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with RCC who underwent genetic evaluation was performed. The frequency of P/LP germline variants and genes was evaluated in this cohort. The association between genetic testing outcomes and clinicopathologic features was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 321 patients with RCC who had germline testing were identified. Within this cohort, 42 patients (13.1%) had P/LP variants. Genes with the most frequent germline mutations were FLCN (n = 10, 3.1%), SDHB (n = 4, 1.2%), VHL (n = 4, 1.2%), MLH1 (n = 3, 0.9%), and CHEK2 (n = 4, 1.2%). Among patients with P/LP variants, 19 (45.2%) had a potentially targetable mutation. The presence of bilateral or multifocal tumors was associated with P/LP variants (P = .0012 and P = .0098, respectively). Patients who had targeted gene testing had higher rates of P/LP variants compared with multigene panel testing (P = .015). Age and family history of cancers (RCC and non-RCC) did not have any statistically significant association with germline testing outcomes. CONCLUSION: Among patients with RCC, unselected for a known familial predisposition, 13.4% had P/LP variants. Almost half of patients with P/LP variants had a potentially targetable mutation. Targeted gene panel testing is a feasible option for patients, particularly if syndromic features are present. Age and family history were not associated with P/LP variants. Future studies are needed to optimize current genetic evaluation criteria to expand the detection of patients with RCC who may have germline mutations.