Gastrointestinal metastases in renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective multicenter GETUG (Groupe d'Étude des Tumeurs Uro-Génitales) study.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), bone and visceral metastases have a poor prognosis, while endocrine gland metastases have a more favorable prognosis. Gastrointestinal metastases (GIMs) are rare, and their prognosis is still poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To report clinical presentations, patient characteristics, therapeutic strategies, and prognosis of GIMs from RCC. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from RCC patients presenting GIMs, in 10 French GETUG centers, between 2000 and 2021. RESULTS: We identified 74 patients with 87 GIMs, mostly gastric or duodenal. The median age at GIM diagnosis was 69 years and 76% of patients already had other metastases. GIMs occurred after a median duration of 5.4 years (IC95%=[4.2-7.1]) and 1.9 years (IC95%=[1.2-3.8]) from RCC diagnosis and first metastasis, respectively. GIMs were symptomatic in 52 patients (70%), with anemia in 41 patients (55%) and/or gastrointestinal bleeding in 31 patients (42%). Only 22 asymptomatic patients (30%) were fortuitously diagnosed. GIM management consisted of systemic treatment only in 29 GIMs (33%), local treatment only in 23 GIMs (26%), and both local and systemic treatment in 18 GIMs (21%). For 17 GIMs (20%), there was no therapeutic modification. After diagnosis of GIM, median overall survival was 19 months. CONCLUSION: We report the largest retrospective cohort of GIMs in RCC patients. They should be suspected in case of anemia or gastrointestinal bleeding in any patient with a history of RCC. Their management varies widely depending on their location in the digestive tract and whether or not they are symptomatic.

The role of radiation therapy for de novo metastatic bladder and renal cancers.

Metastatic bladder and renal cancers account respectively for 2.1% and 1.8% of cancer deaths worldwide. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized the management of metastatic disease, by demonstrating considerable improvements in overall survival. However, despite initial sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors for most patients, both bladder and renal cancer are associated with short progression-free survival and overall survival, raising the need for further strategies to improve their efficacy. Combining systemic therapies with local approaches is a longstanding concept in urological oncology, in clinical settings including both oligometastatic and polymetastatic disease. Radiation therapy has been increasingly studied with either cytoreductive, consolidative, ablative or immune boosting purposes, but the long-term impact of this strategy remains unclear. This review intends to address the impact of radiation therapy with either curative or palliative intent, for synchronous de novo metastatic bladder and renal cancers.

Efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib by numbers of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline in advanced renal cell carcinoma: long-term follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, first-line avelumab + axitinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma across all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (favorable, intermediate, and poor); analyses of overall survival (OS) remain immature. Here, we report post hoc analyses of efficacy from the third interim analysis (data cut-off, April 2020) by the numbers of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline. METHODS: Efficacy endpoints assessed were PFS, objective response, and best overall response per investigator assessment (RECIST v1.1) and OS. Best percentage change and percentage change from baseline in target tumor size over time during the study were also assessed. RESULTS: In patients with 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4-6 IMDC risk factors, hazard ratios [HRs; 95% confidence interval (CIs)] for OS with avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.660 (0.356-1.223), 0.745 (0.524-1.059), 0.973 (0.668-1.417), 0.718 (0.414-1.248), and 0.443 (0.237-0.829), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.706 (0.490-1.016), 0.709 (0.540-0.933), 0.711 (0.527-0.960), 0.501 (0.293-0.854), and 0.395 (0.214-0.727), respectively. In patients with 1, 2, 3, or ≥4 target tumor sites, HRs (95% CIs) for OS with avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.912 (0.640-1.299), 0.715 (0.507-1.006), 0.679 (0.442-1.044), and 0.747 (0.346-1.615), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.706 (0.548-0.911), 0.552 (0.422-0.723), 0.856 (0.589-1.244), and 0.662 (0.329-1.332), respectively. Across all subgroups, analyses of objective response rate and complete response rate favored avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib, and a greater proportion of patients treated with avelumab + axitinib had tumor shrinkage. CONCLUSIONS: In post hoc analyses, first-line treatment with avelumab + axitinib was generally associated with efficacy benefits versus treatment with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma across subgroups defined by different numbers of IMDC risk factors or target tumor sites.

Extended follow-up from JAVELIN Renal 101: subgroup analysis of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We report updated data for avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the third interim analysis of the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response per investigator assessment (RECIST version 1.1) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in the overall population and in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups; safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was not reached [42.2 months-not estimable (NE)] with avelumab plus axitinib versus 37.8 months (31.4-NE) with sunitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.643-0.969; one-sided P = 0.0116], and median PFS (95% CI) was 13.9 months (11.1-16.6 months) versus 8.5 months (8.2-9.7 months), respectively (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.568-0.785; one-sided P < 0.0001). In patients with IMDC favorable-, intermediate-, poor-, or intermediate plus poor-risk disease, respectively, HRs (95% CI) for OS with avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.66 (0.356-1.223), 0.84 (0.649-1.084), 0.60 (0.399-0.912), and 0.79 (0.636-0.983), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.71 (0.490-1.016), 0.71 (0.578-0.866), 0.45 (0.304-0.678), and 0.66 (0.550-0.787), respectively. ORRs, complete response rates, and durations of response favored avelumab plus axitinib overall and across all risk groups. In the avelumab plus axitinib arm, 81.1% had a grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and incidences of TEAEs and immune-related AEs were highest <6 months after randomization. CONCLUSIONS: Avelumab plus axitinib continues to show improved efficacy versus sunitinib and a tolerable safety profile overall and across IMDC risk groups. The OS trend favors avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib, but data remain immature; follow-up is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02684006; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02684006.

Circulating Biomarkers in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Everolimus in the Pre-nephrectomy Setting.

Many drugs are available in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), yet clinicians are still looking for predictive biomarkers of disease recurrence or progression supporting more personalised treatments. An assessment of circulating biomarkers over time was carried out in this French, open-label, single-arm, multicentre trial conducted in 25 patients with either locally advanced (n = 14) or metastatic RCC (n = 11) who received everolimus (10 mg daily) for 6 weeks prior to nephrectomy (NEORAD, NCT01715935). Circulating biomarkers, including circulating tumour cells, haematopoietic and endothelial cells, plasma angiogenesis and inflammatory markers were quantified at baseline, upon everolimus and post-nephrectomy. We assessed tumour burden, objective response rate upon RECIST1.1, disease-free survival (DFS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The correlation between circulating biomarkers was evaluated with multiple factor analysis and biomarker association with DFS/PFS by Cox regression. No objective response rate was obtained before nephrectomy. Upon everolimus, neutrophils, platelets and sVEGFR2 significantly decreased. We did not find any association between circulating biomarkers and DFS/PFS, but patients with the highest tumour burden at baseline had significantly higher plasma levels of interleukin-6, an inflammatory circulating biomarker, and lower levels of sVEGFR2, related to angiogenesis. Further understanding of the link between these circulating biomarkers could help to optimise drug combinations in RCC.

French AFU Cancer Committee Guidelines - Update 2022-2024: management of kidney cancer.

AIM: To update the recommendations for the management of kidney cancers. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted from 2015 to 2022. The most relevant articles on the diagnosis, classification, surgical treatment, medical treatment and follow-up of kidney cancer were selected and incorporated into the recommendations. Therefore, the recommendations were updated while specifying the level of evidence (high or low). RESULTS: The gold standard for the diagnosis and evaluation of kidney cancer is contrast-enhanced chest and abdominal CT. MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound are indicated in special cases. Percutaneous biopsy is recommended in situations where the results will influence the therapeutic decision. Renal tumours should be classified according to the pTNM 2017 classification, the WHO 2022 classification and the ISUP nucleolar grade. Metastatic kidney cancer should be classified according to the IMDC criteria. Partial nephrectomy is the gold standard treatment for T1a tumours and can be performed by an open approach, by laparoscopy or by robot-guidance. Active surveillance of tumours less than 2cm in size can be considered regardless of the patient's age. Ablative therapies and active surveillance are options in elderly patients with comorbidity. T1b tumours should be treated by partial or radical nephrectomy depending on the complexity of the tumour. Radical nephrectomy is the first-line treatment for locally advanced cancers. Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab should be considered in patients at intermediate and high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy. In metastatic patients: Immediate cytoreductive nephrectomy may be offered to oligometastatic patients in combination with local treatment of metastases if this can be complete and delayed cytoreductive nephrectomy can be proposed for patients with a complete response or a significant partial response. Medical treatment should be proposed as first-line therapy for patients with a poor or intermediate prognosis. Surgical or local treatment of metastases can be proposed in case of single or oligo-metastases. The recommended first-line drugs for metastatic patients with clear cell renal carcinoma are the combinations axitinib/pembrolizumab, nivolumab/ipililumab, nivolumab/cabozantinib and lenvatinib/pembrolizumab. Cabozantinib is the recommended first-line treatment for patients with metastatic papillary carcinoma. Cystic tumours should be classified according to the Bosniak classification. Surgical removal should be proposed as a priority for Bosniak III and IV lesions. It is recommended that patient monitoring be adapted to the aggressiveness of the tumour. CONCLUSION: These updated recommendations are a reference that will allow French and French-speaking practitioners to improve kidney cancer management.

Efficacy and safety of avelumab plus axitinib in elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, first-line avelumab plus axitinib demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) benefit versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). However, efficacy in elderly patients remains unclear. We report efficacy and safety by age group from the second interim analysis of overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: PFS and ORR as per blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1), OS, and safety were assessed in patient groups aged <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years. RESULTS: In the avelumab plus axitinib and sunitinib arms, 271/138/33 and 275/128/41 patients aged <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years, respectively, were randomized. At data cut-off (January 2019), median PFS [95% confidence interval (CI)] with avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in these respective age groups was 11.6 (8.4-19.4) versus 6.9 (5.6-8.4) months [hazard ratio (HR), 0.63; 95% CI 0.501-0.786], 13.8 (11.1-18.0) versus 11.0 (7.8-16.6) months (HR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.627-1.231), and 13.8 [7.0-not estimable (NE)] versus 9.8 (4.3-NE) months (HR, 0.76; 95% CI 0.378-1.511). Median OS (95% CI) in the respective age groups was not reached (NR) (NE-NE) versus 28.6 (25.5-NE) months (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.541-1.022), 30.0 (30.0-NE) versus NR (NE-NE) months (HR, 0.89; 95% CI 0.546-1.467), and 25.3 (19.9-NE) versus NR (19.4-NE) months (HR, 0.87; 95% CI 0.359-2.106). ORR (95% CI) in the respective age groups was 49.4% (43.3% to 55.6%) versus 27.3% (22.1% to 32.9%), 60.9% (52.2% to 69.1%) versus 28.9% (21.2% to 37.6%), and 42.4% (25.5% to 60.8%) versus 22.0% (10.6% to 37.6%). In the avelumab plus axitinib arm, grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and immune-related AEs occurred in 76.9%/81.2%/72.7% and 45.5%/48.1%/36.4% in the respective age groups. CONCLUSIONS: First-line avelumab plus axitinib demonstrated favorable efficacy across age groups, including patients aged ≥75 years. OS data were still immature; follow-up is ongoing. The safety profile was generally consistent across age groups.

Association of cabozantinib pharmacokinetics, progression and toxicity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: results from a pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics study.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with a substantial efficacy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and is associated with a challenging toxicity profile leading to frequent drug discontinuations. Whereas an exposure/safety relationship was demonstrated for this drug, an exposure/efficacy relationship is still unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out a monocentric, observational, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) study in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (INDS MR 5612140520). We used measured blood concentrations of cabozantinib (Cmeas) to determine the area under the curve (AUC), apparent clearance (Cl/F) and residual blood concentration (Ctrough). Best overall response according to RECIST 1.1 and relevant toxicity (adverse event grade 3-4 or grade 2 requiring dose reduction or discontinuation) were assessed according to Cmeas, Ctrough, AUC and Cl/F. RESULTS: We enrolled 76 patients, including 35 who experienced disease progression and 30 with grade 3-4 toxicity. Patients with progressive disease had a significantly lower median Ctrough (406 versus 634 ng/ml, P = 0.001), Cl/F (2 versus 2.9 l/h, P = 0.002) and AUC (16 versus 20 µg h/ml, P = 0.037) compared with patients who had disease control as best response. Patients with relevant toxicity had a significantly higher Cmeas (732 versus 531 ng/ml, P = 0.006), Ctrough (693 versus 521 ng/ml, P = 0.005) and AUC (21 versus 16 µg h/ml, P = 0.046) compared with patients who did not experience any grade relevant toxicity. Receiver operating characteristic curves obtained from our study defined a threshold for drug efficacy of 536.8 ng/ml and of 617.7 ng/ml for toxicity. CONCLUSION: We first demonstrate the PK/PD relationship for cabozantinib. Severe toxicities are associated with a higher drug exposure, whereas inefficacy is associated with a lower drug exposure. Cabozantinib plasma drug monitoring may be useful to optimize clinical practice.

Checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma.

Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma (pRCC) is the most common non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) and a distinct entity, although heterogenous, associated with poor outcomes. The treatment landscape of metastatic pRCC (mpRCC) relied so far on targeted therapies, mimicking previous developments in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. However, antiangiogenics as well as mTOR inhibitors retain only limited activity in mpRCC. As development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is now underway in patients with mpRCC, we aimed at discussing early activity data and potential for future therapeutic strategies in monotherapy or combination. Expression of immune checkpoints such as PD-L1 and infiltrative immune cells in pRCC could provide insights into their potential immunogenicity, although this is currently poorly described. Based on retrospective and prospective data, efficacy of ICI as single agent remains limited. Combinations with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, notably with anti-MET inhibitors, harbor promising response rates and may enter the standard of care in untreated patients. Collaborative work is needed to refine the molecular and immune landscape of pRCC, and pursue efforts to set up predictive biomarker-driven clinical trials in these rare tumors.

Efficacy and correlative analyses of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), those with sarcomatoid histology (sRCC) have the poorest prognosis. This analysis assessed the efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with treatment-naive advanced sRCC. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) enrolled patients with treatment-naive advanced RCC. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib following standard doses and schedules. Assessments in this post hoc analysis of patients with sRCC included efficacy (including progression-free survival) and biomarker analyses. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients had sarcomatoid histology and were included in this post hoc analysis; 47 patients in the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 61 in the sunitinib arm. Patients in the avelumab plus axitinib arm had improved progression-free survival [stratified hazard ratio, 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.325-1.003)] and a higher objective response rate (46.8% versus 21.3%; complete response in 4.3% versus 0%) versus those in the sunitinib arm. Correlative gene expression analyses of patients with sRCC showed enrichment of gene pathway scores for cancer-associated fibroblasts and regulatory T cells, CD274 and CD8A expression, and tumors with The Cancer Genome Atlas m3 classification. CONCLUSIONS: In this subgroup analysis of JAVELIN Renal 101, patients with sRCC in the avelumab plus axitinib arm had improved efficacy outcomes versus those in the sunitinib arm. Correlative analyses provide insight into this subtype of RCC and suggest that avelumab plus axitinib may increase the chance of overcoming the aggressive features of sRCC.

TiNivo: safety and efficacy of tivozanib-nivolumab combination therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with tivozanib, a highly selective and potent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated single-agent efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) along with minimal off-target toxicities and a favorable adverse event (AE) profile. We report final results from TiNivo, a phase Ib/II study of tivozanib combined with nivolumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In phase Ib, patients with metastatic RCC received tivozanib 1.0 mg once daily (QD) for 21 days followed by 7 days off treatment (n = 3) or tivozanib 1.5 mg QD (n = 3) plus nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be tivozanib 1.5 mg, and 22 additional patients were enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose for phase II. Primary end points included safety and tolerability, with secondary end points of objective response rate, disease control rate, and progression-free survival. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients were treated with tivozanib 1.5 mg QD [12 (48%) treatment-naïve; 13 (52%) previously treated]. Treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 20 patients (80%); 4 patients (17%) experienced AEs that led to dose reduction, and 8 (32%) discontinued due to AEs. The objective response rate was 56% (including one complete response) and disease control rate was 96%, with a median time to best response of 7.9 weeks. Twenty patients (80%) had tumor shrinkage. With a median follow-up of 19.0 months (range, 12.6-22.8), median progression-free survival was 18.9 months (95% confidence interval 16.4-not reached) in all patients and was similar in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib plus nivolumab combination therapy showed a generally tolerable AE profile and promising antitumor efficacy. These results support further development of tivozanib combined with nivolumab as a treatment option in patients with treatment-naïve or previously treated metastatic RCC. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT03136627.

[French ccAFU guidelines - update 2020-2022: management of kidney cancer]. / Recommandations françaises du Comité de cancérologie de l'AFU ­ actualisation 2020­2022 : prise en charge du cancer du rein.

OBJECTIVE: - To update the French guidelines on kidney cancer. METHODS: - A systematic review of the literature between 2015 and 2020 was performed. The most relevant articles regarding the diagnosis, the classification, surgical treatment, medical treatment and follow-up of kidney cancer were retrieved and included in the new guidelines. The guidelines were updated with corresponding levels of evidence. RESULTS: - Thoraco-abdominal CT scan with injection is the best radiological exam for the diagnosis of kidney cancer. MRI and contrast ultra-sound can be useful in some cases. Percutaneous biopsy is recommended when histological results will affect clinical decision. Renal tumours must be classified according to pTNM 2017 classification and ISUP grade. Metastatic kidney cancers must be classified according to IMDC criteria. Partial nephrectomy is the recommended treatment for T1a tumours and can be done through an open, laparoscopic or robotic access. T1b tumours can be treated by partial or total nephrectomy according to tumour complexity. Radical nephrectomy is the recommended treatment of advanced localized tumours. There is no recommended adjuvant treatment. In metastatic patients: cyto-reductive nephrectomy can be offered in case of good prognosis; medical treatment must be counseled first in case of intermediate or bad prognosis. Surgical or local treatment of metastases should be considered in case of solitary lesion or oligo-metastases. First line recommended drugs in metastatic patients include the associations axitinib/pembrolizumab and nivolumab/ipilimumab. Cystic tumours must be classified according to Bosniak Classification. Surgical excision should be offered to patients with Bosniak III and IV lesions. It is recommended to follow patients clinically and with imaging according to tumour aggressiveness. CONCLUSION: - These updated recommendations should assist French speaking urologists for their management of kidney cancers.

Updated efficacy results from the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial: first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated efficacy data from the second interim analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with aRCC were randomized (1 : 1) to receive avelumab (10 mg/kg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were PFS and overall survival (OS) among patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) tumors. Key secondary end points were OS and PFS in the overall population. RESULTS: Of 886 patients, 442 were randomized to the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 444 to the sunitinib arm; 270 and 290 had PD-L1+ tumors, respectively. After a minimum follow-up of 13 months (data cut-off 28 January 2019), PFS was significantly longer in the avelumab plus axitinib arm than in the sunitinib arm {PD-L1+ population: hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.490-0.777]}; one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.8 (95% CI 10.1-20.7) versus 7.0 months (95% CI 5.7-9.6); overall population: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.574-0.825); one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.3 (95% CI 11.1-15.3) versus 8.0 months (95% CI 6.7-9.8)]. OS data were immature [PD-L1+ population: HR 0.828 (95% CI 0.596-1.151); one-sided P = 0.1301; overall population: HR 0.796 (95% CI 0.616-1.027); one-sided P = 0.0392]. CONCLUSION: Among patients with previously untreated aRCC, treatment with avelumab plus axitinib continued to result in a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus sunitinib; OS data were still immature. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02684006.

Long-term oncological outcomes of cystic renal cell carcinoma according to the Bosniak classification.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic role of the Bosniak classification on the long-term oncological outcomes of cystic renal cell carcinomas. MATERIAL AND METHOD: In a national multicentric retrospective study, we included patients treated surgically for localized cystic RCC from 2000 to 2010. Patients with a follow-up of less than 4 years, benign tumors, and ablative treatments were excluded. The primary outcome was disease-free survival. RESULTS: 152 patients met the inclusion criteria: Bosniak II (6%), III (53%), IV (41%), with a median follow-up of 61 (12-179) months. Characteristics of the population and the tumors were [median, (min-max)] age 57 (25-84) years old, tumor size 43 mm (20-280), RENAL score 7 (4-12), PADUA score 8 (5-14). Treatments were 55% partial nephrectomy, 45% radical nephrectomy, 74% open surgery, and 26% laparoscopy. In pathological report, cystic RCC were mainly of low grade (1-2, 77%) and low stage (pT1, 81%). The two main histological subtypes were conventional (56%) and papillary (23%) RCC. Staging at presentation and histological characteristics were similar between Bosniak III and IV, except for high grade which was more common in Bosniak IV (12 vs 36%, p < 0.01). The Bosniak classification was not predictive of the recurrence, as 5- and 10-year disease-free survival were similar in Bosniak III and IV (92% vs 92% and 84% vs 83%, p = 0.60). CONCLUSION: The Bosniak classification is predictive of the risk of malignancy but not of the oncological prognosis. Regardless of the initial Bosniak categories, almost all cystic RCCs were of low stage/grade and had low long-term recurrence rate.