suPARnostic: an advanced predictive tool for detecting recurrence in renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Plasma soluble urokinase-type Plasminogen Activator Receptor (suPAR) predicts disease aggressiveness in renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), but its prognostic accuracy has not been investigated. To investigate the prognostic accuracy of preoperative plasma suPAR in patients who received curative treatment for initially localized ccRCC. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed plasma samples stored in the Danish National Biobank between 2010 and 2015 from 235 patients with ccRCC at any stage. Relationships with outcome analyzed using univariate and multiple logistic Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 235 patients with ccRCC. The median follow-up period was 7.7 years. In univariate analysis suPAR ≥ 6 ng/mL was significantly associated with overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Patients with elevated suPAR were more likely to recur, with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 2.3 for RFS. In multiple logistic regression, suPAR ≥ 6 ng/mL remained a negative predictor of OS and RFS. Limitations include retrospective study design, wide confidence intervals, and tumor subtype heterogeneity bias. CONCLUSIONS: ccRCC patients with high plasma suPAR concentrations are at an elevated risk of disease recurrence and see lower OS. suPAR is a promising surveillance tool to more precisely follow up with ccRCC patients and detect future recurrences. In this study, we showed that new type of liquid marker in blood plasma, called suPAR, is associated to a higher risk of kidney cancer recurrence when elevated above 6ng/mL. We also showed suPAR to independently be able to predict patients overall and recurrence free survival in patient with any stage of kidney cancer.

The Benefits and Harms of Pharmacological Treatment for Postradiation Pelvic Pain: A Systematic Review by the European Association of Urology Chronic Pelvic Pain Panel with Recommendations for Clinical Practice.

Context: Radiotherapy of the pelvis is a widely used method for the treatment of malignancies, and local complications including pain following pelvic radiation therapy are acknowledged complications. Objective: The primary objective is to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological therapies on postradiation pelvic pain. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review of the use of different pharmacological treatments in the management of post-radiation pelvic pain was conducted (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42021249026). Comprehensive searches of EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane library were performed for publications between January 1980 and April 2021. The primary outcomes were improvement in pain and adverse events following treatment. The secondary outcomes included quality of life, bowel function, and urinary function. Evidence synthesis: After screening 1514 abstracts, four randomised controlled trials were identified, enrolling 355 patients with bladder and anorectal subtypes of postradiotherapy chronic pelvic pain (CPP). A narrative synthesis was performed as heterogeneity of included studies precluded a meta-analysis. A single study reported a significant reduction in pain after 6 mo in patients with bladder pain syndrome treated with hyaluronic acid or hyperbaric oxygen. Anorectal pain was reported to be reduced by the application of 4% formalin, but the use of hyperbaric oxygen in postradiotherapy anorectal pain remains controversial. Adverse event reporting was generally poor. Studies looking at medications used routinely in guidelines for neuropathic pain, such as gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and duloxetine, were absent or of poor quality when it came to postradiation pelvic pain. Conclusions: Beneficial effects of hyperbaric oxygen or formalin on pain, quality of life, and functional symptoms were seen in patients with certain CPP subtypes, but the current evidence level is too weak to allow recommendations about the use of any pharmacological treatment for postradiation pelvic pain. Patient summary: Different pharmacological treatments are used to treat pain after radiotherapy, but current studies are of insufficient quality to determine whether these should be recommended and many chronic pelvic pain subtypes are not covered. Further research is needed.

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.

Local Treatment of Recurrent Renal Cell Carcinoma May Have a Significant Survival Effect Across All Risk-of-recurrence Groups.

Background: Retrospective comparative studies suggest a survival benefit after complete local treatment of recurrence (LTR) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which may be largely due to an indication bias. Objective: To determine the role of LTR in a homogeneous population characterised by limited and potentially resectable recurrence. Design setting and participants: RECUR is a protocol-based multicentre European registry capturing patient and tumour characteristics, risk of recurrence (RoR), recurrence patterns, and survival of those curatively treated for nonmetastatic RCC from 2006 to 2011. Per-protocol resectable disease (RD) recurrence was defined as (1) solitary metastases, (2) oligometastases, or (3) renal fossa or renal recurrence after radical or partial nephrectomy, respectively. Intervention: Local treatment of recurrence. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival was compared in the RD population that underwent LTR versus no LTR. We constructed a multivariate model to predict risk factors for overall mortality and analysed the effect of LTR across RoR groups. Results and limitations: Of 3039 patients with localised RCC treated with curative intent, 505 presented with recurrence, including 176 with RD. Of these patients, 97 underwent LTR and 79 no LTR. Patients in the LTR group were younger (64.3 [40-80] vs 69.2 [45-87] yr; p = 0.001). The median OS was 70.3 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 58-82.6) versus 27.4 mo (95% CI 23.6-31.15) in the LTR versus no-LTR group (p < 0.001). After a multivariate analysis, having LTR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.37 [95% CI 0.2-0.6]), having low- versus high-risk RoR (HR 0.42 [95% CI [0.20-0.83]), and not having extra-abdominal/thoracic metastasis (HR 1.96 [95% CI 1.02-3.77]) were prognostic factors of longer OS. The LTR effect on survival was consistent across risk groups. OS HR for high, intermediate, and low risks were 0.36 (0.2-0.64), 0.27 (0.11-0.65), and 0.26 (0.08-0.8), respectively. Limitations include retrospective design. Conclusions: This is the first study assessing the effectiveness of LTR in RCC in a comparable population with RD. This study supports the role of LTR across all RoR groups. Patient summary: We assessed the effectiveness of local treatment of resectable recurrent renal cell carcinoma after surgical treatment of the primary kidney tumour. Local treatment of recurrence was associated with longer survival across groups with a risk of recurrence.

Incidence and associated risk factors of venous thromboembolism after open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in patients administered short-period thromboprophylaxis: a Danish nationwide population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after partial nephrectomy in Denmark. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nationwide population-based registry was used to conduct a retrospective cohort study. All partial nephrectomies from January 2010 to August 2018 were assessed for postoperative VTE events. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate the odds of postoperative VTE within 4 weeks and 4 months after partial nephrectomy in patients who received standard-of-care thromboprophylaxis. RESULTS: Among 2355 patients, postoperative VTE risk was 0.6% and 0.9%, at 4 weeks and 4 months, respectively. In multivariate analysis, prior VTE (OR = 24.9, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (OR = 0.89, p < 0.001) were predictors of postoperative VTE within 4 months after partial nephrectomy. Limitations included the retrospective and registry-based study design and the absence of BMI data. CONCLUSION: Incidence of postoperative VTE is rare, but patients with prior VTE and those with a greater length of hospital stay are at greater long-term risk and should be evaluated when considering thromboprophylaxis.

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.

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.

Noninvasive detection of any-stage cancer using free glycosaminoglycans.

Cancer mortality is exacerbated by late-stage diagnosis. Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers can noninvasively diagnose cancers. However, validation studies have reported ~10% sensitivity to detect stage I cancer in a screening population and specific types, such as brain or genitourinary tumors, remain undetectable. We investigated urine and plasma free glycosaminoglycan profiles (GAGomes) as tumor metabolism biomarkers for multi-cancer early detection (MCED) of 14 cancer types using 2,064 samples from 1,260 cancer or healthy subjects. We observed widespread cancer-specific changes in biofluidic GAGomes recapitulated in an in vivo cancer progression model. We developed three machine learning models based on urine (Nurine = 220 cancer vs. 360 healthy) and plasma (Nplasma = 517 vs. 425) GAGomes that can detect any cancer with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83-0.93 with up to 62% sensitivity to stage I disease at 95% specificity. Undetected patients had a 39 to 50% lower risk of death. GAGomes predicted the putative cancer location with 89% accuracy. In a validation study on a screening-like population requiring ≥ 99% specificity, combined GAGomes predicted any cancer type with poor prognosis within 18 months with 43% sensitivity (21% in stage I; N = 121 and 49 cases). Overall, GAGomes appeared to be powerful MCED metabolic biomarkers, potentially doubling the number of stage I cancers detectable using genomic biomarkers.

Recurrence pattern in localized RCC: results from a European multicenter database (RECUR).

INTRODUCTION: The impact of open versus minimally invasive surgery on recurrence pattern in the management of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains uncertain. We thus aimed to determine the impact of surgical approach on survival and recurrence pattern. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a multi-institutional, matched cohort study on patients with pT1-3aN0M0 RCC from the RECUR database. After propensity score matching between open and minimally invasive surgery, disease-free (DFS) survival and risk of first recurrence according to recurrence site, namely local recurrence, abdominal/retroperitoneal, thoracic/mediastinal or uncommon site metastases were investigated with Cox regression analysis. Overall (OS) and Cancer Specific Survival (CSS) were also assessed. RESULTS: After matching, 1,019 patients who underwent open and 1,019 who underwent minimally invasive surgery were included (of which 70 robot-assisted). At 5.2 years of median follow-up, 130 patients in open and 125 in minimally invasive group experienced disease progression. A higher risk of local recurrence (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.18-3.58, P-value = 0.01) and uncommon site metastases (HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01-1.16; P-value = .04) was found for minimally invasive surgery relative to open surgery, while no difference was found in terms of DFS (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.64-1.06; P-value = .14). No differences were found in terms of OS and CSS. Main limitation is the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The risk for local recurrence and uncommon site metastases was higher for minimally invasive surgery compared to open surgery, although no differences were found for OS, CSS, and DFS.

Plasma and Urine Free Glycosaminoglycans as Monitoring Biomarkers in Nonmetastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma-A Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: No liquid biomarkers are approved in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), making early detection of recurrence in surgically treated nonmetastatic (M0) patients dependent on radiological imaging. Urine- and plasma free glycosaminoglycan profiles-or free GAGomes-are promising biomarkers reflective of RCC metabolism. Objective: To explore whether free GAGomes could detect M0 RCC recurrence noninvasively. Design setting and participants: Between June 2016 and February 2021, we enrolled a prospective consecutive series of patients elected for (1) partial or radical nephrectomy for clinical M0 RCC (cohort 1) or (2) first-line therapy following RCC metachronous metastatic recurrence (cohort 2) at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. The study population included M0 RCC patients with recurrent disease (RD) versus no evidence of disease (NED) in at least one follow-up visit. Plasma and urine free GAGomes-consisting of 40 chondroitin sulfate (CS), heparan sulfate, and hyaluronic acid (HA) features-were measured in a blinded central laboratory preoperatively and at each postoperative follow-up visit until recurrence or end of follow-up in cohort 1, or before treatment start in cohort 2. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We used Bayesian logistic regression to correlate GAGome features with RD versus NED and with various histopathological variables. We developed three recurrence scores (plasma, urine, and combined) proportional to the predicted probability of RD. We internally validated the area under the curve (AUC) using bootstrap resampling. We performed a decision curve analysis to select a cutoff and report the corresponding net benefit, sensitivity, and specificity of each score. We used univariable analyses to correlate each preoperative score with recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results and limitations: Of 127 enrolled patients in total, 62 M0 RCC patients were in the study population (median age: 63 year, 35% female, and 82% clear cell). The median follow-up time was 3 months, totaling 72 postoperative visits -17 RD and 55 NED cases. RD was compatible with alterations in 14 (52%) of the detectable GAGome features, mostly free CS. Eleven (79%) of these correlated with at least one histopathological variable. We developed a plasma, a urine, and a combined free CS RCC recurrence score to diagnose RD versus NED with AUCs 0.91, 0.93, and 0.94, respectively. At a cutoff equivalent to ≥30% predicted probability of RD, the sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 69% and 84% in plasma, 81% and 80% in urine, and 80% and 82% when combined, and the net benefit was equivalent to finding an extra ten, 13, and 12 cases of RD per hundred patients without any unnecessary imaging for plasma, urine, and combined, respectively. The combined score was prognostic of RFS in univariable analysis (hazard ratio = 1.90, p = 0.02). Limitations include a lack of external validation. Conclusions: Free CS scores detected postsurgical recurrence noninvasively in M0 RCC with substantial net benefit. External validity is required before wider clinical implementation. Patient summary: In this study, we examined a new noninvasive blood and urine test to detect whether renal cell carcinoma recurred after surgery.

Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). DESIGN: We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. RESULTS: The search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. CONCLUSION: Most of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical implications.

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.

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.

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.

Pattern, timing and predictors of recurrence after surgical resection of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Currently there are no specific guidelines for the post-operative follow-up of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC). We aimed to evaluate the pattern, location and timing of recurrence after surgery for non-metastatic chRCC and establish predictors of recurrence and cancer-specific death. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive surgically treated non-metastatic chRCC cases from the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (UK, 2015-2019) and the international collaborative database RECUR (15 institutes, 2006-2011). Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted. The association between variables of interest and outcomes were analysed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models with shared frailty for data source. RESULTS: 295 patients were identified. Median follow-up was 58 months. The five and ten-year recurrence-free survival rates were 94.3% and 89.2%. Seventeen patients (5.7%) developed recurrent disease, 13 (76.5%) with distant metastases. 54% of metastatic disease diagnoses involved a single organ, most commonly the bone. Early recurrence (< 24 months) was observed in 8 cases, all staged ≥ pT2b. 30 deaths occurred, of which 11 were attributed to chRCC. Sarcomatoid differentiation was rare (n = 4) but associated with recurrence and cancer-specific death on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, UICC/AJCC T-stage ≥ pT2b, presence of coagulative necrosis, and positive surgical margins were predictors of recurrence and cancer-specific death. CONCLUSION: Recurrence and death after surgically resected chRCC are rare. For completely excised lesions ≤ pT2a without coagulative necrosis or sarcomatoid features, prognosis is excellent. These patients should be reassured and follow-up intensity curtailed.

Should patients with low-risk renal cell carcinoma be followed differently after nephron-sparing surgery vs radical nephrectomy?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether pT1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be followed differently after partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) based on a retrospective analysis of a multicentre database (RECUR). SUBJECTS: A retrospective study was conducted in 3380 patients treated for nonmetastatic RCC between January 2006 and December 2011 across 15 centres from 10 countries, as part of the RECUR database project. For patients with pT1 clear-cell RCC, patterns of recurrence were compared between RN and PN according to recurrence site. Univariate and multivariate models were used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM). RESULTS: From the database 1995 patients were identified as low-risk patients (pT1, pN0, pNx), of whom 1055 (52.9%) underwent PN. On multivariate analysis, features associated with worse RFS included tumour size (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.39; P < 0.001), nuclear grade (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.73-3.08; P < 0.001), tumour necrosis (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03-2.3; P = 0.037), vascular invasion (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.4; P = 0.005) and positive surgical margins (HR 4.4, 95% CI 2.3-8.5; P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis of CSM revealed that the survival of patients with recurrence after PN was significantly better than those with recurrence after RN (P = 0.02). While the above-mentioned risk factors were associated with prognosis, type of surgery alone was not an independent prognostic variable for RFS nor CSM. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that follow-up protocols should not rely solely on stage and type of primary surgery. An optimized regimen should also include validated risk factors rather than type of surgery alone to select the best imaging method and to avoid unnecessary imaging. A follow-up of more than 3 years should be considered in patients with pT1 tumours after RN. A novel follow-up strategy is proposed.

Prevalence, Disease-free, and Overall Survival of Contemporary Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma Eligible for Adjuvant Checkpoint Inhibitor Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Designing adjuvant trials is challenging because of uncertainties of prevalence and outcome of high-risk renal cell cancer (RCC) despite use of validated risk scores. Our objective is to investigate how differences in eligibility criteria may impact on potential study results in RCC adjuvant trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RECUR is a multicenter European database capturing patient and tumor characteristics, recurrence patterns, and survival of those curatively treated for non-metastatic RCC from 2006 to 2011 without any adjuvant therapy. We used RECUR to evaluate prevalence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) according to eligibility criteria of immunotherapy-based adjuvant trials IMMotion 010 (NCT03024996), Checkmate 914 (NCT03138512), Keynote-564 (NCT03142334), RAMPART (NCT03288532), and PROSPER (NCT03055013). RESULTS: Of 3024 relevant patients in RECUR, 408 (13.5%), 725 (24%), 609 (20.1%), 1363 (45.1%), and 1071 (35.4%) met eligibility criteria for IMMotion-010, CheckMate-914, Keynote-564, RAMPART, and PROSPER, respectively. The median and 5-year DFS Kaplan-Meier estimates in RECUR corresponding to each trial eligibility criteria were: not reached and 69.6% for RAMPART; not reached and 64.5% for PROSPER; 109.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.9-134.6 months) and 57% for CheckMate-914; 75.8 months (95% CI, 52.7-98.8 months) and 54.3% for Keynote-564; and 43.6 months (95% CI, 30.8-56.4 months) and 45% for IMMotion-010. Our analysis may be limited by the retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: RECUR provides estimated DFS and OS benchmarks for placebo arms of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor studies and hence likely time to trial reporting. Well-documented contemporary registries rather than past risk models should be used to design future adjuvant trials.