Contemporary care patterns in the management of small renal masses.

OBJECTIVES: Incidental small renal masses (SRMs) now account for the majority of new diagnoses of renal cancers. Although there are established management guidelines, referral and management patterns can vary. We aimed to explore identification, practice patterns, and management of identified SRMs in an integrated health system. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. METHODS: We identified patients with a newly diagnosed SRM measuring 3 cm or less from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. These patients were flagged at the time of radiographic identification to ensure adequate notification of findings. Diagnostic modality, referral, and treatment patterns were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 519 patients with SRMs, 65% were found on abdominal CT and 22% on renal/abdominal ultrasounds. Within 6 months, 70% of patients consulted with a urologist. Initial management patterns were as follows: active surveillance (60%), partial/radical nephrectomy (18%), and ablation (4%). Among 312 patients on surveillance, 14% eventually received treatment. The majority of patients (69.4%) did not receive guideline-recommended chest imaging for initial staging. Urologist visit within 6 months of SRM diagnosis was associated with increased adherence to staging (P = .003) and subsequent surveillance imaging (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary analysis of an integrated health system's experience, referral to a urologist was associated with guideline-concordant staging and surveillance imaging. Frequent utilization of active surveillance with a low rate of progression to active treatment was noted in both groups. These findings shed light on care patterns upstream of urologic evaluation and support the need for clinical pathways to be implemented at the time of radiologic diagnosis.

Understanding the Impact of Belzutifan on Treatment Strategies for Patients with VHL.

Belzutifan was recently approved for the management of Von Hippel-Lindau disease (VHL). Given the morbidity of recurrent treatment, systemic therapy to reduce or eliminate the need for surgery has been long-awaited. Herein, we sought to gain insight about future utilization by surveying VHL kidney cancer experts in the United States. A survey developed by members of the VHL Alliance (VHLA) Clinical Advisory Council was distributed to kidney cancer providers at VHLA and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers. Surveys were administered on a secure web-based platform. A total of 60 respondents from 29 institutions participated. Urologists (50%) and medical oncologists (43%) represented the majority of participants. The majority (98%) of respondents anticipated that belzutifan's approval would significantly change the current treatment landscape. Most reported that therapy should be continuous (76%). There was a difference in willingness to prescribe belzutifan by specialty (38% of urologists vs 91% of medical oncologists (P = 0.02)). In individuals with renal tumors <3 cm, 36% would still recommend surveillance, while 36% would initiate belzutifan to prevent growth. In those with multifocal renal lesions and growth of a solitary tumor on belzutifan, 50% would proceed with only treatment of that site. In conclusion, VHL kidney cancer specialists anticipate a paradigm shift with the approval of belzutifan. Provider roles may change with movement away from surgical management. Opinions on treatment indications, such as when to initiate therapy and how to best salvage, vary widely and therefore collaborative efforts among experts may assist in the development of new clinical guidelines.

Neoadjuvant targeted therapy and advanced kidney cancer: observations and implications for a new treatment paradigm.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate our early experience with neoadjuvant therapy (sunitinib or sorafenib) in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), to explore the effect on both tumour biology and potential for downstaging advanced tumours, as systemic therapy for RCC has historically resulted in little if any primary tumour response, but recent experience with targeted therapy suggests otherwise. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The preliminary experience with neoadjuvant therapy for the surgical management of RCC was reviewed at two large referral centres. Several unique patients were identified who had a novel response to systemic therapy that altered the surgical strategy. RESULTS: Four patients who had targeted therapy before surgery are described and in whom there were effects on tumour biology not seen previously with chemotherapy and cytokine therapy. The selected patients who had neoadjuvant targeted therapy had shrinkage of a tumour thrombus in the inferior vena cava, nodal involvement, renal fossa recurrence and tumour within a solitary kidney. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of new molecular agents has revolutionized the treatment of patients with metastatic RCC. Responses to targeted therapy within the primary tumour, tumour thrombus, renal fossa recurrence, and lymph node metastases are novel findings not seen during treatment with immunotherapeutic-based strategies. This might be a signal for urological surgeons to re-evaluate the paradigm for the surgical management of advanced RCC. Potential applications are presented to encourage further investigations with targeted therapy in the neoadjuvant setting.