Adjuvant Sorafenib for Renal Cell Carcinoma at Intermediate or High Risk of Relapse: Results From the SORCE Randomized Phase III Intergroup Trial.

PURPOSE: SORCE is an international, randomized, double-blind, three-arm trial of sorafenib after surgical excision of primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) found to be at intermediate or high risk of recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned participants (2:3:3) to 3 years of placebo (arm A), 1 year of sorafenib followed by 2 years of placebo (arm B), or 3 years of sorafenib (arm C). The initial sorafenib dose was 400 mg twice per day orally, amended to 400 mg daily. The primary outcome analysis, which was revised as a result of external results, was investigator-reported disease-free survival (DFS) comparing 3 years of sorafenib versus placebo. RESULTS: Between July 2007 and April 2013, we randomly assigned 1,711 participants (430, 642, and 639 participants in arms A, B, and C, respectively). Median age was 58 years, 71% of patients were men, 84% had clear cell histology, 53% were at intermediate risk of recurrence, and 47% were at high risk of recurrence. We observed no differences in DFS or overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, patients with high risk of recurrence, or patients with clear cell RCC only. Median DFS was not reached for 3 years of sorafenib or for placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.23; P = .95). We observed nonproportional hazards; the restricted mean survival time (RMST) was 6.81 years for 3 years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for placebo (RMST difference, 0.01 year; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.48 year; P = .99). Despite offering treatment adaptations, more than half of participants stopped treatment by 12 months. Grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction was reported in 24% of participants on sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy for RCC. Active surveillance remains the standard of care for patients at intermediate or high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy and is the appropriate control of our current international adjuvant RCC trial, RAMPART.

Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants.  3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants.  4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.

Follow-up after curative treatment of localised renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC) receiving curative surgery, either radical or partial nephrectomy, have been shown in contemporary studies to develop recurrence within 5 years in 20-30% of case. Therefore, post-operative follow-up (FU) imaging plays a crucial role in detecting recurrent or metastatic disease. A number of prognostic scores have been developed to predict risk of recurrence. This review summarises the current knowledge on established FU protocols and their limitations. METHODS: A non-systematic literature search was conducted using Medline. Furthermore, major guidelines [European Association of Urology (EAU), American Urological Association (AUA) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)] were reviewed and assessed. RESULTS: The EAU, AUA and NCCN post-operative follow-up guidelines differ in the frequency and type of imaging modalities recommended. The optimal duration of follow-up remains to be elucidated as does the impact of follow-up protocols on patient outcomes and quality of life. Established follow-up protocols do not take non-RCC-related factors, such as patient age and performance status into account. However, in the future individualised duration of FU based on competing risks of cancer recurrence and non-RCC death may be optimised, maximising resources and patient quality of life. CONCLUSION: There is a clear need to establish evidence-based follow-up protocols and to assess the impact of follow-up protocols on individual patients and society.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing the Effectiveness and Adverse Effects of Different Systemic Treatments for Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

CONTEXT: While vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition are effective strategies in treating clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), the most effective therapeutic approach for patients with non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review relevant literature comparing the oncological outcomes and adverse events of different systemic therapies for patients with metastatic non-ccRCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to March 24, 2016. Only comparative studies were included. Risk of bias and confounding assessments were performed. A meta-analysis was planned for and only performed if methodologically appropriate; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The literature search identified 812 potential titles and abstracts. Five randomized controlled trials, recruiting a total of 365 patients, were included. Three studies compared sunitinib against everolimus, one of which reported the results for non-ccRCC as a subgroup rather than as an entire randomized cohort. Individually, the studies showed a trend towards favoring sunitinib in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS; Everolimus versus Sunitinib in Patients with Metastatic Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41, 80% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.92 and 1.41, 95% CI: 0.88-2.27, Evaluation in Metastatic Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.67-2.01, Efficacy and Safety Comparison of RAD001 Versus Sunitinib in the First-line and Second-line Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.9-2.8), but this trend did not reach statistical significance in any study. Meta-analysis was performed on two studies which solely recruited patients with non-ccRCC reporting on PFS, the results of which were inconclusive (HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.91-1.86). Sunitinib was associated with more Grade 3-4 adverse events than everolimus, although this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis represent a robust summary of the evidence base for systemic treatment of metastatic non-ccRCC. The results show a trend towards favoring vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy for PFS and overall survival compared with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, although statistical significance was not reached. The relative benefits and harms of these treatments remain uncertain. Further research, either in the form of an individual patient data meta-analysis involving all relevant trials, or a randomized controlled trial with sufficient power to detect potential differences between treatments, is needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the literature to determine the most effective treatments for advanced kidney cancer patients whose tumors are not of the clear cell subtype. The results suggest that a drug called sunitinib might be more effective than everolimus, but the statistics supporting this statement are not yet entirely reliable. Further research is required to clarify this unmet medical need.

Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in the Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Era: A Question That May Never Be Answered.

Despite great interest, two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cytoreductive nephrectomy in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor setting in metastatic renal cell carcinoma have either closed early (SURTIME) or are recruiting very slowly (CARMENA) after 7 yr. Challenges in RCT delivery in uro-oncologic surgery are many. Multiple steps are needed to ensure strong recruitment to trials addressing important urologic cancer questions. Feasibility/pilot studies are key stepping stones towards successful delivery of surgical RCTs.

A systematic review of sequencing and combinations of systemic therapy in metastatic renal cancer.

CONTEXT: The introduction of novel molecular-targeted agents has revolutionised the management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, uncertainties remain over sequential or simultaneous combination therapies. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review relevant literature comparing the clinical effectiveness and harms of different sequencing and combinations of systemic targeted therapies for mRCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases (including Medline, Cochrane Library, trial registries, and conference proceedings) were searched (January 2000 to September 2013) including only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Risk of bias assessment was performed. A qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence was presented. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The literature search identified 5149 articles. A total of 24 studies reporting on 9589 patients were eligible for inclusion; data from four studies were included for meta-analysis. There were generally low risks of bias across studies; however, clinical and methodological heterogeneity prevented pooling of data for most studies. Overall, the data showed several targeted therapies were associated with an improvement in progression-free survival in patients with mRCC. There were limited data from RCTs regarding the issue of sequencing; studies on combination therapies have been hampered by difficulties with tolerability and safety. CONCLUSIONS: Although the role of vascular endothelial growth factor/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor targeting therapies and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition in the management of mRCC is now established, limited reliable data are available regarding sequencing and combination therapies. Although data from retrospective cohort studies suggest a potential benefit for sequencing systemic therapies, significant uncertainties remain. Presently, mRCC systemic treatment should follow international guidelines (such as the European Society for Medical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and European Association of Urology) for patients fit to receive several lines of systemic therapies. PATIENT SUMMARY: We thoroughly examined the literature on the benefits and harms of combining drugs for the treatment of kidney cancer that has spread and on the sequence in which the drugs should be given.

Probability of downsizing primary tumors of renal cell carcinoma by targeted therapies is related to size at presentation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the probability of downsizing primary renal tumors by targeted therapy in correlation to size. METHODS: A literature search was conducted and our own data were pooled with data of retrospective series and prospective trials in which patients were treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and in which tumor sizes before and after treatment were reported. Included were 89 primary clear cell renal tumors, including 34 from our institutes. The longest diameter of the primary tumors before and after treatment was obtained. Primary tumor size at presentation was divided in 4 categories: <5 cm (n=10), 5 to 7 cm (n=21), 7 to 10 cm (n=31), and >10 cm (n=27). Pearson correlation and t test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The TKI was sorafenib in 21 tumors and sunitinib in the remaining 68. Smaller tumor size was related to more effective downsizing (P=0.01). Median downsizing was 32% (-46% to 11%) in the first group (<5 cm) and 11% (-55% to 16%) in the second group (5-7 cm); however, 8 of 21 (38%) in this group reduced to a range of 2.3 to 4.7 cm in which ablative techniques are feasible and nephron-sparing surgery may benefit from the reduced size. Median downsizing was 18% (-39% to 2%) in tumors of 7 to 10 cm and 10% (-31% to 0%) in those>10 cm. CONCLUSION: The smaller the primary tumor, the greater the likelihood and the more effective the downsizing. A potential benefit of neoadjuvant treatment to downsize the primary tumor for ablative techniques or nephron-sparing surgery may exist, particularly in tumors sized 5 to 7 cm.

Behavior of lipiodol markers during image guided radiotherapy of bladder cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the stability of a novel type of markers used in partial bladder tumor irradiation and tumor deformation as indicated by the markers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 15 patients with solitary bladder cancer, lipiodol was injected in the bladder wall during flexible cystoscopy to identify the tumor. A planning CT scan was made, followed by daily cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans during treatment. To study the accuracy of using these markers for image guidance, uncertainties U1 and U2 were calculated, which were defined as the difference between submask registration (covering single marker) and the average of all submask registrations and the difference between the submask registration and the general mask registration (including all markers), respectively. Finally, to study tumor deformation, the relative movement of each marker pair was correlated with the relative bladder volume (RBV). RESULTS: The analyzed patients had 2.3 marker injections on average. The lipiodol spot size was 0.72 +/- 1.1 cm(3). The intensity of spots in both CT and CBCT was significantly higher than the surrounding bladder tissue. The uncertainties U1 and U2 were comparable, and the uncertainties in left-right direction (0.14-0.19 cm) were smaller than those in cranial-caudal and anterior-posterior directions (0.19-0.32 cm). The relative marker movement of within-zone marker pairs was much smaller (and has less dependence on the RBV) than across-zones marker pairs. CONCLUSIONS: Lipiodol markers are a feasible method to track bladder tumor by using online CBCT. Tumor deformation is observed, especially for tumors that cross the defined bladder zones.

Lipiodol injection for target volume delineation and image guidance during radiotherapy for bladder cancer.

A technique was developed for bladder tumour demarcation with lipiodol injection through a flexible cystoscope. The technique proved to be simple and useful for image-guided radiotherapy in bladder cancer as well as a helpful aid in the tumour delineation process.

Can tyrosine kinase inhibitors be discontinued in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and a complete response to treatment? A multicentre, retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Discontinuation of treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and readministration in case of recurrence could improve quality of life (QoL) and reduce treatment costs for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in which a complete remission (CR) is achieved by medical treatment alone or with additional resection of residual metastases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether TKIs can be discontinued in these selected patients with mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis of medical records and imaging studies was performed on all patients with mRCC treated with TKIs (n=266) in five institutions. Patients with a CR under TKI treatment alone or with additional metastasectomy of residual disease following a partial response (PR), in which TKIs were discontinued, were included in the analysis. Outcome criteria analysed were time to recurrence of previous metastases, occurrence of new metastases, symptomatic progression, improvement of adverse events, and response to reexposure to TKIs. INTERVENTIONS: Sunitinib 50mg/day for 4 wk on and 2 wk off, sorafenib 800mg/day. MEASUREMENTS: Response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 12 cases: 5 CRs with sunitinib, 1 CR with sorafenib, and 6 surgical CRs with sunitinib followed by residual metastasectomy. Side-effects subsided in all patients off treatment. At a median follow-up of 8.5 mo (range: 4-25) from TKI discontinuation, 7 of 12 patients remained without recurrence and 5 had recurrent disease, with new metastases in 3 cases. Median time to progression was 6 mo (range: 3-8). Readministration of TKI was effective in all cases. The study is limited by small numbers and retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation of TKI in patients with mRCC and CR carries the risk of progression with new metastases and potential complications. Further investigation in a larger cohort of patients is warranted before such an approach can be regarded as safe.