Pembrolizumab outperforms tyrosine kinase inhibitors as adjuvant treatment in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy.

We determined the oncologic outcomes and safety profiles of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) compared to adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients at high risk after nephrectomy for clinically nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Network meta-analyses were conducted for disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) with placebo as the common comparator arm. Six trials (KEYNOTE-564, S-TRAC, ASSURE, PROTECT, ATLAS, and SORCE) were included in our analysis. Compared to placebo, both pembrolizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.92) and pazopanib 800 mg (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.97) were significantly associated with better DFS. Adjuvant pembrolizumab (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.97) was significantly associated with better OS compared to TKIs (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-1.04). Analysis of treatment ranking revealed that pembrolizumab was the best treatment with regard to both DFS and OS and had the lowest likelihood of any-grade and high-grade AEs in comparison to TKIs. The superior oncologic benefit of pembrolizumab and its better toxicity profile support it as the new standard of care in the adjuvant setting for nephrectomy patients at high risk of RCC relapse. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with kidney cancer at high risk of relapse after surgical removal of their kidney, postoperative therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab offers the best risk/benefit ratio.

Adjuvant therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors for localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been widely used in the management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the use of systemic therapies in the adjuvant setting of localized and locally advanced RCC has shown conflicting results across the literature. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of TKIs in the adjuvant setting for patients with localized and locally advanced RCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched in December 2020 to identify phase III randomized controlled trials of patients receiving adjuvant therapies with TKI for RCC. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were the primary endpoints. The secondary endpoints included treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of high and any grade. RESULTS: Five trials (S-TRAC, ASSURE, PROTECT, ATLAS, and SORCE) were included in our meta-analysis comprising 6,531 patients. The forest plot revealed that TKI therapy was associated with a significantly longer DFS compared to placebo (pooled HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81-0.96, P= 0.004). The Cochrane's Q test (P = 0.51) and I2 test (I2 = 0%) revealed no significant heterogeneity. Adjuvant TKI was not associated with improved OS compared to placebo (pooled HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83-1.04, P= 0.23). The Cochrane's Q test (P = 0.74) and I2 test (I2 = 0%) revealed no significant heterogeneity. The forest plot revealed that TKI therapy, compared to placebo, was associated with higher rates of high grade TRAEs (OR: 5.20, 95% CI: 4.10-6.59, P< 0.00001) as well as any grade TRAEs (OR: 3.85, 95% CI: 1.22-12.17, P= 0.02). The Cochrane's Q tests (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.00001, respectively) and I2 tests (I2 = 79% and I2 = 90%, respectively) revealed significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our analyses suggest an improved DFS in patients with localized and locally advanced RCC receiving adjuvant TKI as compared to placebo; however, this did not translate into any significant OS benefit. Additionally, TKI therapy led to significant toxicity. Adjuvant TKI does not seem to offer a satisfactory risk and/orbenefit balance for all patients. Select patients with very poor prognosis may be considered in a shared decision-making process with the patient. With the successful arrival of immune-based therapies in RCC, these may allow a more favorable risk/benefit profile.

The recurrence and progression risk after simultaneous endoscopic surgery of urothelial bladder tumour and benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate recurrence and progression risk after simultaneous endoscopic surgery of bladder cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), as simultaneous surgery is not an unusual scenario and theoretically simultaneous transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) can lead to an increased risk of recurrence in the bladder neck and prostatic urethra (BN/PU). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the risk of recurrence (i.e. whole bladder and/or BN/PU) and tumour progression as outcomes after a simultaneous endoscopic surgery of bladder tumour and BPH, as compared to TURBT alone. We queried PubMed and Web of Science database on 1 January 2020. We used random- and/or fixed-effects meta-analytic models in the presence or absence of heterogeneity according to the I2 statistic, respectively. RESULTS: Nine retrospective and three clinical trial studies were selected after considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. We conducted the meta-analysis on retrospective and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) separately. Eight retrospective and three RCT studies were included to assess the BN/PU recurrence risk and the summarised risk ratio (RR) was 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.41) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.47-1.84), respectively. Five retrospective and two RCT studies were included to assess the progression risk and the summarised RR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.56-1.48) and 1.16 (95% CI 0.30-4.51), respectively. Eight retrospective and three RCT studies were included to assess the whole bladder recurrence risk and the summarised RR was 0.87 (95% CI 0.78-0.97) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.65-1.21), respectively. CONCLUSION: We did not observe any increased risk of total bladder recurrence, BN/PU recurrence, or progression after a simultaneous endoscopic surgery of bladder tumour and BPH, as compared to TURBT alone.