Survival pattern of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients according to WHO/ISUP grade: a long-term multi-institutional study.

The World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology (WHO/ISUP) grading of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is classified from grade 1-4, regardless of subtype. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (2022) state that if there is an adverse pathological feature, such as grade 3 or higher RCC in stage 1 patients, more rigorous follow-up imaging is recommended. However, the RCC guidelines do not provide specific treatment or follow-up policies by tumor grade. Therefore, this study attempted to find out whether tumor grade affects survival rates in patients with metastatic RCC. The Korean Renal Cancer Study Group (KRoCS) database includes 3108 patients diagnosed with metastatic RCC between September 1992 and February 2017, with treatment methods, progression, and survival data collected from 11 tertiary hospitals. To obtain information on survival rates or causes of death, we utilized the Korea National Statistical Office database and institutional medical records. Data were accessed for research purpose on June, 2023. We then reviewed these sources to gather comprehensive and reliable data on the outcomes of our study cohort. This database was retrospectively analyzed, and out of 3108 metastatic RCC patients, 911 had been identified as WHO/ISUP grade. Grades were classified into either a low-grade (WHO/ISUP grade 1-2) or a high-grade group (WHO/ISUP grade 3-4). The patients were then analyzed related to progression and overall survival (OS). In metastatic clear cell RCC patients, the 1-year OS rate was 69.4% and the median OS was 17.0 months (15.5-18.5) followed up to 203.6 months. When comparing the patient groups, 119 low-grade and 873 high-grade cases were identified. No baseline difference was observed between the two groups, except that the high-grade group had a higher ECOG 1 ratio of 50.4% compared with 34.5% for the low-grade group (p = 0.009). There was a significant difference in OS between high-grade and low-grade groups. OS was 16.0 months (14.6-17.4) in the high-grade group and 28.0 months (21.1-34.9) in the low-grade group (p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) rates with 9.0 months (8.0-10.0) for the high-grade group and 10.0 months (6.8-13.2) for the low-grade group (p = 0.377) in first-line treatment. In multivariable analysis, WHO/ISUP grade was a risk factor (HR = 1.511[1.135-2.013], p = 0.005) that influenced the OS. In conclusion, WHO/ISUP grade is a major data source that can be used as a ubiquitous marker of metastatic RCC in pre-IO era. Depending on whether the RCC is high or low grade, the follow-up schedule will need to be tailored according to grade, with higher-grade patients needing more active treatment as it can not only affect the OS in the previously known localized/locoregional recurrence but also the metastatic RCC patient.

Impact of surgery on the prognosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with IVC thrombus received TKI therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of surgery on the prognosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombus. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the medical records of 45 patients who presented with synchronous mRCC with IVC thrombus, between 2005 and 2012, were reviewed. Twenty-eight patients underwent radical nephrectomy with IVC thrombectomy followed by targeted therapy (group 1) and 17 received targeted therapy alone (group 2). Cox proportional hazards regression models served to estimate the prognostic significance of variables. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival of group 1 and group 2 was 4.1 and 3.5 months, respectively (P = 0.672). Their median overall survival was 17.3 and 19.7 months, respectively (P = 0.353). Multivariate analysis revealed that non-clear cell type RCC (HR = 3.46, P = 0.007) and lymph node metastasis (HR = 2.31, P = 0.003) independently predicted progression-free survival, and Karnofsky performance status (HR = 3.82, P = 0.013) and non-clear cell type RCC (HR = 4.01, P = 0.003) independently predicted overall survival. Surgical resection of the primary renal mass with IVC thrombus did not affect the probability of progression or overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our limited data set would suggest a limited role for surgery in this patient population and that a prospective study in this group may define the role of surgery.

Comparative efficacy of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after the failure of first-line VEGF TKI.

Sequential therapy is a standard strategy used to overcome the limitations of targeted agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. It remains unclear whether a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor is a more effective second-line therapy after first-line vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGF TKI) has failed than the alternative, VEGF TKI. A clinical database was used to identify all patients with renal cell carcinoma who failed at first-line VEGF TKI and then treated with second-line VEGF TKI or mTOR inhibitors in the Asan Medical Center. Patient medical characteristics, radiological response and survival status were assessed. Of the 83 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 41 received second-line VEGF TKI [sunitinib (n = 16) and sorafenib (n = 25)] and 42 were treated with mTOR inhibitors [temsirolimus (n = 11) and everolimus (n = 31)]. After a median follow-up duration of 23.9 months (95 % CI, 17.8-30.0), progression-free survival was 3.0 months for both groups [hazard ratio (HR, VEGF TKI vs. mTOR inhibitor) = 0.97, 95 % CI 0.59-1.62, P = 0.92]. Overall survival was 10.6 months for the VEGF TKI group and 8.2 months for the mTOR inhibitor group (HR = 0.98, 95 % CI 0.57-1.68, P = 0.94). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of disease control rate (51 % for VEGF TKI and 59 % for mTOR inhibitor, P = 0.75). Second-line VEGF TKI seems to be as effective as mTOR inhibitors and may be a viable option as a second-line agent after first-line anti-VEGF agents have failed.

Efficacy and safety of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and poor risk features.

BACKGROUND: Temsirolimus is a standard of care in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with poor risk factors. The role of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) remains poorly defined in this setting. METHODS: Records of our center were examined to identify patients with mRCC and 3 or more poor prognosis factors, as determined in the Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (ARCC) trial, who had been treated with VEGFR TKIs. Their baseline characteristics, radiologic response, adverse events, and survival status were assessed. RESULTS: The 88 patients who met our inclusion criteria had a median age of 56 years (range 17-83 years). We observed clear cell histology in 71 (81%) patients, and 52 (59%) underwent prior nephrectomy. Seventy-six patients (86%) were treated with sunitinib and 10 (11%) with sorafenib. Of 85 patients with measurable lesions, 19 (22%) showed objective response, with disease control achieved in 49 (56%). At a median follow-up of 29.6 months, the median time to progression was 5.0 months (95% CI, 3.5-6.5 months) and the median overall survival (OS) was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.1-11.5 months). Neutrophil count (>ULN), bone metastasis, and lymph node metastasis were independent prognostic factors for OS, whereas prior nephrectomy was not. CONCLUSIONS: VEGFR TKIs, especially sunitinib, are active and tolerated by mRCC patients with poor risk features.

Comparative efficacy of sunitinib versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the efficacy and toxicity of sorafenib and sunitinib as primary treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: We identified 49 and 220 patients treated with sorafenib and sunitinib, respectively, as first-line therapy in the Asan Medical Centre from April 2005 to March 2011. RESULTS: Disease control rates of 71 and 74% were achieved with sorafenib and sunitinib, respectively (p = 0.687). After a median follow-up of 27.6 months, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between the sorafenib and the sunitinib group (PFS 8.6 vs. 9.9 months, respectively, p = 0.948, and OS 25.7 vs. 22.6 months, p = 0.774). Patients treated with sorafenib required dose reduction due to toxicities less frequently than those treated with sunitinib (37 vs. 54%, p = 0.034). Haematological toxicity of grade 3 or 4 was more common in the sunitinib group than in the sorafenib group (45 vs. 4%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed old age, Heng's risk group, and bone and liver metastases, but not the type of vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, were independent prognostic factors affecting OS. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that sorafenib has comparable efficacy to sunitinib in the treatment of mRCC patients and fewer and less severe toxicities, but the number of patients included in the study was small.