Belzutifan versus Everolimus for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Belzutifan, a hypoxia-inducible factor 2α inhibitor, showed clinical activity in clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma in early-phase studies. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, active-controlled trial, we enrolled participants with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had previously received immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies and randomly assigned them, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive 120 mg of belzutifan or 10 mg of everolimus orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. The key secondary end point was the occurrence of an objective response (a confirmed complete or partial response). RESULTS: A total of 374 participants were assigned to belzutifan, and 372 to everolimus. At the first interim analysis (median follow-up, 18.4 months), the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in both groups; at 18 months, 24.0% of the participants in the belzutifan group and 8.3% in the everolimus group were alive and free of progression (two-sided P = 0.002, which met the prespecified significance criterion). A confirmed objective response occurred in 21.9% of the participants (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.8 to 26.5) in the belzutifan group and in 3.5% (95% CI, 1.9 to 5.9) in the everolimus group (P<0.001, which met the prespecified significance criterion). At the second interim analysis (median follow-up, 25.7 months), the median overall survival was 21.4 months in the belzutifan group and 18.1 months in the everolimus group; at 18 months, 55.2% and 50.6% of the participants, respectively, were alive (hazard ratio for death, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.07; two-sided P = 0.20, which did not meet the prespecified significance criterion). Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 61.8% of the participants in the belzutifan group (grade 5 in 3.5%) and in 62.5% in the everolimus group (grade 5 in 5.3%). Adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment in 5.9% and 14.7% of the participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Belzutifan showed a significant benefit over everolimus with respect to progression-free survival and objective response in participants with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had previously received immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies. Belzutifan was associated with no new safety signals. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; LITESPARK-005 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04195750.).

Global real-world experiences with pembrolizumab in advanced urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based chemotherapy: the ARON-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have changed previous treatment paradigm of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). The ARON-2 study (NCT05290038) aimed to assess the real-world effectiveness of pembrolizumab in patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients with documented metastatic UC treated by pembrolizumab as second-line therapy were retrospectively collected from 88 institutions in 23 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). Cox proportional hazards models were adopted to explore the presence of prognostic factors. RESULTS: In total, 836 patients were included: 544 patients (65%) received pembrolizumab after progression to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (cohort A) and 292 (35%) after recurring within < 12 months since the completion of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cohort B). The median follow-up time was 15.3 months. The median OS and the ORR were 10.5 months and 31% in the overall study population, 9.1 months and 29% in cohort A and 14.6 months and 37% in cohort B. At multivariate analysis, ECOG-PS ≥ 2, bone metastases, liver metastases and pembrolizumab setting (cohort A vs B) proved to be significantly associated with worst OS and PFS. Stratified by the presence of 0, 1-2 or 3-4 prognostic factors, the median OS was 29.4, 12.5 and 4.1 months (p < 0.001), while the median PFS was 12.2, 6.4 and 2.8 months, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that pembrolizumab is effective in the advanced UC real-world context, showing outcome differences between patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.

Real-world effectiveness of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: the ARON-2 study.

BACKGROUND: The advent of immune-checkpoint inhibitors has challenged previous treatment paradigms for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) in the post-platinum setting as well as in the first-line setting for cisplatin-ineligible patients. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible UC. METHODS: Data from patients aged ≥ 18 years with cisplatin-ineligible UC and receiving first-line pembrolizumab from January 1st 2017 to September 1st 2022 were collected. Cisplatin ineligibility was defined according to the Galsky criteria. Thirty-three Institutions from 18 countries were involved in the ARON-2 study. RESULTS: Our analysis included 162 patients. The median follow-up time was 18.9 months (95%CI 15.3-76.9). In the overall study population, the median OS was 15.8 months (95%CI 11.3-32.4). The median OS was significantly longer in males versus females while no statistically significant differences were observed between patients aged < 65y versus ≥ 65y and between smokers and non-smokers. According to Recist 1.1 criteria, 26 patients (16%) experienced CR, 32 (20%) PR, 39 (24%) SD and 55 (34%) PD. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm the role of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for cisplatin-unfit patients. Further studies investigating the biological and immunological characteristics of UC patients are warranted in order to optimize the outcome of patients receiving immunotherapy in this setting.

ADXS31142 Immunotherapy ± Pembrolizumab Treatment for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Open-Label Phase I/II KEYNOTE-046 Study.

BACKGROUND: ADXS31-142 is an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes-based immunotherapy targeting prostate-specific antigen (PSA), being evaluated as monotherapy and combined with pembrolizumab for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 2-part phase I/II KEYNOTE-046 study enrolled men with mCRPC who have progressed after 2 or fewer prior systemic treatment regimens in the metastatic setting. In Part A, intravenous ADXS31-142 monotherapy was given every 3 weeks (q3w) to 3 dose-escalation cohorts. In Part B, ADXS31-142 (1 × 109 colony-forming units) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg) was administered intravenously q3w for 3 doses with a fourth pembrolizumab dose 3 weeks later (12-week cycles) for up to 24 months or until progression/toxicity. Endpoints included safety, overall response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and immunogenicity. RESULTS: Fifty patients received ADXS31-142 alone (n = 13) or with pembrolizumab (n = 37). Among the 37 RECIST-evaluable patients (n = 8 Part A; n = 29 Part B), there were no objective responses. Median PFS was 2.2 months (95% CI: 0.8-7.4) with monotherapy and 5.4 months (95% CI: 2.3-7.9) with the combination; median OS was 7.8 months (95% CI: 4.4-18.5) and 33.7 months (95% CI: 15.4-not evaluable), respectively. Promising OS benefit was observed in combination-treated patients who had received prior docetaxel (16.0 months, 95% CI: 6.4-34.6; n = 20) and those with visceral metastasis (16.4 months, 95% CI 4.0-not evaluable; n = 11). All patients had ≥1 treatment-related adverse event, mostly grade 1/2 manageable events. No additive toxicity was observed with combination treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Combining ADXS31-142 with pembrolizumab was safe and well tolerated. The observed OS in mCRPC warrants further testing of this combination. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02325557.

Kidney Cancer, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as "Preferred," "Other Recommended Regimens," or "Useful in Certain Circumstances." This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.

Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma With Sarcomatoid Features.

A previously healthy woman, aged 38 years, presented with a 3-month history of fatigue, dyspnea on exertion, significant weight loss, and severe left flank pain; her symptoms restricted any work activities. Laboratory test results were notable for hypercalcemia (corrected serum calcium, 12.8 mg/dL), anemia (9.3 g/dL), and lactate dehydrogenase elevation (>1.5 times the upper limit of normal). A CT scan revealed a 14-cm left renal mass and multiple lung and mediastinal lymph node metastases. A surgical open biopsy was performed; histopathological analysis concluded clear cell renal carcinoma (RCC) with 30% sarcomatoid features. The patient was diagnosed with International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) poor-risk metastatic RCC with sarcomatoid features. She started first-line systemic treatment.

Patient-reported outcomes in a phase 2 study comparing atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab vs sunitinib in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks (n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks (n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6-week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2-point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib. RESULTS: Completion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue-related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22-0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12-0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22-0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. CONCLUSION: PROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 1.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the guidelines, including changes to certain systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC. They also discuss the addition of a new section to the guidelines that identifies and describes the most common hereditary RCC syndromes and provides recommendations for genetic testing, surveillance, and/or treatment options for patients who are suspected or confirmed to have one of these syndromes.

Immune-Related Adverse Events Involving Multiple Organ Sites in a Patient Treated With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab.

A 56-year-old white man with a 74 pack-year smoking history presented with macroscopic hematuria and a significant weight loss of 45 pounds in 6 months. His clinical laboratory tests indicated iron defi ciency anemia and a computed tomography (CT) scan showed a left kidney tumor, mediastinal lymph nodes, and multiple lung metastases. A percutaneous CT-guided kidney biopsy revealed grade 3 clear cell renal carcinoma based on World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology classifi cation. The patient started first line systemic treatment for intermediate-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with combination immunotherapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab.1 After 10 days of the first cycle, he presented with a pruritic maculopapular rash covering 20% of his body surface.

Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia in Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer on Corticosteroids for Malignant Spinal Cord Compression: Two Case Reports and a Guideline Review.

Pneumocystis jirovecii, formerly known as Pneumocystis carinii, is an atypical fungal pathogen best known for causing Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP). The epidemiology of PCP is changing such that patients without HIV infection now comprise the largest subset of individuals diagnosed with PCP. While those with hematologic malignancies and organ transplants are at greatest risk for non-HIV-related PCP, this review will focus on PCP in patients with solid tumors. They are at risk for PCP due to their chemotherapy regimens and use of steroids in the management of various complications of treatment, and possibly because of the immunosuppressive effect of the cancer itself. In particular, patients with solid tumors being treated for metastatic spinal cord compression are at great risk for PCP. Patients with solid tumors and PCP face greater mortality than those with HIV infection. Multiple reviews have attempted to describe the ideal regimen of corticosteroids for metastatic spinal cord compression, but there is little consensus. We present 2 cases of patients with metastatic spinal cord compression due to prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy and treatment with corticosteroids. These cases highlight the difficulties in predicting the length of corticosteroid therapy and the dangers that patients face without appropriate prophylaxis. This article will also provide a review of the current guidelines for PCP prophylaxis in patients undergoing treatment for metastatic spinal cord compression. We recommend empiric treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or dapsone in those patients with a sulfa allergy in all patients with solid tumors when any high-dose steroids are started for the treatment of metastatic spinal cord compression. Further research is needed to assess the epidemiology of PCP in patients with solid tumors and additional trials are necessary to refine PCP prophylaxis.

Evaluation of fosaprepitant-associated hypersensitivity reactions at a National Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: At our institution, an increased incidence of hypersensitivity reactions was reported following standardization of fosaprepitant as the preferred agent for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by highly emetogenic therapies. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the incidence of systemic hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to fosaprepitant infusions compared to available literature. METHODS: This evaluation is a retrospective review of electronic health records of adult patients who received their first dose of fosaprepitant for CINV prophylaxis beginning January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017 at the University of Colorado Cancer Center outpatient infusion center. Subjects were identified using medication administration reports. Individual chart reviews were performed for all patients who received fosaprepitant during the specified timeframe and had a reaction reported on the same date. RESULTS: A total of 868 patients received fosaprepitant in the outpatient infusion center during the study time period. Four patients (0.461%) had a systemic HSR attributed to fosaprepitant. Two of the reactions were reported as HSRs in the adverse reaction reporting system and two were found in provider notes during chart review. Due to the small sample size, risk factors for HSRs to fosaprepitant were not able to be determined. CONCLUSION: The incidence of HSRs to fosaprepitant at our institution was found to be consistent with the <1% incidence currently noted in literature. Based on these findings, opportunities have been identified for education on fosaprepitant-associated HSRs, proper documentation and patient-specific precautions.

Cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is approved for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma on the basis of studies done in clear-cell histology. The activity of cabozantinib in patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma is poorly characterised. We sought to analyse the antitumour activity and toxicity of cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We did a multicentre, international, retrospective cohort study of patients with metastatic non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with oral cabozantinib during any treatment line at 22 centres: 21 in the USA and one in Belgium. Eligibility required patients with histologically confirmed non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma who received cabozantinib for metastatic disease during any treatment line roughly between 2015 and 2018. Mixed tumours with a clear-cell histology component were excluded. No other restrictive inclusion criteria were applied. Data were obtained from retrospective chart review by investigators at each institution. Demographic, surgical, pathological, and systemic therapy data were captured with uniform database templates to ensure consistent data collection. The main objectives were to estimate the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, time to treatment failure, and overall survival after treatment. FINDINGS: Of 112 identified patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated at the participating centres, 66 (59%) had papillary histology, 17 (15%) had Xp11.2 translocation histology, 15 (13%) had unclassified histology, ten (9%) had chromophobe histology, and four (4%) had collecting duct histology. The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response across all histologies was 30 (27%, 95% CI 19-36) of 112 patients. At a median follow-up of 11 months (IQR 6-18), median time to treatment failure was 6·7 months (95% CI 5·5-8·6), median progression-free survival was 7·0 months (5·7-9·0), and median overall survival was 12·0 months (9·2-17·0). The most common adverse events of any grade were fatigue (58 [52%]), and diarrhoea (38 [34%]). The most common grade 3 events were skin toxicity (rash and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia; five [4%]) and hypertension (four [4%]). No treatment-related deaths were observed. Across 54 patients with available next-generation sequencing data, the most frequently altered somatic genes were CDKN2A (12 [22%]) and MET (11 [20%]) with responses seen irrespective of mutational status. INTERPRETATION: While we await results from prospective studies, this real-world study provides evidence supporting the antitumour activity and safety of cabozantinib across non-clear-cell renal cell carcinomas. Continued support of international collaborations and prospective ongoing studies targeting non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma subtypes and specific molecular alterations are warranted to improve outcomes across these rare diseases with few evidence-based treatment options. FUNDING: None.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal carcinoma. These guidelines are developed by a multidisciplinary panel of leading experts from NCCN Member Institutions consisting of medical oncologists, hematologists and hematologic oncologists, radiation oncologists, urologists, and pathologists. The NCCN Guidelines are in continuous evolution and are updated annually or sometimes more often, if new high-quality clinical data become available in the interim.

Pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction study of the angiopoietin-1/angiopoietin-2-inhibiting peptibody trebananib (AMG 386) and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Trebananib is an anti-angiogenic peptibody under investigation in patients with advanced cancer. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetic (PK) drug-drug interaction of paclitaxel and trebananib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors received weekly 80 mg/m(2) intravenous (IV) paclitaxel (3 weeks on/1 week off) with weekly 15 mg/kg IV trebananib starting at Week 2. Blood samples for PK analysis were collected at Week 1 (paclitaxel alone), Week 6 (paclitaxel and trebananib), and Week 8 (trebananib alone). An absence of interaction was to be concluded if the 90 % confidence intervals (CI) for the differences in paclitaxel exposure fell within the 0.80-1.25 interval. RESULTS: The primary study was conducted between 7/2012 and 10/2013. Thirty-five patients were enrolled and 34 received both treatments. Most patients were white (91 %) and female (59 %); mean age was 61 years. The most common tumor types were ovarian (32 %) and bladder (27 %), 71 % of patients had stage IV disease, and all had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scores of 0 or 1. PK parameter analysis was done on patients with evaluable PK data at both assessments (with and without concomitant therapy; n = 28). The geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio (90 % CI) of paclitaxel AUCinf with and without trebananib was 1.17 (1.10, 1.25). The GLSM ratio (90 % CI) of trebananib AUCtau,ss with and without paclitaxel was 0.92 (0.87, 0.97). The most common adverse events were fatigue, local edema, peripheral edema, and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed no evidence of clinically meaningful PK interaction between paclitaxel and trebananib.

Kidney cancer, version 3.2015.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal carcinoma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight the recent updates/changes in these guidelines, and updates include axitinib as first-line treatment option for patients with clear cell renal carcinoma, new data to support pazopanib as subsequent therapy for patients with clear cell carcinoma after first-line treatment with another tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and guidelines for follow-up of patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Testicular Cancer, Version 2.2015.

Germ cell tumors (GCTs) account for 95% of testicular cancers. Testicular GCTs constitute the most common solid tumor in men between the ages of 20 and 34 years, and the incidence of testicular GCTs has been increasing in the past 2 decades. Testicular GCTs are classified into 2 broad groups--pure seminoma and nonseminoma--which are treated differently. Pure seminomas, unlike nonseminomas, are more likely to be localized to the testis at presentation. Nonseminoma is the more clinically aggressive tumor associated with elevated serum concentrations of alphafetoprotein (AFP). The diagnosis of a seminoma is restricted to pure seminoma histology and a normal serum concentration of AFP. When both seminoma and elements of a nonseminoma are present, management follows that for a nonseminoma. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Testicular Cancer outline the diagnosis, workup, risk assessment, treatment, and follow-up schedules for patients with both pure seminoma and nonseminoma.

Upfront Chemotherapy for Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

Traditionally, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the standard initial treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), with chemotherapy utilized in the castration-resistant setting. Data reported from three recent clinical trials shed new light on the role of upfront docetaxel in advanced or mHSPC. Two of these studies-CHAARTED and STAMPEDE-showed significant improvement in overall survival, while the third study, GETUG-AFU 15, showed no statistical difference. The CHAARTED study showed a 13.6-month survival improvement and the STAMPEDE study showed a 10-month survival improvement with ADT plus docetaxel, compared with ADT alone, in the hormone-sensitive setting. These numbers are remarkable when compared with the 2.9-month survival benefit from docetaxel in the metastatic castration-resistant setting, which has been the standard setting for the use of docetaxel in advanced prostate cancer. In this review, we describe the historical data for chemotherapy in the perioperative and metastatic prostate cancer settings, and the recent trials that are changing the paradigm in support of docetaxel in the upfront setting.

Kidney cancer, version 2.2014.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight treatment recommendations and updates specific to the management of patients with advanced non-clear cell carcinoma included in the 2014 version of the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Kidney Cancer.