Comparison between available early antiviral treatments in outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a real-life study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical impact of three available antivirals for early COVID-19 treatment in a large real-life cohort. METHODS: Between January and October 2022 all outpatients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 referring to IRCCS S. Orsola hospital treated with an early antiviral therapy were enrolled. A comparison between patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NTV/r), molnupiravir (MPV) and remdesivir (RDV) was conducted in term of indications and outcome. To account for differences between treatment groups a propensity score analysis was performed. After estimating the weights, we fitted a survey-weighted Cox regression model with inverse-probability weighting with hospital admission/death versus clinical recovery as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Overall 1342 patients were enrolled, 775 (57.8%), 360 (26.8%) and 207 (15.4%) in MPV, NTV/r and RDV group, respectively. Median age was 73 (59-82) years, male sex was 53.4%. Primary indication was immunosuppression (438, 32.6%), the median time from symptom onset to drug administration was 3 [2-4] days. Overall, clinical recovery was reached in 96.9% of patients, with hospital admission rate of 2.6%. No significant differences were found in clinical recovery nor hospitalization. Cox regression showed a decreased probability of hospital admission/ death among prior vaccinated patients compared with unvaccinated (HR 0.31 [95%CI 0.14-0.70], p = 0.005]). No difference in hospitalization rates in early treatment compared to late treatment were found. CONCLUSIONS: No differences among MPV, NTV/r and RDV in terms of clinical recovery or hospitalization were found. Patients not vaccinated had a significant increased risk of hospitalization.

Surgical margins after partial nephrectomy as prognostic factor for the risk of local recurrence in pT1 RCC: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the published literature on surgical margins as a risk factor for local recurrence (LR) in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN) for pT1 renal cell carcinomas (RCC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search of relevant databases (MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library) was performed according to the PRISMA criteria up to February 2022. The hypothesis was developed using the PPO method (Patients = patients with pT1 RCC undergoing PN, Prognostic factor = positive surgical margins (PSM) detected on final pathology versus negative surgical margins (NSM) and Outcome = LR diagnosed on follow-up imaging). The primary outcome was the rate of PSM and LR. The risk of bias was assessed by the QUIPS tool. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After assessing 1525 abstracts and 409 full-text articles, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of PSM ranged between 0 and 34.3%. In these patients with PSM, LR varied between 0 and 9.1%, whereas only 0-1.5% of LR were found in the NSM-group. The calculated odds ratio (95% confident intervals) varied between 0.04 [0.00-0.79] and 0.27 [0.01-4.76] and was statistically significant in two studies (0.14 [0.02-0.80] and 0.04 [0.00-0.79]). The quality analysis of the included studies resulted in an overall intermediate to high risk of bias and the level of evidence was overall very low. A meta-analysis was considered unsuitable due to the high heterogeneity between the included studies. CONCLUSION: PSM after PN in patients with pT1 RCC is associated with a higher risk of LR. However, the evidence has significant limitations and caution should be taken with the interpretation of this data.

Should patients with low-risk renal cell carcinoma be followed differently after nephron-sparing surgery vs radical nephrectomy?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether pT1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be followed differently after partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) based on a retrospective analysis of a multicentre database (RECUR). SUBJECTS: A retrospective study was conducted in 3380 patients treated for nonmetastatic RCC between January 2006 and December 2011 across 15 centres from 10 countries, as part of the RECUR database project. For patients with pT1 clear-cell RCC, patterns of recurrence were compared between RN and PN according to recurrence site. Univariate and multivariate models were used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM). RESULTS: From the database 1995 patients were identified as low-risk patients (pT1, pN0, pNx), of whom 1055 (52.9%) underwent PN. On multivariate analysis, features associated with worse RFS included tumour size (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.39; P < 0.001), nuclear grade (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.73-3.08; P < 0.001), tumour necrosis (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03-2.3; P = 0.037), vascular invasion (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.4; P = 0.005) and positive surgical margins (HR 4.4, 95% CI 2.3-8.5; P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis of CSM revealed that the survival of patients with recurrence after PN was significantly better than those with recurrence after RN (P = 0.02). While the above-mentioned risk factors were associated with prognosis, type of surgery alone was not an independent prognostic variable for RFS nor CSM. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that follow-up protocols should not rely solely on stage and type of primary surgery. An optimized regimen should also include validated risk factors rather than type of surgery alone to select the best imaging method and to avoid unnecessary imaging. A follow-up of more than 3 years should be considered in patients with pT1 tumours after RN. A novel follow-up strategy is proposed.

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.

External validation of a predictive model of survival after cytoreductive nephrectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Recent trials have emphasized the importance of a precise patient selection for cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN). In 2013, a nomogram was developed for pre- and postoperative prediction of the probability of death (PoD) after CN in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. To date, the single-institutional nomogram which included mostly patients from the cytokine era has not been externally validated. Our objective is to validate the predictive model in contemporary patients in the targeted therapy era. METHODS: Multi-institutional European and North American data from patients who underwent CN between 2006 and 2013 were used for external validation. Variables evaluated included preoperative serum albumin and lactate dehydrogenase levels, intraoperative blood transfusions (yes/no) and postoperative pathologic stage (primary tumour and nodes). In addition, patient characteristics and MSKCC risk factors were collected. Using the original calibration indices and quantiles of the distribution of predictions, Kaplan-Meier estimates and calibration plots of observed versus predicted PoD were calculated. For the preoperative model a decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed. RESULTS: Of 1108 patients [median OS of 27 months (95% CI 24.6-29.4)], 536 and 469 patients had full data for the validation of the pre- and postoperative models, respectively. The AUC for the pre- and postoperative model was 0.68 (95% CI 0.62-0.74) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.68-0.78), respectively. In the DCA the preoperative model performs well within threshold survival probabilities of 20-50%. Most important limitation was the retrospective collection of this external validation dataset. CONCLUSIONS: In this external validation, the pre- and postoperative nomograms predicting PoD following CN were well calibrated. Although performance of the preoperative nomogram was lower than in the internal validation, it retains the ability to predict early death after CN.

Risk factors for recurrent carbapenem resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection: a prospective cohort study.

To assess risk factors for recurrent carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream-infection (CR-KP BSI), we performed a prospective observational cohort study of all consecutive adult patients cured of a CR-KP BSI at our hospital over a six-year period (June 2010 to June 2016). Maximum follow-up per patient was 180 days from the index blood cultures (BCs). Recurrent CR-KP BSI was defined as new evidence of positive BCs in patients with documented clinical response after completing a course of anti-CR-KP therapy. Univariate and multivariate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards analysis were performed. During the study period 249 patients were diagnosed with a CR-KP BSI, 193 were deemed as cured within 14 days after index BCs and were analysed. Recurrence occurred in 32/193 patients (16.6%) within a median of 35 (IQR 25-45) days after index BCs. All but one of the recurrences occurred within 60 days after the index BCs. Comparison of recurrent and non-recurrent cases showed significant differences for colistin use (84.4% vs. 62.2%, p = 0.01), meropenem-colistin-tigecycline regimen (43.8% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.03) and length of therapy for the index BSI episode (median 18 vs. 14 days, p = 0.004). All-cause 180-day mortality (34.4% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.02) was higher in recurrent cases. In the multivariate analysis, the only independent variable was source control as a protective factor for recurrence. Recurrence is frequent among patients cured of a CR-KP BSI and is associated with higher long-term mortality. When feasible, source control is mandatory to avoid recurrence. The role of antibiotic treatment should be further investigated in large multicentre studies.

Metastasis therapies for renal cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although novel targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are emerging, metastasectomy still remains the only potentially curable intervention and plays an important role both in disease control, cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). A systematic review was conducted in 2014 by the European Association of Urology RCC guidelines panel to summarize evidence on the subject at hand. The purpose of this review is to update the current evidence base. RECENT FINDINGS: A total of 17-19% of initially nonmetastatic patients with later RCC metastasis are potentially curable. Complete metastasectomy still remains the sole curative option, continues to show improved OS and CSS and is suggested to defer time to palliative targeted therapy. Resectability, long time to recurrence, good performance status and oligometastatic disease have better benefit of metastasectomy. Stereotactic radiotherapy remains an excellent option for local tumor control and symptom control in patients with RCC brain and bone metastases. Minimal-invasive options such as thermal ablation are evolving, albeit the evidence base is small. Novel trials are investigating sequencing of metastasectomy and targeted therapy with results pending. SUMMARY: Metastasectomy continues to be supported as beneficial for OS, CSS and progression-free survival in patients with good prognostic factors.

Post partial nephrectomy surveillance imaging: an evidence-based approach.

To ensure the early detection of recurrent disease, all patients should undergo routine surveillance following partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. In order to optimize resource allocation and avoid unnecessary radiation exposure, the frequency and duration of surveillance should be tailored to the individual patient's risk of cancer recurrence. The evidence for surveillance after partial nephrectomy is presented reviewing the current literature on prognostic models and proposed surveillance protocols based on the timing and patterns of renal cell carcinoma recurrence. In addition, we review recent guidelines on post partial nephrectomy surveillance as well as the literature on novel imaging techniques that may aid in early disease discovery.

Local treatments for metastases of renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review.

Local treatment of metastases such as metastasectomy or radiotherapy remains controversial in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. To investigate the benefits and harms of various local treatments, we did a systematic review of all types of comparative studies on local treatment of metastases from renal cell carcinoma in any organ. Interventions included metastasectomy, radiotherapy modalities, and no local treatment. The results suggest that patients treated with complete metastasectomy have better survival and symptom control (including pain relief in bone metastases) than those treated with either incomplete or no metastasectomy. Nevertheless, the available evidence was marred by high risks of bias and confounding across all studies. Although the findings presented here should be interpreted with caution, they and the identified gaps in knowledge should provide guidance for clinicians and researchers, and directions for further research.

An unusual cause of acute cardiogenic shock in the operating room.

A 51-year-old man with a renal carcinoma with inferior vena cava (IVC) invasion was referred to our hospital for the performance of a radical nephrectomy with IVC thrombus excision. To prevent embolism, an IVC filter was implanted the day before surgery below the suprahepatic veins. On nephrectomy completion, the clinical status of the patient started to deteriorate and an unsuccessful attempt was made to excise the IVC thrombus. The patient developed profound refractory hypotension without significant bleeding and worsening splanchnic stasis was noted. A transesophageal echocardiogram was immediately performed in the operating room, revealing a hemispheric mass protruding from the IVC ostium to the right atrium, completely blocking all venous return. Volume depletion was evident by low left and right atrial volumes and increased septum mobility. No other abnormalities were found that could explain the shock, namely ventricular dysfunction or valvular disease. Cardiac surgery consultation was immediately obtained, ultimately deciding to perform a median sternotomy with direct exploration of right atrium. Under cardiopulmonary bypass, a 6-cm long thrombotic mass was identified, involving the IVC filter, blocking all lower body venous return; the removal of the mass reversed the shock. The patient had an uneventful recovery. Adverse outcomes associated with IVC filters are common. Our case highlights the importance of a team approach to rapid changes in hemodynamic status in the operating room, including the surgeon, the anesthesiologist, and the cardiologist. It also emphasizes the pivotal role of transesophageal echocardiogram in the clinical evaluation of severely unstable patients.

Avelumab as First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

This work provides a summary of guideline recommendations and an expert position on the use of maintenance avelumab therapy based on a review of current international clinical practice guidelines for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). A PubMed literature search was conducted in March 2022 (updated in July 2023) to identify guidelines for locally advanced or metastatic UC. An expert panel (four oncologists and one urologist) reviewed the guidelines and clinical evidence, and discussed practical questions regarding the use of avelumab maintenance therapy in this clinical setting. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines recommend first-line cisplatin-containing chemotherapy for cisplatin-eligible patients, carboplatin-gemcitabine for cisplatin-ineligible patients who are fit for carboplatin, or immunotherapy with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors (e.g. atezolizumab) in platinum-ineligible patients. Maintenance avelumab is recommended in patients with response/stable disease following chemotherapy (regardless of PD-L1 status). In patients who relapse after/during chemotherapy, options include immunotherapy, erdafitinib [in those with fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) mutations], enfortumab vedotin or further chemotherapy. The expert panel provided the following practical guidance: (1) consider maintenance avelumab in all eligible patients; (2) continue avelumab until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity; (3) ideally, administer six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy prior to maintenance avelumab; (4) perform radiological evaluation after four chemotherapy cycles and prior to maintenance avelumab; (5) carboplatin-gemcitabine followed by maintenance avelumab is preferred in cisplatin-ineligible patients (regardless of PD-L1 expression), but consider first-line immunotherapy in PD-L1-positive patients and platinum-ineligible patients (regardless of PD-L1 status); and (6) for patients who relapse on avelumab, second-line options include enfortumab vedotin, FGFR inhibitors (in those with FGFR mutations) or clinical trial inclusion. In conclusion, avelumab maintenance therapy is recommended following platinum-based chemotherapy in all eligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC, continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Surveillance as a safe and effective option for treatment of stage I seminoma.

Introdubction: Stage I seminoma has a very good prognosis, yet approximately 15% have subclinical metastatic disease and will relapse after orchidectomy alone. Several management approaches have been investigated. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of real-world patients with stage I seminoma, analysing prognostic factors influencing treatment choice and oncological outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective, single institution study, with 55 patients diagnosed with clinical stage I seminoma between 2007 and 2020. Selected patients were analysed regarding three management approaches - surveillance, adjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant carboplatin AUC7. Overall survival and progression-free survival outcomes were analysed. Predictors of treatment choice were determined, and predictors of recurrence were analysed in patients on active surveillance. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 91 months (13-165). Overall survival at 10 years was 98.2%. Stage I seminoma patients had a 1-, 3- and 10-year progression free survival of 98%, 94% and 89%, respectively. Three-year progression free survival was 92.0% for those on active surveillance (IC95%, 91.5-92.5%), 95.2% for carboplatin (IC95%, 94.8-95.6%) and 100% for those on adjuvant radiotherapy (p > 0.05). All relapses on active surveillance protocols occurred during the first 24 months. Overall, 43% of patients who underwent adjuvant treatment reported adverse effects of therapy, with higher incidence on radiotherapy group (63%). CONCLUSIONS: Stage I seminoma have excellent prognosis, high cure rates, and low treatment-associated morbidity. Active surveillance is a safe modality when applied to selected patients. Adjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin show similar results, with fewer adverse effects on chemotherapy arm.

National consensus survey on management approaches for upper urinary tract obstruction: A comparative analysis of retrograde ureteric stent and percutaneous nephrostomy.

To the Editor, Upper urinary tract obstruction (UUTO) is a common scenario in clinical practice, and it is caused by a variety of diseases. Lithiasis, tumours and strictures are some of the principal aetiologies. Multiple factors may influence both the need for decompression of the obstructed collecting system and the urgency of procedure...

A protocol for the development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials and clinical audits in renal cell cancer (R-COS).

Background: There is inconsistency in outcomes collected in renal cell cancer (RCC) intervention effectiveness studies and variability in their definitions. This makes critical summaries of the evidence base difficult and sub-optimally informative for clinical practice guidelines and decision-making by patients and healthcare professionals. A solution is to develop a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a clinical area. Objectives: To develop three COS for (a) localised, (b) locally advanced and (c) metastatic. RCC study design participants and methods: The methods are the same for each of our three COS and are structured in two phases. Phase 1 identifies potentially relevant outcomes by conducting both a systematic literature review and patient interviews (N ~ 30 patients). Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis. In phase 2, all outcomes identified in phase 1 will be entered in a modified eDelphi, whereby patients and healthcare professionals (50 of each) will score each outcome's importance (Likert scale from 1 [not important] to 9 [critically important]). Outcomes scored in the 7-9 range by ≥70% and 1-3 by ≤15% will be regarded as 'consensus in', and the vice versa of this will constitute 'consensus out'. All other combinations will be regarded as equivocal and discussed at consensus meetings (including 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals) in order to vote on them and ratify the results of the eDelphi. Discussion: The R-COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity and improve the evidence base for RCC. Study registration: The study is registered with the COMET initiative: https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1406.

Local Treatment of Recurrent Renal Cell Carcinoma May Have a Significant Survival Effect Across All Risk-of-recurrence Groups.

Background: Retrospective comparative studies suggest a survival benefit after complete local treatment of recurrence (LTR) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which may be largely due to an indication bias. Objective: To determine the role of LTR in a homogeneous population characterised by limited and potentially resectable recurrence. Design setting and participants: RECUR is a protocol-based multicentre European registry capturing patient and tumour characteristics, risk of recurrence (RoR), recurrence patterns, and survival of those curatively treated for nonmetastatic RCC from 2006 to 2011. Per-protocol resectable disease (RD) recurrence was defined as (1) solitary metastases, (2) oligometastases, or (3) renal fossa or renal recurrence after radical or partial nephrectomy, respectively. Intervention: Local treatment of recurrence. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival was compared in the RD population that underwent LTR versus no LTR. We constructed a multivariate model to predict risk factors for overall mortality and analysed the effect of LTR across RoR groups. Results and limitations: Of 3039 patients with localised RCC treated with curative intent, 505 presented with recurrence, including 176 with RD. Of these patients, 97 underwent LTR and 79 no LTR. Patients in the LTR group were younger (64.3 [40-80] vs 69.2 [45-87] yr; p = 0.001). The median OS was 70.3 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 58-82.6) versus 27.4 mo (95% CI 23.6-31.15) in the LTR versus no-LTR group (p < 0.001). After a multivariate analysis, having LTR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.37 [95% CI 0.2-0.6]), having low- versus high-risk RoR (HR 0.42 [95% CI [0.20-0.83]), and not having extra-abdominal/thoracic metastasis (HR 1.96 [95% CI 1.02-3.77]) were prognostic factors of longer OS. The LTR effect on survival was consistent across risk groups. OS HR for high, intermediate, and low risks were 0.36 (0.2-0.64), 0.27 (0.11-0.65), and 0.26 (0.08-0.8), respectively. Limitations include retrospective design. Conclusions: This is the first study assessing the effectiveness of LTR in RCC in a comparable population with RD. This study supports the role of LTR across all RoR groups. Patient summary: We assessed the effectiveness of local treatment of resectable recurrent renal cell carcinoma after surgical treatment of the primary kidney tumour. Local treatment of recurrence was associated with longer survival across groups with a risk of recurrence.

The 2022 Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines on the Use of Adjuvant Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

In KEYNOTE-564, adjuvant pembrolizumab, a PD-1 antibody, significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) in localised clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) with a high risk of relapse. In 2021, the European Association of Urology RCC Guidelines Panel issued a weak recommendation for adjuvant pembrolizumab for high-risk ccRCC as defined by the trial until final overall survival data and results from other trials were available. Meanwhile, the primary DFS endpoints were not met for adjuvant atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor; IMmotion010), adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 914), or perioperative nivolumab (PROSPER). Owing to heterogeneity, a meta-analysis is not recommended. Pembrolizumab remains the only immune checkpoint inhibitor currently recommended in this setting. Overall survival data are immature and biomarkers to predict outcome are lacking. Uncertainty exists and overtreatment is occurring. Treatment decisions should be made with caution and with the involvement of each patient. PATIENT SUMMARY: New results from three trials of immunotherapy after surgery for kidney cancer to reduce the risk of recurrence showed no improvement with these treatments. These results are in contrast to an earlier study that showed that the antibody pembrolizumab did extend the time before kidney cancer recurrence, even though it is not yet clear if overall survival is longer. Thus, we cautiously recommend pembrolizumab as additional treatment in high-risk kidney cancer after surgery, but patient preference should be carefully considered and the risk of overtreatment should be discussed.

A Systematic Review of Heterogeneity in Outcome Definition and Reporting in Localised Renal Cancer.

Context: Outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported inconsistently, with variability in definitions and measurement. Hence, it is difficult to compare intervention effectiveness and synthesise outcomes for systematic reviews and to create clinical practice guidelines. This uncertainty in the evidence makes it difficult to guide patient-clinician decision-making. One solution is a core outcome set (COS): an agreed minimum set of outcomes. Objective: To describe outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement heterogeneity as the first stage in co-creating a COS for localised renal cancer. Evidence acquisition: We systematically reviewed outcome reporting heterogeneity in effectiveness trials and observational studies in localised RCC. In total, 2822 studies (randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, systematic reviews) up to June 2020 meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers; in cases of disagreement, a third reviewer arbitrated. Data extractions were double-checked. Evidence synthesis: We included 149 studies and found that there was inconsistency in which outcomes were reported across studies and variability in the definitions used for outcomes that were conceptually the same. We structured our analysis using the outcome classification taxonomy proposed by Dodd et al. Outcomes linked to adverse events (eg, bleeding, outcomes linked to surgery) and renal injury outcomes (reduced renal function) were reported most commonly. Outcomes related to deaths from any cause and from cancer were reported in 44% and 25% of studies, respectively, although the time point for measurement and the analysis methods were inconsistent. Outcomes linked to life impact (eg, global quality of life) were reported least often. Clinician-reported outcomes are more frequently reported than patient-reported outcomes in the renal cancer literature. Conclusions: This systematic review underscores the heterogeneity of outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement in research on localised renal cancer. It catalogues the variety of outcomes and serves as a first step towards the development of a COS for localised renal cancer. Patient summary: We reviewed studies on localised kidney cancer and found that multiple terms and definitions have been used to describe outcomes. These are not defined consistently, and often not defined at all. Our review is the first phase in developing a core outcome set to allow better comparisons of studies to improve medical care.

A Renewal of the TNM Staging System for Patients with Renal Cancer To Comply with Current Decision-making: Proposal from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel.

Over the past decade, only minor changes have been introduced in the TNM staging system for renal cancer. Conversely, many milestones and modifications in management of the disease have been achieved, especially for patients with locally advanced and metastatic cancers. The European Association of Urology guidelines panel proposes a new TNM classification scheme for staging of renal cell carcinoma to reflect these breakthrough clinical improvements.