Timing the Landmark Events in the Evolution of Clear Cell Renal Cell Cancer: TRACERx Renal.

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is characterized by near-universal loss of the short arm of chromosome 3, deleting several tumor suppressor genes. We analyzed whole genomes from 95 biopsies across 33 patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. We find hotspots of point mutations in the 5' UTR of TERT, targeting a MYC-MAX-MAD1 repressor associated with telomere lengthening. The most common structural abnormality generates simultaneous 3p loss and 5q gain (36% patients), typically through chromothripsis. This event occurs in childhood or adolescence, generally as the initiating event that precedes emergence of the tumor's most recent common ancestor by years to decades. Similar genomic changes drive inherited ccRCC. Modeling differences in age incidence between inherited and sporadic cancers suggests that the number of cells with 3p loss capable of initiating sporadic tumors is no more than a few hundred. Early development of ccRCC follows well-defined evolutionary trajectories, offering opportunity for early intervention.

The renal lineage factor PAX8 controls oncogenic signalling in kidney cancer.

Large-scale human genetic data1-3 have shown that cancer mutations display strong tissue-selectivity, but how this selectivity arises remains unclear. Here, using experimental models, functional genomics and analyses of patient samples, we demonstrate that the lineage transcription factor paired box 8 (PAX8) is required for oncogenic signalling by two common genetic alterations that cause clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) in humans: the germline variant rs7948643 at 11q13.3 and somatic inactivation of the von Hippel-Lindau tumour suppressor (VHL)4-6. VHL loss, which is observed in about 90% of ccRCCs, can lead to hypoxia-inducible factor 2α (HIF2A) stabilization6,7. We show that HIF2A is preferentially recruited to PAX8-bound transcriptional enhancers, including a pro-tumorigenic cyclin D1 (CCND1) enhancer that is controlled by PAX8 and HIF2A. The ccRCC-protective allele C at rs7948643 inhibits PAX8 binding at this enhancer and downstream activation of CCND1 expression. Co-option of a PAX8-dependent physiological programme that supports the proliferation of normal renal epithelial cells is also required for MYC expression from the ccRCC metastasis-associated amplicons at 8q21.3-q24.3 (ref. 8). These results demonstrate that transcriptional lineage factors are essential for oncogenic signalling and that they mediate tissue-specific cancer risk associated with somatic and inherited genetic variants.

Fast and High-Resolution T2 Mapping Based on Echo Merging Plus k-t Undersampling with Reduced Refocusing Flip Angles (TEMPURA) as Methods for Human Renal MRI.

PURPOSE: To develop a highly accelerated multi-echo spin-echo method, TEMPURA, for reducing the acquisition time and/or increasing spatial resolution for kidney T2 mapping. METHODS: TEMPURA merges several adjacent echoes into one k-space by either combining independent echoes or sharing one echo between k-spaces. The combined k-space is reconstructed based on compressed sensing theory. Reduced flip angles are used for the refocusing pulses, and the extended phase graph algorithm is used to correct the effects of indirect echoes. Two sequences were developed: a fast breath-hold sequence; and a high-resolution sequence. The performance was evaluated prospectively on a phantom, 16 healthy subjects, and two patients with different types of renal tumors. RESULTS: The fast TEMPURA method reduced the acquisition time from 3-5 min to one breath-hold (18 s). Phantom measurements showed that fast TEMPURA had a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 8.2%, which was comparable to a standardized respiratory-triggered sequence (7.4%), but much lower than a sequence accelerated by purely k-t undersampling (21.8%). High-resolution TEMPURA reduced the in-plane voxel size from 3 × 3 to 1 × 1 mm2, resulting in improved visualization of the detailed anatomical structure. In vivo T2 measurements demonstrated good agreement (fast: MAPE = 1.3%-2.5%; high-resolution: MAPE = 2.8%-3.3%) and high correlation coefficients (fast: R = 0.85-0.98; high-resolution: 0.82-0.96) with the standardized method, outperforming k-t undersampling alone (MAPE = 3.3-4.5%, R = 0.57-0.59). CONCLUSION: TEMPURA provides fast and high-resolution renal T2 measurements. It has the potential to improve clinical throughput and delineate intratumoral heterogeneity and tissue habitats at unprecedented spatial resolution.

Short-term psychosocial outcomes of adding a non-contrast abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate psychological, social, and financial outcomes amongst individuals undergoing a non-contrast abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies alongside the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) is a feasibility study of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening. A total of 500 participants within the YKST, comprising all who had an abnormal CT scan and a random sample of one-third of those with a normal scan between 14/03/2022 and 24/08/2022 were sent a questionnaire at 3 and 6 months. Outcomes included the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ), the short-form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and the EuroQoL five Dimensions five Levels scale (EQ-5D-5L). Data were analysed using regression adjusting for participant age, sex, socioeconomic status, education, baseline quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and ethnicity. RESULTS: A total of 380 (76%) participants returned questionnaires at 3 months and 328 (66%) at 6 months. There was no difference in any outcomes between participants with a normal scan and those with abnormal scans requiring no further action. Individuals requiring initial further investigations or referral had higher scores on the negative PCQ than those with normal scans at 3 months (standardised mean difference 0.28 sd, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.54; P = 0.044). The difference was greater in those with anxiety or depression at baseline. No differences were seen at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Screening for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies using abdominal CT alongside the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening is unlikely to cause significant lasting psychosocial or financial harm to participants with incidental findings.

Risk-stratified screening for the early detection of kidney cancer.

Earlier detection and screening for kidney cancer has been identified as a key research priority, however the low prevalence of the disease in unselected populations limits the cost-effectiveness of screening. Risk-stratified screening for kidney cancer may improve early detection by targeting high-risk individuals whilst limiting harms in low-risk individuals, potentially increasing the cost-effectiveness of screening. A number of models have been identified which estimate kidney cancer risk based on both phenotypic and genetic data, and while several of the former have been shown to identify individuals at high-risk of developing kidney cancer with reasonable accuracy, current evidence does not support including a genetic component. Combined screening for lung cancer and kidney cancer has been proposed, as the two malignancies share some common risk factors. A modelling study estimated that using lung cancer risk models (currently used for risk-stratified lung cancer screening) could capture 25% of patients with kidney cancer, which is only slightly lower than using the best performing kidney cancer-specific risk models based on phenotypic data (27%-33%). Additionally, risk-stratified screening for kidney cancer has been shown to be acceptable to the public. The following review summarises existing evidence regarding risk-stratified screening for kidney cancer, highlighting the risks and benefits, as well as exploring the management of potential harms and further research needs.

The multispeciality approach to the management of localised kidney cancer.

Historically, kidney cancer was approached in a siloed single-speciality way, with urological surgeons managing the localised stages of the disease and medical oncologists caring for patients if metastases developed. However, improvements in the management of localised kidney cancer have occurred rapidly over the past two decades with greater understanding of the disease biology, diagnostic options, and innovations in curative treatments. These developments are favourable for patients but provide a substantially more complex landscape for patients and clinicians to navigate, with associated challenging decisions about who to treat, how, and when. As such, the skill sets needed to manage the various aspects of the disease and guide patients appropriately outstrips the capabilities of one particular specialist, and the evolution of a multispeciality approach to the management of kidney cancer is now essential. In this Review, we summarise the current best multispeciality practice for the management of localised kidney cancer and the areas in need of further research and development.

Patient experience of follow-up after surgery for kidney cancer: a focus group study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patient experience of follow-up care after kidney cancer surgery and to develop recommendations for best practice. METHODS: We conducted two focus groups, including 14 participants with experience of kidney cancer follow-up after surgery, to elicit patient views on current follow-up care. Thematic analysis was used to identify unifying themes to describe the patient experience of follow-up, and the results were then used to develop a set of recommendations for best practice. RESULTS: We identified six themes (feelings of abandonment; uncertainty about the plan; anxiety about appointments; variation in care; a need for information; and a need for emotional support) that described current patient experience and areas in which current care could be improved. In particular, while most of the participants felt that their physical needs had been met, many had struggled with unmet emotional needs and a lack of information and resources. This was especially noted in the period immediately following surgery, when feelings of abandonment were common, and around follow-up scans and routine appointments, which were a source of anxiety. Our participants also described concerns about the lack of consistency between different hospitals and centres around the United Kingdom, with differences in the content and quality of follow-up care. Based on the results, we developed a list of recommendations to address some of the challenges described through relatively minor changes to the care pathway. CONCLUSIONS: We identified gaps and variability in current follow-up care after kidney cancer surgery, and have developed a set of recommendations that, if implemented, would improve the follow-up care experience for these patients.

Impact of COVID-19 on the management and outcomes of ureteric stones in the UK: a multicentre retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if management of ureteric stones in the UK changed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and whether this affected patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective study of adults with computed tomography-confirmed ureteric stone disease at 39 UK hospitals during a pre-pandemic period (23/3/2019-22/6/2019) and a period during the pandemic (the 3-month period after the first severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 case at individual sites). The primary outcome was success of primary treatment modality, defined as no further treatment required for the index ureteric stone. Our study protocol was published prior to data collection. RESULTS: A total of 3735 patients were included (pre-pandemic 1956 patients; pandemic 1779 patients). Stone size was similar between groups (P > 0.05). During the pandemic, patients had lower hospital admission rates (pre-pandemic 54.0% vs pandemic 46.5%, P < 0.001), shorter mean length of stay (4.1 vs 3.3 days, P = 0.02), and higher rates of use of medical expulsive therapy (17.4% vs 25.4%, P < 0.001). In patients who received interventional management (pre-pandemic 787 vs pandemic 685), rates of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (22.7% vs 34.1%, P < 0.001) and nephrostomy were higher (7.1% vs 10.5%, P = 0.03); and rates of ureteroscopy (57.2% vs 47.5%, P < 0.001), stent insertion (68.4% vs 54.6%, P < 0.001), and general anaesthetic (92.2% vs 76.2%, P < 0.001) were lower. There was no difference in success of primary treatment modality between patient cohorts (pre-pandemic 73.8% vs pandemic 76.1%, P = 0.11), nor when patients were stratified by treatment modality or stone size. Rates of operative complications, 30-day mortality, and re-admission and renal function at 6 months did not differ between the data collection periods. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there were lower admission rates and fewer invasive procedures performed. Despite this, there were no differences in treatment success or outcomes. Our findings indicate that clinicians can safely adopt management strategies developed during the pandemic to treat more patients conservatively and in the community.

Diagnosis, treatment, and survival from kidney cancer: real-world National Health Service England data between 2013 and 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To report the NHS Digital (NHSD) data for patients diagnosed with kidney cancer (KC) in England. We explore the incidence, route to diagnosis (RTD), treatment, and survival patterns from 2013 to 2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was extracted from the Cancer Data NHSD portal for International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition coded KC; this included Cancer Registry data, Hospital Episode Statistics, and cancer waiting times data. RESULTS: Registrations included 66 696 individuals with KC. Incidence of new KC diagnoses increased (8998 in 2013, to 10 232 in 2019), but the age-standardised rates were stable (18.7-19.4/100 000 population). Almost half of patients (30 340 [45.5%]) were aged 0-70 years and the cohort were most frequently diagnosed with Stage 1-2 KC (n = 26 297 [39.4%]). Most patients were diagnosed through non-urgent general practitioner referrals (n = 16 814 [30.4%]), followed by 2-week-wait (n = 15 472 [28.0%]) and emergency routes (n = 11 796 [21.3%]), with older patients (aged ≥70 years), Stage 4 KCs, and patients with non-specified renal cell carcinoma being significantly more likely to present through the emergency route (all P < 0.001). Invasive treatment (surgery or ablation), radiotherapy, or systemic anti-cancer therapy use varied with disease stage, patient factors, and treatment network (Cancer Alliance). Survival outcomes differed by Stage, histological subtype, and social deprivation class (P < 0.001). Age-standardised mortality rates did not change over the study duration, although immunotherapy usage is likely not captured in this study timeline. CONCLUSION: The NHSD resource provides useful insight about the incidence, diagnostic pathways, treatment, and survival of patients with KC in England and a useful benchmark for the upcoming commissioned National Kidney Cancer Audit. The RTD data may be limited by incidental diagnoses, which could confound the high proportion of 'emergency' diagnoses. Importantly, survival outcomes remained relatively unchanged.

Assessment of association between lower ureteric excision technique and oncological outcomes for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: retrospective analysis from the Scottish Renal Cancer Consortium.

PURPOSE: Nephroureterectomy(NU) remains the gold-standard surgical option for the management of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma(UTUC). Controversy exists regarding the optimal excision technique of the lower ureter. We sought to compare post-UTUC bladder tumour recurrence across the Scottish Renal Cancer Consortium(SRCC). METHODS: Patients who underwent NU for UTUC across the SRCC 2012-2019 were identified. The impact of lower-end surgical technique along with T-stage, N-stage, tumour location and focality, positive surgical margin, pre-NU ureteroscopy, upper-end technique and adjuvant mitomycin C administration were assessed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression. The primary outcome was intra-vesical recurrence-free survival (B-RFS). RESULTS: In 402 patients, the median follow-up was 29 months. The lower ureter was managed by open transvesical excision in 90 individuals, transurethral and laparoscopic dissection in 76, laparoscopic or open extra-vesical excision in 31 and 42 respectively, and transurethral dissection and pluck in 163. 114(28.4%) patients had a bladder recurrence during follow-up. There was no difference in B-RFS between lower-end techniques by Kaplan-Meier (p = 0.94). When all factors were taken into account by adjusted Cox-regression, preceding ureteroscopy (HR 2.65, p = 0.001), lower ureteric tumour location (HR 2.16, p = 0.02), previous bladder cancer (HR 1.75, p = 0.01) and male gender (HR 1.61, p = 0.03) were associated with B-RFS. CONCLUSION: These data suggest in appropriately selected patients, lower ureteric management technique does not affect B-RFS. Along with lower ureteric tumour location, male gender and previous bladder cancer, preceding ureteroscopy was associated with a higher recurrence rate following NU, and the indication for this should be carefully considered.

Advantages of multi-arm non-randomised sequentially allocated cohort designs for Phase II oncology trials.

BACKGROUND: Efficient trial designs are required to prioritise promising drugs within Phase II trials. Adaptive designs are examples of such designs, but their efficiency is reduced if there is a delay in assessing patient responses to treatment. METHODS: Motivated by the WIRE trial in renal cell carcinoma (NCT03741426), we compare three trial approaches to testing multiple treatment arms: (1) single-arm trials in sequence with interim analyses; (2) a parallel multi-arm multi-stage trial and (3) the design used in WIRE, which we call the Multi-Arm Sequential Trial with Efficient Recruitment (MASTER) design. The MASTER design recruits patients to one arm at a time, pausing recruitment to an arm when it has recruited the required number for an interim analysis. We conduct a simulation study to compare how long the three different trial designs take to evaluate a number of new treatment arms. RESULTS: The parallel multi-arm multi-stage and the MASTER design are much more efficient than separate trials. The MASTER design provides extra efficiency when there is endpoint delay, or recruitment is very quick. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the MASTER design as an efficient way of testing multiple promising cancer treatments in non-comparative Phase II trials.

A Phase II study of neoadjuvant axitinib for reducing the extent of venous tumour thrombus in clear cell renal cell cancer with venous invasion (NAXIVA).

BACKGROUND: Surgery for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with venous tumour thrombus (VTT) extension into the renal vein (RV) and/or inferior vena cava (IVC) has high peri-surgical morbidity/mortality. NAXIVA assessed the response of VTT to axitinib, a potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor. METHODS: NAXIVA was a single-arm, multi-centre, Phase 2 study. In total, 20 patients with resectable clear cell RCC and VTT received upto 8 weeks of pre-surgical axitinib. The primary endpoint was percentage of evaluable patients with VTT improvement by Mayo level on MRI. Secondary endpoints were percentage change in surgical approach and VTT length, response rate (RECISTv1.1) and surgical morbidity. RESULTS: In all, 35% (7/20) patients with VTT had a reduction in Mayo level with axitinib: 37.5% (6/16) with IVC VTT and 25% (1/4) with RV-only VTT. No patients had an increase in Mayo level. In total, 75% (15/20) of patients had a reduction in VTT length. Overall, 41.2% (7/17) of patients who underwent surgery had less invasive surgery than originally planned. Non-responders exhibited lower baseline microvessel density (CD31), higher Ki67 and exhausted or regulatory T-cell phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: NAXIVA provides the first Level II evidence that axitinib downstages VTT in a significant proportion of patients leading to reduction in the extent of surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03494816.

The MITRE trial protocol: a study to evaluate the microbiome as a biomarker of efficacy and toxicity in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

BACKGROUND: The gut microbiome is implicated as a marker of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) based on preclinical mouse models and preliminary observations in limited patient series. Furthermore, early studies suggest faecal microbial transfer may have therapeutic potential, converting ICI non-responders into responders. So far, identification of specific responsible bacterial taxa has been inconsistent, which limits future application. The MITRE study will explore and validate a microbiome signature in a larger scale prospective study across several different cancer types. METHODS: Melanoma, renal cancer and non-small cell lung cancer patients who are planned to receive standard immune checkpoint inhibitors are being recruited to the MITRE study. Longitudinal stool samples are collected prior to treatment, then at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months during treatment, or at disease progression/recurrence (whichever is sooner), as well as after a severe (≥grade 3 CTCAE v5.0) immune-related adverse event. Additionally, whole blood, plasma, buffy coat, RNA and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) is collected at similar time points and will be used for exploratory analyses. Archival tumour tissue, tumour biopsies at progression/relapse, as well as any biopsies from body organs collected after a severe toxicity are collected. The primary outcome measure is the ability of the microbiome signature to predict 1 year progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced disease. Secondary outcomes include microbiome correlations with toxicity and other efficacy end-points. Biosamples will be used to explore immunological and genomic correlates. A sub-study will evaluate both COVID-19 antigen and antibody associations with the microbiome. DISCUSSION: There is an urgent need to identify biomarkers that are predictive of treatment response, resistance and toxicity to immunotherapy. The data generated from this study will both help inform patient selection for these drugs and provide information that may allow therapeutic manipulation of the microbiome to improve future patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04107168 , ClinicalTrials.gov, registered 09/27/2019. Protocol V3.2 (16/04/2021).

The current state of genetic risk models for the development of kidney cancer: a review and validation.

OBJECTIVE: To review the current state of genetic risk models for predicting the development of kidney cancer, by identifying and comparing the performance of published models. METHODS: Risk models were identified from a recent systematic review and the Cancer-PRS web directory. A narrative synthesis of the models, previous validation studies and related genome-wide association studies (GWAS) was carried out. The discrimination and calibration of the identified models was then assessed and compared in the UK Biobank (UKB) cohort (cases, 452; controls, 487 925). RESULTS: A total of 39 genetic models predicting the development of kidney cancer were identified and 31 were validated in the UKB. Several of the genetic-only models (seven of 25) and most of the mixed genetic-phenotypic models (five of six) had some discriminatory ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve >0.5) in this cohort. In general, models containing a larger number of genetic variants identified in GWAS performed better than models containing a small number of variants associated with known causal pathways. However, the performance of the included models was consistently poorer than genetic risk models for other cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is potential for genetic models to identify those at highest risk of developing kidney cancer, their performance is poorer than the best genetic risk models for other cancers. This may be due to the comparatively small number of genetic variants associated with kidney cancer identified in GWAS to date. The development of improved genetic risk models for kidney cancer is dependent on the identification of more variants associated with this disease. Whether these will have utility within future kidney cancer screening pathways is yet to determined.

Validation and public health modelling of risk prediction models for kidney cancer using the UK Biobank.

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate risk models for the detection of kidney cancer, as early detection of kidney cancer improves survival and stratifying the population using risk models could enable an individually tailored screening programme. METHODS: We validated the performance of 30 existing phenotypic models predicting the risk of kidney cancer in the UK Biobank cohort (n = 450 687). We compared the discrimination and calibration of models for men, women, and a mixed-sex cohort. Population level data were used to estimate model performance in a screening scenario for a range of risk thresholds (6-year risk: 0.1-1.0%). RESULTS: In all, 10 models had reasonable discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve >0.60), although some had poor calibration. Modelling demonstrated similar performance of the best models over a range of thresholds. The models showed an improvement in ability to identify cases compared to age- and sex-based screening. All the models performed less well in women than men. CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the first comprehensive external validation of risk models for kidney cancer. The best-performing models are better at identifying individuals at high risk of kidney cancer than age and sex alone; however, the benefits are relatively small. Feasibility studies are required to determine applicability to a screening programme.

Early detection of kidney cancer using urinary proteins: a truly non-invasive strategy.

OBJECTIVES: To review urinary protein biomarkers as potential non-invasive, easily obtainable, early diagnostic tools in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: A PubMed database search was performed up to the year 2020 to identify primary studies reporting potential urinary protein biomarkers for RCC. Separate searches were conducted to identify studies describing appropriate methods of developing cancer screening programmes and detection of cancer biomarkers. RESULTS: Several urinary protein biomarkers are under validation for RCC diagnostics, e.g. aquaporin-1, perilipin-2, carbonic anhydrase-9, Raf-kinase inhibitory protein, nuclear matrix protein-22, 14-3-3 Protein ß/α and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin. However, none has yet been validated or approved for clinical use due to low sensitivity or specificity, inconsistencies in appropriate study design, or lack of external validation. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of biomarkers' feasibility, sample preparation and storage, biomarker validation, and the application of novel technologies may provide a solution that maximises the potential for a truly non-invasive biomarker in early RCC diagnostics.

Risk models for recurrence and survival after kidney cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify and compare the performance of prognostic models providing estimates of survival or recurrence of localized renal cell cancer (RCC) in patients treated with surgery with curative intent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42019162349). We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2000 to 12 December 2019 to identify studies reporting the performance of one or more prognostic model(s) that predict recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) or overall survival (OS) in patients who have undergone surgical resection for localized RCC. For each outcome we summarized the discrimination of each model using the C-statistic and performed multivariate random-effects meta-analysis of the logit transformed C-statistic to rank the models. RESULTS: Of a total of 13 549 articles, 57 included data on the performance of 22 models in external populations. C-statistics ranged from 0.59 to 0.90. Several risk models were assessed in two or more external populations and had similarly high discriminative performance. For RFS, these were the Sorbellini, Karakiewicz, Leibovich and Kattan models, with the UCLA Integrated Staging System model also having similar performance in European/US populations. All had C-statistics ≥0.75 in at least half of the validations. For CSS, they the models with the highest discriminative performance in two or more external validation studies were the Zisman, Stage, Size, Grade and Necrosis (SSIGN), Karakiewicz, Leibovich and Sorbellini models (C-statistic ≥0.80 in at least half of the validations), and for OS they were the Leibovich, Karakiewicz, Sorbellini and SSIGN models. For all outcomes, the models based on clinical features at presentation alone (Cindolo and Yaycioglu) had consistently lower discrimination. Estimates of model calibration were only infrequently included but most underestimated survival. CONCLUSION: Several models had good discriminative ability, with there being no single 'best' model. The choice from these models for each setting should be informed by both the comparative performance and availability of factors included in the models. All would need recalibration if used to provide absolute survival estimates.

Dynamic biomarker and imaging changes from a phase II study of pre- and post-surgical sunitinib.

OBJECTIVE: To explore translational biological and imaging biomarkers for sunitinib treatment before and after debulking nephrectomy in the NeoSun (European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database [EudraCT] number: 2005-004502-82) single-centre, single-arm, single-agent, Phase II trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) received 50 mg once daily sunitinib for 12 days pre-surgically, then post-surgery on 4 week-on, 2 week-off, repeating 6-week cycles until disease progression in a single arm phase II trial. Structural and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnet resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and research blood sampling were performed at baseline and after 12 days. Computed tomography imaging was performed at baseline and post-surgery then every two cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST]) excluding the resected kidney. Secondary endpoints included changes in DCE-MRI of the tumour following pre-surgery sunitinib, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response duration, surgical morbidity/mortality, and toxicity. Translational and imaging endpoints were exploratory. RESULTS: A total of 14 patients received pre-surgery sunitinib, 71% (10/14) took the planned 12 doses. All underwent nephrectomy, and 13 recommenced sunitinib postoperatively. In all, 58.3% (seven of 12) of patients achieved partial or complete response (PR or CR) (95% confidence interval 27.7-84.8%). The median OS was 33.7 months and median PFS was 15.7 months. Amongst those achieving a PR or CR, the median response duration was 8.7 months. No unexpected surgical complications, sunitinib-related toxicities, or surgical delays occurred. Within the translational endpoints, pre-surgical sunitinib significantly increased necrosis, and reduced cluster of differentiation-31 (CD31), Ki67, circulating vascular endothelial growth factor-C (VEGF-C), and transfer constant (KTrans , measured using DCE-MRI; all P < 0.05). There was a trend for improved OS in patients with high baseline plasma VEGF-C expression (P = 0.02). Reduction in radiological tumour volume after pre-surgical sunitinib correlated with high percentage of solid tumour components at baseline (Spearman's coefficient ρ = 0.69, P = 0.02). Conversely, the percentage tumour volume reduction correlated with lower baseline percentage necrosis (coefficient = -0.51, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant studies such as the NeoSun can safely and effectively explore translational biological and imaging endpoints.

A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening is likely to improve the efficiency of screening programmes by targeting resources towards those most likely to benefit. We aimed to explore the implications of this approach from a societal perspective by understanding public views on the most acceptable stratification strategies. METHODS: We conducted three online community juries with 9 or 10 participants in each. Participants were purposefully sampled by age (40-79 years), sex, ethnicity, social grade and English region. On the first day, participants were informed of the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening and the implications of different ways of introducing stratification using scenarios based on phenotypic and genetic risk scores. On the second day, participants deliberated to reach a verdict on the research question, 'Which approach(es) to inviting people to screening are acceptable, and under what circumstances?' Deliberations and feedback were recorded and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Across the juries, the principle of risk stratification was generally considered to be an acceptable approach for determining eligibility for screening. Disregarding increasing capacity, the participants considered it to enable efficient resource allocation to high-risk individuals and could see how it might help to save lives. However, there were concerns regarding fair implementation, particularly how the risk assessment would be performed at scale and how people at low risk would be managed. Some favoured using the most accurate risk prediction model whereas others thought that certain risk factors should be prioritized (particularly factors considered as non-modifiable and relatively stable, such as genetics and family history). Transparently justifying the programme and public education about cancer risk emerged as important contributors to acceptability. CONCLUSION: Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening was acceptable to informed members of the public, particularly if it included risk factors they considered fair and when communicated transparently. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient and public involvement representatives were involved throughout this study. They were not involved in synthesizing the results but contributed to producing study materials, co-facilitated the community juries and commented on the interpretation of the findings and final report.

The WIRE study a phase II, multi-arm, multi-centre, non-randomised window-of-opportunity clinical trial platform using a Bayesian adaptive design for proof-of-mechanism of novel treatment strategies in operable renal cell cancer - a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Window-of-opportunity trials, evaluating the engagement of drugs with their biological target in the time period between diagnosis and standard-of-care treatment, can help prioritise promising new systemic treatments for later-phase clinical trials. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the 7th commonest solid cancer in the UK, exhibits targets for multiple new systemic anti-cancer agents including DNA damage response inhibitors, agents targeting vascular pathways and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Here we present the trial protocol for the WIndow-of-opportunity clinical trial platform for evaluation of novel treatment strategies in REnal cell cancer (WIRE). METHODS: WIRE is a Phase II, multi-arm, multi-centre, non-randomised, proof-of-mechanism (single and combination investigational medicinal product [IMP]), platform trial using a Bayesian adaptive design. The Bayesian adaptive design leverages outcome information from initial participants during pre-specified interim analyses to determine and minimise the number of participants required to demonstrate efficacy or futility. Patients with biopsy-proven, surgically resectable, cT1b+, cN0-1, cM0-1 clear cell RCC and no contraindications to the IMPs are eligible to participate. Participants undergo diagnostic staging CT and renal mass biopsy followed by treatment in one of the treatment arms for at least 14 days. Initially, the trial includes five treatment arms with cediranib, cediranib + olaparib, olaparib, durvalumab and durvalumab + olaparib. Participants undergo a multiparametric MRI before and after treatment. Vascularised and de-vascularised tissue is collected at surgery. A ≥ 30% increase in CD8+ T-cells on immunohistochemistry between the screening and nephrectomy is the primary endpoint for durvalumab-containing arms. Meanwhile, a reduction in tumour vascular permeability measured by Ktrans on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI by ≥30% is the primary endpoint for other arms. Secondary outcomes include adverse events and tumour size change. Exploratory outcomes include biomarkers of drug mechanism and treatment effects in blood, urine, tissue and imaging. DISCUSSION: WIRE is the first trial using a window-of-opportunity design to demonstrate pharmacological activity of novel single and combination treatments in RCC in the pre-surgical space. It will provide rationale for prioritising promising treatments for later phase trials and support the development of new biomarkers of treatment effect with its extensive translational agenda. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03741426 / EudraCT: 2018-003056-21 .