Adjuvant Nivolumab for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma at High Risk of Recurrence After Nephrectomy: Part B of the Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III CheckMate 914 Trial.

PURPOSE: CheckMate 914 is a two-part, randomized phase III trial evaluating adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (part A) or adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (part B) versus placebo in mutually exclusive populations of patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of postnephrectomy recurrence. Part A showed no disease-free survival (DFS) benefit for adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo. We report results from part B. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg once every 2 weeks for up to 12 doses), placebo, or nivolumab (240 mg once every 2 weeks for up to 12 doses) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks for up to four doses). The planned treatment duration was 24 weeks (approximately 5.5 months). The primary end point was DFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) for nivolumab versus placebo; safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: Overall, 825 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab (n = 411), placebo (n = 208), or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 206). With a median follow-up of 27.0 months (range, 18.0-42.4), the primary end point of improved DFS per BICR with nivolumab versus placebo was not met (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.21]; P = .40); the median DFS was not reached in either arm, and 18-month DFS rates were 78.4% versus 75.4%. The HR for DFS per investigator was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.58 to 1.12; P = .19). Grade 3-4 all-cause adverse events (AEs) occurred in 17.2%, 15.0%, and 28.9% of patients with nivolumab, placebo, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab, respectively. Any-grade treatment-related AEs led to discontinuation in 9.6%, 1.0%, and 28.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Part B of CheckMate 914 did not meet the primary end point of improved DFS for nivolumab versus placebo in patients with localized RCC at high risk of postnephrectomy recurrence.

Frailty and Renal Cell Carcinoma: Integration of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment into Shared Decision-making.

CONTEXT: Frailty, a geriatric syndrome characterized by decreased resilience and physiological reserve, impacts the prognosis and management of older adults significantly, particularly in the context of surgical and oncological care. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of frailty assessment in the management of older patients with a renal mass/renal cell carcinoma (RCC), focusing on its implications for diagnostic workup, treatment decisions, and clinical outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A narrative review of the literature was conducted, focusing on frailty definitions, assessment tools, and their application in geriatric oncology, applied to the field of RCC. Relevant studies addressing the prognostic value of frailty, its impact on treatment outcomes, and potential interventions were summarized. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Frailty is a poor prognostic factor and can influence decision-making in the management of both localized and metastatic RCC. Screening tools such as the Geriatric Screening Tool 8 (G8) and the Mini-COG test can aid clinicians to select older patients (ie, aged ≥65 yr) for a further comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) performed by dedicated geriatricians. The CGA provides insights to risk stratify patients and guide subsequent treatment pathways. As such, the involvement of geriatricians in multidisciplinary tumor boards emerges as an essential priority to address the complex needs of frail patients and optimize clinical outcomes. Herein, we propose a dedicated care pathway as a first key step to implement frailty assessment in clinical practice and research for RCC. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty has emerged as a crucial factor influencing the management and outcomes of older patients with RCC. Involvement of geriatricians in diagnostic and therapeutic pathways represents a pragmatic approach to screen and assess frailty, fostering individualized treatment decisions according to holistic patient risk stratification. PATIENT SUMMARY: Frailty, a decline in resilience and physiological reserve, influences treatment decisions and outcomes in elderly patients with renal cell carcinoma, guiding personalized care. In this review, we focused on pragmatic strategies to screen patients with a renal mass suspected for renal cell carcinoma, who are older than 65 yr, for frailty and on personalized management algorithms integrating geriatric input beyond patient- and tumor-related factors.

Identifying the facilitators and barriers to implementation of renal tumour biopsy in the diagnostic pathway for small renal masses.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of renal tumour biopsy (RTB) in the diagnostic pathway for renal tumours in England. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants consisted of patients who had a renal tumour diagnosed and/or treated at one of five tertiary centres in England, healthcare professionals involved in the direct care of patients diagnosed with renal tumours, and clinical service managers and commissioners. The study employed a mixed-methods research methodology consisting of individual interviews and an on-line survey that explored the types of facilitators and barriers individuals perceived and experienced and the frequency in which these were reported. A public dissemination event took place following the completion of data collection; to facilitate discussion of potential solutions to implementing RTB. RESULTS: There were 50 participant interviews (23 patients, 22 clinicians, and five health service commissioners/operations managers). The patient on-line survey received 52 responses, and the clinician survey received 22 responses. Patients most frequently reported influences in choosing whether to undergo RTB pertained to wanting to know the diagnosis of their kidney mass (40%), the advice or information provided by healthcare professionals (40%), and not wishing to delay treatment (23%). Clinicians most frequently reported barriers to recommending RTB related to their uncertainty of diagnostic accuracy (56%), availability of appointments or hospital beds (52%), concerns of risk of bleeding (44%), risk of seeding (41%), and delays in meeting national cancer pathway targets (41%). The dissemination event was attended by 18 participants (seven patients and 11 clinicians). Suggestions to improve implementation included reducing variation and promotion of standardisation of practice by a consensus statement, increasing the evidence base (clinicians) and improved communication by developing better patient aids such as videos and diagrams (patients and clinicians). CONCLUSION: Implementation of RTB may be dependent on the quality of information provided, its format and perceived reliability of the information. Increased utilisation of RTB may be improved by development of a consensus statement on the role of biopsy, with patients expressing a preference for alternative information aids such as patient videos.

Adjuvant Atezolizumab in Patients with Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Prespecified Subgroup Analysis of IMmotion010.

Patients with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (sRCC) have a poor prognosis. In the randomised, double-blind phase 3 IMmotion010 trial (NCT03024996), adjuvant atezolizumab did not demonstrate a disease-free survival (DFS) benefit versus placebo in the overall population of patients with locoregional renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence following surgery. This prespecified subgroup analysis of efficacy and safety was completed in 104 patients with sRCC. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms. At a median follow-up of 45 mo, the median DFS was not evaluable (NE; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12 mo-NE) in the atezolizumab arm (n = 37) and 23 mo (95% CI, 11-NE) in the placebo arm (n = 66; hazard ratio 0.77 [95% CI, 0.44-1.4]). In the sRCC subgroup, grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in one patient (2.7%) in the atezolizumab arm and two patients (3.0%) in the placebo arm. By comparison, 54 of 353 patients (15%) and 16 of 317 patients (5.0%) with non-sarcomatoid histology reported grade 3/4 TRAEs in the respective arms. In conclusion, the difference in DFS was not statistically significant between adjuvant atezolizumab and placebo in patients with sRCC. The safety profile was similar between patients with sRCC and non-sRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with a specific type of locoregional kidney cancer (tumours with sarcomatoid features) were treated with atezolizumab or placebo after surgery. Slightly more patients treated with atezolizumab lived longer without the disease getting worse than those treated with placebo, although this finding was not statistically significant. The side effects were similar to those seen in patients with other types of kidney cancer treated with atezolizumab in the same study (IMmotion010). In patients with sarcomatoid kidney cancer, atezolizumab was tolerable and may be more effective than placebo, but this requires further study.

Systemic therapies and primary tumour downsizing in renal cell carcinoma: a real-world comparison of anti-angiogenic and immune checkpoint inhibition regimens.

PURPOSE: To investigate responses in the primary tumour to different systemic treatment regimens in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: A single-centre retrospective analysis of treatment-naive mRCC patients without prior nephrectomy receiving VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF only), immune checkpoint inhibitors (IO only), or combinations thereof (IO + VEGF). The primary outcome was the rate of partial response in the primary tumour (primary tumour PR, ≥ 30% diameter reduction). Secondary outcomes were time to best primary tumour diameter change, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Predictors of survival outcomes were explored by Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: The rate of primary tumour PR was 14% for VEGF only (4/28 patients), 22% for IO only (5/23) and 50% for IO + VEGF (7/14), with median best primary tumour diameter change of - 8.0%, + 5.1%, and - 31.1% respectively, and median time to best primary tumour diameter change of 3.2, 3.0 and 6.9 months respectively. Median OS was significantly greater with IO + VEGF compared to VEGF only (HR 0.45, p = 0.04) and non-significantly greater compared to IO only (HR 0.46, p = 0.06). In multivariable analysis, primary tumour PR was the only response variable significantly associated with both OS (adjusted HR 0.32, p = 0.01) and PFS (adjusted HR 0.29, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: mRCC patients without prior nephrectomy receiving first-line IO + VEGF regimens showed the greatest primary tumour responses, suggesting further prospective evaluation of this combination in the neoadjuvant and deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy settings.

Renal cell carcinoma.

The landscape of the management of renal cell carcinoma has evolved substantially in the last decade, leading to improved survival in localised and advanced disease. We review the epidemiology, pathology, and diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma and discuss the evidence for current management strategies from localised to metastatic disease. Developments in adjuvant therapies are discussed, including use of pembrolizumab-the first therapy to achieve overall survival benefit in the adjuvant setting. The treatment of advanced disease, including landmark trials that have established immune checkpoint inhibition as a standard of care, are also reviewed. We also discuss the current controversies that exist surrounding the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, including the use of risk assessment models for disease stratification and treatment selection for frontline therapy. Management of non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma subtypes is also reviewed. Future directions of research, including a discussion of ongoing clinical trials and the need for reliable biomarkers to guide treatment in kidney cancer, are also highlighted.

Renal mass biopsy - a practical and clinicopathologically relevant approach to diagnosis.

Advancements in imaging modalities have increased the frequency of renal mass discovery. Imaging has typically been considered sufficient to guide management for a large proportion of these tumours, but renal mass biopsies (RMBs) have an increasing role in determining malignancy and can be a valuable tool for preventing unnecessary surgery in patients with benign tumours. A structured approach should be used to help to navigate the expanding repertoire of renal tumours, many of which are molecularly defined. In terms of tumour subtyping, the pathologist's strategy should focus on stratifying patients into clinically different prognostic groups according to our current knowledge of tumour behaviour, including benign, low-grade or indolent, intermediate malignant or highly aggressive. Crucial pathological features and morphological mimicry of tumours can alter the tumour's prognostic group. Thus, pathologists and urologists can use RMB to select patients with tumours at a reduced risk of progression, which can be safely managed with active surveillance within a tailored imaging schedule, versus tumours for which ablation or surgical intervention is indicated. RMB is also crucial in the oncological setting to distinguish between different high-grade tumours and guide tailored management strategies.

A Systematic Review on the Diagnostic Value of Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitor PET/CT in Genitourinary Cancers.

In contemporary oncologic diagnostics, molecular imaging modalities are pivotal for precise local and metastatic staging. Recent studies identified fibroblast activation protein as a promising target for molecular imaging across various malignancies. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate the current literature on the utility of fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) PET/CT for staging patients with genitourinary malignancies. Methods: A systematic Embase and Medline search was conducted, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) process, on August 1, 2023. Relevant publications reporting on the diagnostic value of FAPI PET/CT in genitourinary malignancies were identified and included. Studies were critically reviewed using a modified version of a tool for quality appraisal of case reports. Study results were summarized using a narrative approach. Results: We included 22 retrospective studies with a cumulative total of 69 patients, focusing on prostate cancer, urothelial carcinoma of the bladder and of the upper urinary tract, renal cell carcinoma, and testicular cancer. FAPI PET/CT was able to visualize both local and metastatic disease, including challenging cases such as prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-negative prostate cancer. Compared with radiolabeled 18F-FDG and PSMA PET/CT, FAPI PET/CT showed heterogeneous performance. In selected cases, FAPI PET/CT demonstrated superior tumor visualization (i.e., better tumor-to-background ratios and visualization of small tumors or metastatic deposits visible in no other way) over 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting local or metastatic disease, whereas comparisons with PSMA PET/CT showed both superior and inferior performances. Challenges in FAPI PET/CT arise from physiologic urinary excretion of most FAPI radiotracers, hindering primary-lesion visualization in the bladder and upper urinary tract, despite generally providing high tumor-to-background ratios. Conclusion: The current findings suggest that FAPI PET/CT may hold promise as a future tool to aid clinicians in detecting genitourinary malignancies. Given the substantial heterogeneity among the included studies and the limited number of patients, caution in interpreting these findings is warranted. Subsequent prospective and comparative investigations are anticipated to delve more deeply into this innovative imaging modality and elucidate its role in clinical practice.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on renal cancer care.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on renal cell carcinoma (RCC) care in the Netherlands. METHODS: Newly diagnosed RCCs between 2018 and 2021 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry; 2020-2021 was defined as COVID period and 2018-2019 as reference period. Numbers of RCCs were evaluated using 3-week-moving averages, overall and by disease stage and age. Changes in treatment were evaluated with logistic regression analyses. To evaluate possible delays in care, time to start of treatment was assessed. The cumulative number of metastatic RCC (mRCC) over time was assessed to evaluate stage shift. RESULTS: During the 1st COVID wave (weeks 9-22, 2020), the number of new RCC diagnoses decreased with 15%. Numbers restored partially in 2020, but remained 10% lower compared to 2018/2019. The decline was mostly due to a drop in T1a/T1b RCCs and in age > 70 years. 2021 showed similar numbers of new RCC diagnoses compared to 2018/2019 without an increase due to previously missed RCCs. Treatment-related changes during the 1st COVID wave were limited and temporarily; less surgery in T1a RCCs in favor of more active surveillance, and in mRCC targeted therapy was preferred over immunotherapy. Time to start of firstline treatment was not prolonged during the 1st COVID wave. No increase in mRCC was found until the end of 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in fewer RCC diagnoses, especially T1a/T1b tumors. Treatment-related changes appeared to be limited, temporarily and in accordance with the adapted guidelines. The diagnostic delay could lead to more advanced RCCs in later years but there are no indications for this yet.

Multicenter randomized trial of deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy in synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving checkpoint inhibitors: the NORDIC-SUN-Trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary tumor removal by cytoreductive nephrectomy in synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients has been investigated in the context of various treatment regimens. Two randomized controlled trials investigated the role and timing of cytoreductive nephrectomy in the era of targeted therapy and demonstrated that upfront nephrectomy should no longer be performed when patients require systemic therapy. Superiority of checkpoint immunotherapy agents has led to a paradigm change from targeted therapies to immunotherapy-based first-line treatment in patients with primary metastatic disease; thus, deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy needs to be verified in the immunotherapy setting. Furthermore, a need exists for personalizing treatment choices for the individual patient to avoid unnecessary overtreatment. METHODS/DESIGN: To explore the impact of cytoreductive nephrectomy in this patient group receiving checkpoint immunotherapy, we initiated a randomized, controlled trial comparing deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy with no surgery. The trial integrates a comprehensive translational research program with specimen sampling for biomarker analysis. DISCUSSION: The trial aims to show that deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy improves overall survival in patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and furthermore, to identify relevant biomarkers for personalized renal cancer management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03977571 June 6, 2019.

The Impact of a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MTB) on Treatment Decision Making for Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC): 5-Year Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients in a locoregional renal cancer network by evaluating shared decision making (SDM) and adherence to MTB recommendations. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective cohort study included all cases from a Dutch renal cancer network with suspicion of or histologically confirmed RCC discussed in MTBs between 2017-2022. Main endpoints were distribution of cases presented, proportion of recommendations with multiple treatment options enabling shared decision making (SDM), definite treatment after SDM and adherence to MTB recommendations. Further endpoints were definite treatment per tumor stage stratified by age and inclusion in clinical trials. Outcomes were displayed as means and proportions (%). Pearson's Chi-Squared test was used to analyze the effect of age on definite treatment advice. RESULTS: Overall, 2651 cases were discussed, of which 1900 (72%) were new referrals and 751 (28%) rediscussions. Majority of cases were cT1a-b tumors (46%) and 22% were local recurrences or metachronous metastatic. Adherence to MTB recommendation was 96% and in 30% multiple treatment options were recommended, allowing for SDM. In 45% of cases with cT1a tumors multiple treatment options were recommended by the MTB, resulting in (cryo)ablation (32%) and AS (30%) as most frequent definite treatments after SDM. Among patients with cT3-4 tumors the inclusion rate in clinical trials was 47%. CONCLUSIONS: A network MTB creates opportunity to discuss multiple treatment options and clinical trials in SDM with patients at a high rate of adherence to MTB recommendation.

Nephron Sparing Treatment (NEST) for Small Renal Masses: A Feasibility Cohort-embedded Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Percutaneous Cryoablation and Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy.

There is a paucity of high-level evidence on small renal mass (SRM) management, as previous classical randomised controlled trials (RCTs) failed to meet accrual targets. Our objective was to assess the feasibility of recruitment to a cohort-embedded RCT comparing cryoablation (CRA) to robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). A total of 200 participants were recruited to the cohort, of whom 50 were enrolled in the RCT. In the CRA intervention arm, 84% consented (95% confidence interval [CI] 64-95%) and 76% (95% CI 55-91%) received CRA; 100% (95% CI 86-100%) of the control arm underwent RPN. The retention rate was 90% (95% CI 79-96%) at 6 mo. In the RPN group 2/25 (8%) were converted intra-operative to radical nephrectomy. Postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 1-2) occurred in 12% of the CRA group and 29% of the RPN group. The median length of hospital stay was shorter for CRA (1 vs 2 d; p = 0.019). At 6 mo, the mean change in renal function was -5.0 ml/min/1.73 m2 after CRA and -5.8 ml/min/1.73 m2 after RPN. This study demonstrates the feasibility of a cohort-embedded RCT comparing CRA and RPN. These data can be used to inform multicentre trials on SRM management. PATIENT SUMMARY: We assessed whether patients with a small kidney tumour would consent to a trial comparing two different treatments: cryoablation (passing small needles through the skin to freeze the kidney tumour) and surgery to remove part of the kidney. We found that most patients agreed and a full trial would therefore be feasible.

Diagnostic liquid biopsy biomarkers in renal cell cancer.

The clinical presentation of renal cell cancer (RCC) is shifting towards incidental and early detection, creating new challenges in RCC diagnosis. Overtreatment might be reduced with the development of new diagnostic biomarkers to distinguish benign from malignant small renal masses (SRMs). Differently from tissue biopsies, liquid biopsies are obtained from a patient's blood or urine and, therefore, are minimally invasive and suitable for longitudinal monitoring. The most promising types of liquid biopsy biomarkers for RCC diagnosis are circulating tumour cells, extracellular vesicles (EVs) and cell-free DNA. Circulating tumour cell assays have the highest specificity, with low processing time and costs. However, the biological characteristics and low sensitivity limit the use of these markers in SRM diagnostics. Cell-free DNA might complement the diagnosis of high-volume RCC, but the potential for clinical application in SRMs is limited. EVs have the highest biological abundance and the highest sensitivity in identifying low-volume disease; moreover, the molecular characteristics of these markers make EVs suitable for multiple analytical applications. Thus, currently, EV assays have the greatest potential for diagnostic application in RCC (including identification of SRMs). All these liquid biomarkers have potential in clinical practice, pending validation studies. Biomarker implementation will be needed to also improve characterization of RCC subtypes. Last, diagnostic biomarkers might be extended to prognostic or predictive applications.

Not-so-simple nephrectomy: Comparative analysis of radical and simple nephrectomy in a high-volume tertiary referral center.

OBJECTIVES: Simple nephrectomies can be challenging with significant morbidity. To prove the hypothesis of "not-so-simple" nephrectomy, we compared demographics, perioperative outcomes, and complications between simple and radical nephrectomy in a tertiary referral center. METHODS: We analyzed 473 consecutive radical nephrectomies (January 2018-October 2020) and simple nephrectomies (January 2016-October 2020). Univariate and multivariate analysis of perioperative outcomes utilized the Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-squared test, Mantel-Haenszel test of trend, and multiple linear regression. Radical nephrectomies were classified in cT1, cT2a, and cT2b-T3 subgroups and compared to simple nephrectomies. Minimally invasive and open techniques were compared between the two groups. Infected versus non-infected simple nephrectomies were compared. RESULTS: A total of 344 radical and 129 simple nephrectomies were included. Simple nephrectomy was an independent predictor of increased operative time (p = 0.001), length of stay (p = 0.049), and postoperative complications (p < 0.001). Simple nephrectomies had higher operative time (p < 0.001), length of stay (p = 0.014), and postoperative morbidity (p < 0.001) than cT1 radical nephrectomies and significantly more Clavien 1-2 complications than cT2a radical nephrectomies (p = 0.001). The trend was similar in minimally invasive operations. However, conversion to open rates was not significantly different. Infected simple nephrectomies had increased operative time (p < 0.001), length of stay (p = 0.005), blood loss (p = 0.016), and intensive care stay (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing simple nephrectomy experienced increased operative time and morbidity. Simple nephrectomy carries higher morbidity than radical nephrectomy in tumors ≤10 cm. Robotic simple nephrectomies may reduce open conversion rates. Postoperative intensive care and enhanced recovery may be essential in simple nephrectomy planning with infected pathology.

Summary of Research: Adjuvant Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Placebo for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma After Nephrectomy (CheckMate 914): A Double-Blind, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial.

This is a summary of a research article reporting Part A of the CheckMate 914 study (NCT03138512; EudraCT 2016-004502-34). Following surgery to remove renal cell carcinoma (RCC), people with a high risk of the cancer returning received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (adjuvant therapy) or placebo to see if this risk was reduced. The results of this study showed that the risk of RCC returning or death was not changed with adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment compared with placebo. In addition, people treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had more side effects compared with people treated with placebo (89% versus 57%).

Indications and Outcomes for Deferred Cytoreductive Nephrectomy Following Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Combination Therapy: Can Systemic Therapy be Withdrawn in Patients with No Evidence of Disease?

Background: Upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) is no longer the standard of care for patients with metastastic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with intermediate or poor prognosis according to the International mRCC Database Consortium categories. Objective: To investigate indications for CN following first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab, and assess management and outcomes for patients achieving no evidence of disease (NED) after CN. Design setting and participants: This was a retrospective cohort study among 125 patients with synchronous mRCC who received ipilimumab-nivolumab treatment between March 2019 and June 2022 at four European centres. At one of the four centres, nivolumab was stopped following NED. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We measured complete response of metastases (mCR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1; near-complete response of mestastases (mnCR) was defined as a >80% reduction in cumulative metastatic volume. Treatment-free survival (TFS), disease-free survival (DFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were determined. Results and limitations: At median follow-up of 25 mo, 23/125 patients (18%) had undergone deferred CN. Of 26 patients (21%) with mCR or mnCR, 19 (73%) underwent CN to achieve NED, of whom 11 (58%) discontinued nivolumab, with median TFS of 21 mo. For patients who continued (n = 8, 42%) versus discontinued nivolumab following NED, 2-yr DFS was 83% versus 60% (p = 0.675) and 3-yr CSS was 100% versus 70% (p = 0.325). Four patients underwent CN because of a dissociated response of the primary tumour and were still alive at median follow-up of 5 mo. Conclusions: CN can result in NED, durable DFS, and substantial time off systemic therapy. More collaborative data are required to ascertain the benefits of treatment discontinuation versus oncologic safety. Patient summary: In our study using real-world data, 18% of patients treated with immunotherapy underwent deferred kidney surgery. The majority were free of disease after 3 years. Half of the patients who stopped immunotherapy after surgery have been off therapy for 21 months or longer. Larger studies are needed to investigate the effect of kidney surgery and discontinuation of immunotherapy on survival.

A Systematic Review of Patient Race, Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Educational Attainment in Prostate Cancer Treatment Randomised Trials-Is the Evidence Base Applicable to the General Patient Population?

Context: Prostate cancer (PC) disproportionately affects men of Black race, and lower educational and socioeconomic status. Guidelines are based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, the representation of different races, educations, and socioeconomic backgrounds in these trials is unclear. Objective: To assess reporting of equality, diversity, and inclusion characteristics (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion [EDI]) and differences in treatment effects between different races, and educational or socioeconomic status. Evidence acquisition: We conducted a systematic review of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in April 2020 examining RCTs investigating treatments for PC. Outcomes collected were race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and socioeconomic status. RCTs investigating PC treatment in any population or setting were included. Data extraction of characteristics was performed independently by pairs of reviewers and checked by a senior author. The Cochrane risk of bias tool assessed the quality of included papers. Evidence synthesis: A total of 265 trials were included, and 138 of these were available as full-text articles. Fifty-four trials including 19 039 participants reported any EDI data. All 54 trials reported race, 11 reported ethnicity, three reported educational attainment, and one reported socioeconomic status. Patients of White race were the majority of the recruited population (82.6%), while the minority prevalence was as follows: Black 9.8% and Asian 5.7%. Three studies reported mortality outcomes depending on the participant's race. All three studies investigated different treatments, so a meta-analysis was not performed. No studies reported outcomes stratified by the educational or socioeconomic status of participants. Conclusions: There is poor reporting of patient race, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and educational attainment in RCTs for PC treatments between 2010 and 2020. Addressing this for future studies will help explain differences in the incidence of and mortality from PC and improve the generalisability of results. Patient summary: In this study, we reviewed prostate cancer treatment trials to see whether these reported race, education, and socioeconomic backgrounds of their patient populations. We conclude that reporting of these characteristics is poor. This needs to be improved in future to improve outcomes for patients with prostate cancer of all ethnical, racial, and socioeconomic groups.

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.