Case–control study assessing the impact of COVID19 in advanced kidney cancer patients treated with antiangiogenics or immunotherapy: the COVID-REN study

Background Cancer is a risk factor for developing severe COVID19. Additionally, SARS-CoV2 has a special tropism for renal cells and complications like thrombosis or cytokine storm could be enhanced by standard treatments in kidney cancer (i.e., antiangiogenics or immunotherapy). Thus, understanding the impact of COVID19 in patients with this tumor is key for their correct management. Methods We designed a retrospective case–control study comparing the outcome of three groups of advanced kidney cancer patients on systemic treatment: cohort A (developed COVID19 while on antiangiogenics), cohort B (developed COVID19 while on immunotherapy) and cohort C (non-infected). Matching factors were age, gender, and treatment. Results 95 patients were recruited in 16 centers in Spain from September 2020 to May 2021. Finally, 85 were deemed as eligible (23 cohort A, 21 cohort B, 41 cohort C). Patients with COVID required more dose interruptions (25 vs. six) and hospitalizations (10 vs. none) than those without COVID (both p = 0.001). No difference between cohorts A and B was observed regarding hospitalization or length of stay. No ICU admission was registered and one patient in cohort B died due to COVID19. Regarding cancer evolution, three patients in cohort A presented progressive disease after COVID19 compared to two in cohort B. One case in cohort B, initially deemed as stable disease, achieved a partial response after COVID19. Conclusions Kidney cancer patients who developed COVID19 while on systemic therapy required more treatment interruptions and hospitalizations than those non-infected. However, no significant impact on cancer outcome was observed. Also, no difference was seen between cases on antiangiogenics or immunotherapy (AU)

Pandemia Covid-19 y cáncer renal: implicaciones y adaptación para un manejo óptimo de la enfermedad / Renal cell carcinoma and COVID-19 pandemia: Management strategies adapted to current practice

La pandemia COVID-19 causada por el virus SARS-CoV-2 ha provocado un importante impacto sanitario que ha afectado, entre otras áreas de la urología, al manejo del cáncer renal, tanto en su ámbito diagnóstico como de tratamiento. La elevada suspensión de intervenciones quirúrgicas, incluidas aquellas destinadas al tratamiento de esta patología, ocasionará una inevitable sobrecarga asistencial y quizá un potencial efecto deletéreo sobre sus resultados oncológicos, en especial en el cáncer renal localmente avanzado y en el metastásico. Los escenarios clínicos del carcinoma de células renales son bien distintos en función de su estadiaje, distinguiendo principalmente entre la baja prioridad de la enfermedad localizada o la alta prioridad del localmente avanzado y el metastásico en tratamiento activo. La duraciónin determinada y prevalencia posiblemente oscilante de la pandemia previsiblemente obligue a adaptar el manejo del cáncer renal en los servicios de urología y oncología, debiendo ser idealmente invidualizados según cada caso en el seno de unidades multidisciplinares. Para ello, se presentan algoritmos y tablas de manejo del cáncer renal adaptadas al periodo COVID-19 y estratificados según el estadio de la enfermedad, que puedan ser de utilidad para los especialistas dedicados a esta área de la uro-oncología

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus has caused an important health impact that has affected renal cell carcinoma management, among other urology areas. The high cancellation rate of surgeries, including those related to renal cancer, will cause an inevitable healthcare overload and probably a potential negative impact on its oncological outcomes, especially in locally advanced and metastatic renal cancer. Kidney cancer scenarios are quite different depending on their stage, distinguishing mainly between low priority of localized disease or high priority of locally advanced and metastatic under active treatment. The unknown pandemic duration and possibly fluctuating prevalence of the virus are likely to force an adaptation in the management of renal cell carcinoma among urology and oncology departments, ideally individualized on a case-by-case basis within multidisciplinary units. To this end, we present algorithms and tables regarding renal cell carcinoma management adapted to the COVID-19 period and stratified according to oncological stage, which might be useful for specialists dedicated to this uro-oncology area

Differential side effects profile in patients with mCRPC treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are currently approved for mCRPC patients. Both drugs have distinct mechanisms of action and may have different toxicity profile. There are limited data comparing the side effects of abiraterone and enzalutamide. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to better characterize the risk of adverse events associated with both drugs. METHODS: We performed a literature search on MEDLINE for studies reporting abiraterone and enzalutamide side effects from January 1966 to July 31, 2015. Abstracts presented at ASCO meetings from 2004 to 2015 were selected manually. Phase III RCT were included in analysis. We assessed the risk of adverse events reported in RCT by performing two meta-analyses: abiraterone-prednisone vs. placebo-prednisone (2,283 pts) and enzalutamide vs. placebo (2,914 pts). Summary of incidence, relative-risks (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on the heterogeneity of included studies. RESULTS: Overall, enzalutamide was not associated with all-grade (RR 1.06 - 95% CI 0.67-1.65) or grade ≥3 (RR 0.81 - 95% CI 0.28-2.33) cardiovascular events, but was associated with increased risk of all-grade fatigue (RR 1.29 - 95% CI 1.15-1.44). On the other hand, abiraterone was associated with increased risk of all-grade (RR 1.28 - 95% CI 1.06-1.55) and grade ≥3 (RR 1.76 - 95% CI 1.12-2.75) cardiovascular events, but was not associated with all-grade (RR 0.85 - 95% CI 0.58-1.23) or grade ≥3 (RR 1.07 - 95% CI 0.97-1.19) fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, abiraterone was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, while enzalutamide was associated with an increased risk of fatigue.