Perioperative nivolumab versus observation in patients with renal cell carcinoma undergoing nephrectomy (PROSPER ECOG-ACRIN EA8143): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for patients with intermediate-to-high risk renal cell carcinoma is partial or radical nephrectomy followed by surveillance. We aimed to investigate use of nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma to determine recurrence-free survival compared with surgery only. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (PROSPER EA8143), patients were recruited from 183 community and academic sites across the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, with previously untreated clinical stage T2 or greater or Tany N+ renal cell carcinoma of clear cell or non-clear cell histology planned for partial or radical nephrectomy. Selected patients with oligometastatic disease, who were disease free at other disease sites within 12 weeks of surgery, were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients using permuted blocks (block size of 4) within stratum (clinical TNM stage) to either nivolumab plus surgery, or surgery only followed by surveillance. In the nivolumab group, nivolumab 480 mg was administered before surgery, followed by nine adjuvant doses. The primary endpoint was investigator-reviewed recurrence-free survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma assessed in all randomly assigned patients regardless of histology. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started the assigned protocol treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03055013, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2017, and June 2, 2021, 819 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus surgery (404 [49%]) or surgery only (415 [51%]). 366 (91%) of 404 patients assigned to nivolumab plus surgery and 387 (93%) of 415 patients assigned to surgery only group started treatment. Median age was 61 years (IQR 53-69), 248 (30%) of 819 patients were female, 571 (70%) were male, 672 (88%) were White, and 77 (10%) were Hispanic or Latino. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee stopped the trial at a planned interim analysis (March 25, 2022) because of futility. Median follow-up was 30·4 months (IQR 21·5-42·4) in the nivolumab group and 30·1 months (21·9-41·8) in the surgery only group. 381 (94%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 399 (96%) of 415 in the surgery only group had renal cell carcinoma and were included in the recurrence-free survival analysis. As of data cutoff (May 24, 2023), recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between nivolumab (125 [33%] of 381 had recurrence-free survival events) versus surgery only (133 [33%] of 399; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·74-1·21]; one-sided p=0·32). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were elevated lipase (17 [5%] of 366 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group vs none in the surgery only group), anaemia (seven [2%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [3%] vs one [<1%]), abdominal pain (four [1%] vs six [2%]), and increased serum amylase (nine [2%] vs none). 177 (48%) patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 93 (24%) in the surgery only group had grade 3-5 adverse events due to any cause, the most common of which were anaemia (23 [6%] vs 19 [5%]), hypertension (27 [7%] vs nine [2%]), and elevated lipase (18 [5%] vs six [2%]). 48 (12%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab group and 40 (10%) of 415 in the surgery only group died, of which eight (2%) and three (1%), respectively, were determined to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: Perioperative nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab did not improve recurrence-free survival versus surgery only followed by surveillance in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial Evaluating Perioperative Risk-Stratification and Risk-Based, Protocol-Driven Management After Elective Major Cancer Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy of risk-based, protocol-driven management versus (vs) usual management after elective major cancer surgery to reduce 30-day rates of postoperative death or serious complications (DSC) . SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Major cancer surgery is associated with significant perioperative risks which result in worse long-term outcomes. METHODS: Adults scheduled for elective major cancer surgery were stratified/randomized to risk-based escalating levels of care, monitoring, and co-management vs usual management. The primary study outcome was 30-day rate of DSC. Additional outcomes included complications, adverse events, health care utilization, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and disease-free and overall survival (DFS and OS). RESULTS: Between August 2014 and June 2020, 1529 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to the study arms; 738 patients in the Intervention Arm and 732 patients in the Control Arm were eligible for analysis. 30-day rate of DSC with the intervention was 15.0% (95% CI, 12.5-17.6%) vs 14.1%, (95% CI, 11.6-16.6%) with usual management (P=0.65). There were no differences in 30-day rates of complications or adverse events (including return to the operating room); postoperative length of stay; rate of discharge to home; or 30, 60, or 90-day HRQOL or rates of hospital readmission or receipt of anti-neoplastic therapy between the study arms. At median follow-up of 48 months, OS (P=0.57) and DFS (P=0.91) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Risk-based, protocol-driven management did not reduce 30-day rate of DSC after elective major cancer surgery compared to usual management, nor improve postoperative health care utilization, HRQOL, or cancer outcomes. Trials are needed to identify cost-effective, tailored perioperative strategies to optimize outcomes after major cancer surgery.

Adjuvant everolimus after surgery for renal cell carcinoma (EVEREST): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing resection of renal cell carcinoma are at risk of disease relapse. We evaluated the effectiveness of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus administered after surgery. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we enrolled adults with histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma who had undergone a full surgical resection and were at intermediate-high or very high risk of recurrence at 398 academic and community institution centres in the USA. After nephrectomy, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central web-based application using a dynamic balancing algorithm to receive 10 mg oral everolimus daily or placebo for 54 weeks. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival. Efficacy analyses included all eligible, randomly assigned patients; safety analysis included all patients who received treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01120249 and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2011, and Sept 15, 2016, a total of 1545 patients were randomly assigned to receive everolimus (n=775) or placebo (n=770), of whom 755 assigned to everolimus and 744 assigned to placebo were eligible for inclusion in the efficacy analysis. With a median follow-up of 76 months (IQR 61-92), recurrence-free survival was longer with everolimus than with placebo (5-year recurrence-free survival 67% [95% CI 63-70] vs 63% [60-67]; stratified log-rank p=0·050; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·00; p=0·051) but did not meet the prespecified p value for statistical significance of 0·044. Recurrence-free survival was longer with everolimus than with placebo in the very-high-risk group (HR 0·79, 95% CI 0·65-0·97; p=0·022) but not in the intermediate-high-risk group (0·99, 0·73-1·35; p=0·96). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 343 (46%) of 740 patients who received everolimus and 79 (11%) of 723 who received placebo. INTERPRETATION: Postoperative everolimus did not improve recurrence-free survival compared with placebo among patients with renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. These results do not support the adjuvant use of everolimus for renal cell carcinoma after surgery. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, National Clinical Trials Network, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and The Hope Foundation.

Association of circulating tumor DNA with patient prognosis in surgically resected renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite complete resection, 20%-50% of patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) experience recurrence within 5 years. Accurate assessment of prognosis in high-risk patients would aid in improving outcomes. Here we evaluate the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in RCC using banked samples and clinical data from a single institution. METHODS: The cohort consisted of 45 RCC patients (≥pT1b) who underwent complete resection. The presence of ctDNA in plasma was determined using a personalized, tumor-informed ctDNA assay (Signatera RUO, Natera, Inc.). Relationships with outcomes and other relevant clinical variables were assessed. The median follow-up was 62 months. RESULTS: Plasma ctDNA was detected in 18 out of 36 patients (50%) pre-operatively and was associated with increased tumor size (mean 9.3 cm vs. 7.0 cm, P < .05) and high Fuhrman grade (60% grades III-IV vs 27% grade II, P = .07). The presence of ctDNA, either pre-operatively or at any time post-operatively, was associated with inferior relapse-free survival (HR = 2.70, P = .046; HR = 3.23, P = .003, respectively). Among patients who were ctDNA positive at any time point, the sensitivity of relapse prediction was 84% with a PPV of 90%. Of note, ctDNA positivity at a post-surgical time point revealed a PPV of 100% and NPV of 64%. The lack of ctDNA detection at both time points yielded an NPV of 80%. CONCLUSIONS: Detection of plasma ctDNA using a personalized assay is prognostic of recurrence in patients with resected RCC. Herein, we describe a successful approach for its application and identify potential limitations to be addressed in future studies.

Molecular Characterization of TFE3-Rearranged Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comparative Study With Papillary and Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinomas.

TFE3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma (rRCC) is a rare subtype of renal cell carcinomas belonging to the MiT family translocation RCC. To further elucidate the co-alterations that occur along with TFE3 fusions in rRCC, we characterized the genomic, transcriptional, and immune landscapes in comparison to clear cell (ccRCC) and papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC). Next-generation sequencing of RNA (whole transcriptome) and DNA (592-gene panel or whole exome) for rRCC (N = 20), pRCC (N = 20), and ccRCC samples (N = 392) was performed. Patients with rRCC were significantly younger and more frequently female (median 44.5 years, 75.0% female) as compared with patients with pRCC (68.5 years, 25.0% female; P < .05) and ccRCC (62.0 years, 27.8% female; P < .05). A total of 8 unique fusion partners were observed, including a novel fusion with SRRM2::TFE3 in 2 patients. ccRCC exhibited significantly higher mutation rates of VHL (0% rRCC, 0% pRCC, 78.7% ccRCC; P < .05) and PBMR1 (0% rRCC, 5.0% pRCC, 49.4% ccRCC; P < .05). The genomic landscapes of rRCC were sparse with no mutations occurring with a prevalence higher than 10% other than pTERT (18.2% rRCC, 0% pRCC, 9.2% ccRCC). rRCC were associated with significantly less M1 macrophages (0.8%) as compared with pRCC (1.4%) and ccRCC (2.7%) (P < .05), suggesting a cold tumor-immune microenvironment. However, rRCC were more commonly PD-L1+ (rRCC 50%, pRCC 19.0%, ccRCC 12.2%; P < .05). Gene set enrichment analysis showed that rRCC are enriched in genes related to oxidative phosphorylation when compared with both ccRCC and pRCC. Despite having a colder tumor-immune microenvironment than pRCC and ccRCC, increased PDL1+ rates in rRCC suggest a potential benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Real-time estimation of nephron activity with a linear measurement system (RENAL-MS) predicts postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a simple point-of-care measurement system estimating renal parenchymal volume using tools ubiquitously available could be used to replace nuclear medicine renal scintigraphy (NMRS) in current clinical practice to predict estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) after nephrectomy by estimating preoperative split renal function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent abdominal cross-sectional imaging (computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging) and mercaptoacetyltriglycine (MAG3) NMRS prior to total nephrectomy at a single institution. We developed the real-time estimation of nephron activity with a linear measurement system (RENAL-MS) method of estimating postoperative renal function via the following technique: renal parenchymal volume of the removed kidney relative to the remaining kidney was estimated as the product of renal length and the average of six renal parenchymal thickness measurements. The utility of this value was compared to the utility of the split renal function measured by MAG3 for prediction of eGFR and new onset Stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD) at ≥90 days after nephrectomy using uni- and multivariate linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients met the study criteria. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 69 (61-80) years. The median (IQR) pre- and postoperative eGFR was 74 (IQR 58-90) and 46 (35-62) mL/min/1.73 m2 , respectively. [Correction added on 29 December 2023, after first online publication: The data numbers in the preceding sentence have been corrected.] Correlations between actual and predicted postoperative eGFR were similar whether the RENAL-MS or NMRS methods were used, with correlation using RENAL-MS being slightly numerically but not statistically superior (R = 0.82 and 0.76; P = 0.138). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis using logistic regression estimates incorporating age, sex, and preoperative creatinine to predict postoperative Stage 3 CKD were similar between RENAL-MS and NMRS (area under the curve 0.93 vs. 0.97). [Correction added on 29 December 2023, after first online publication: The data numbers in the preceding sentence have been corrected.] CONCLUSION: A point-of-care tool to estimate renal parenchymal volume (RENAL-MS) performed equally as well as NMRS to predict postoperative eGFR and de novo Stage 3 CKD after nephrectomy in our population, suggesting NMRS may not be necessary in this setting.

Localised non-metastatic sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: a 31-year externally verified study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate post-nephrectomy outcomes and predictors of cancer-specific survival (CSS) between patients with localised sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (sRCC) and those with Grade 4 RCC (non-sRCC), as most sRCC research focuses on advanced or metastatic disease with limited studies analysing outcomes of patients with localised non-metastatic sRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 564 patients with localised RCC underwent partial or radical nephrectomy between June 1988 to March 2019 for sRCC (n = 204) or World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology Grade 4 non-sRCC (n = 360). The CSS at every stage between groups was assessed. Phase III ASSURE clinical trial data were used to externally validate the CSS findings. The Mann-Whitney U-test and chi-squared test compared outcomes and the Kaplan-Meier method evaluated CSS, overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival. Clinicopathological features associated with RCC death were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 31.5 months. The median OS and CSS between the sRCC and Grade 4 non-sRCC groups was 45 vs 102 months and 49 vs 152 months, respectively (P < 0.001). At every stage, sRCC had worse CSS compared to Grade 4 non-sRCC. Notably, pT1 sRCC had worse CSS than pT3 Grade 4 non-sRCC. Negative predictors of CSS were sarcomatoid features, non-clear cell histology, positive margins, higher stage (pT3/pT4), and use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). ASSURE external verification showed worse CSS in patients with sRCC (hazard ratio [HR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-2.36; P = 0.01), but not worse outcomes in MIS surgery (HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.75-2.56; P = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Localised sRCC had worse CSS compared to Grade 4 non-sRCC at every stage. Negative survival predictors included positive margins, higher pathological stage, use of MIS, and non-clear cell histology. sRCC is an aggressive variant even at low stages requiring vigilant surveillance and possible inclusion in adjuvant therapy trials.

Adjuvant atezolizumab versus placebo for patients with renal cell carcinoma at increased risk of recurrence following resection (IMmotion010): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for locoregional renal cell carcinoma is surgery, but many patients experience recurrence. The objective of the current study was to determine if adjuvant atezolizumab (vs placebo) delayed recurrence in patients with an increased risk of recurrence after resection. METHODS: IMmotion010 is a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial conducted in 215 centres in 28 countries. Eligible patients were patients aged 18 years or older with renal cell carcinoma with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component and increased risk of recurrence. After nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo (both intravenous) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice-web response system. Stratification factors were disease stage (T2 or T3a vs T3b-c or T4 or N+ vs M1 no evidence of disease), geographical region (north America [excluding Mexico] vs rest of the world), and PD-L1 status on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (<1% vs ≥1% expression). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients who were randomised, regardless of whether study treatment was received. The safety-evaluable population included all patients randomly assigned to treatment who received any amount of study drug (ie, atezolizumab or placebo), regardless of whether a full or partial dose was received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03024996, and is closed to further accrual. FINDINGS: Between Jan 3, 2017, and Feb 15, 2019, 778 patients were enrolled; 390 (50%) were assigned to the atezolizumab group and 388 (50%) to the placebo group. At data cutoff (May 3, 2022), the median follow-up duration was 44·7 months (IQR 39·1-51·0). Median investigator-assessed disease-free survival was 57·2 months (95% CI 44·6 to not evaluable) with atezolizumab and 49·5 months (47·4 to not evaluable) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·93, 95% CI 0·75-1·15, p=0·50). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (seven [2%] patients who received atezolizumab vs 15 [4%] patients who received placebo), hyperglycaemia (ten [3%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (two [1%] vs seven [2%]). 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo had a serious adverse event. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy after resection for patients with renal cell carcinoma with increased risk of recurrence showed no evidence of improved clinical outcomes versus placebo. These study results do not support adjuvant atezolizumab for treatment of renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, a member of the Roche group.

Pathological and Clinical Outcomes in a Large Surveillance and Intervention Cohort of Radiographically Cystic Renal Masses.

PURPOSE: We evaluated oncologic risks in a large cohort of patients with radiographic cystic renal masses who underwent active surveillance or intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-institutional database of 4,340 kidney lesions managed with either active surveillance or intervention between 2000-2020 was queried for radiographically cystic renal masses. Association of radiographic tumor characteristics and high-grade pathology was evaluated. RESULTS: We identified 387 radiographically confirmed cystic lesions in 367 patients. Of these, 247 were resected (n=240) or ablated (n=7; n=247, 203 immediate vs 44 delayed intervention). Pathologically, 23% (n=56) demonstrated high-grade pathology. Cystic features were explicitly described by pathology in only 18% (n=33) of all lesions and in 7% (n=4) of high-grade lesions. Of the intervention cohort, African American race, male gender, and Bosniak score were associated with high-grade pathology (P < .05). On active surveillance (n=184), Bosniak IV lesions demonstrated faster growth rates than IIF and III lesions (2.7 vs 0.6 and 0.5 mm/y, P ≤ .001); however, growth rates were not associated with high-grade pathology (P = .5). No difference in cancer-specific survival was identified when comparing intervention vs active surveillance at 5 years (99% vs 100%, P = .2). No difference in recurrence was observed between immediate intervention vs delayed intervention (P > .9). CONCLUSIONS: A disconnect between "cystic" designation on imaging and pathology exists for renal lesions. Over 80% of radiographic Bosniak cystic lesions are not described as "cystic" on pathology reports. More than 1 in 5 resected cystic renal lesions demonstrated high-grade disease. Despite this finding, judiciously managed active surveillance ± delayed intervention is a safe and effective management option for most radiographic cystic renal masses.

Clinical Performance of Technetium-99m-Sestamibi SPECT/CT Imaging in Differentiating Oncocytic Tumors From Renal Cell Carcinoma in Routine Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Technetium-99m-sestamibi single-photon emission CT/x-ray CT is an emerging clinical tool to differentiate oncocytic tumors from renal cell carcinomas. We report data from a large institutional cohort of patients who underwent technetium-99m-sestamibi scans during evaluation of renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent technetium-99m-sestamibi single-photon emission CT/x-ray CT between February 2020 and December 2021 were included in the analysis. Scans were defined as "hot" for oncocytic tumor when technetium-99m-sestamibi uptake was qualitatively equivalent or higher between the mass of interest and normal renal parenchyma, suggesting oncocytoma, hybrid oncocytic/chromophobe tumor, or chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Demographic, pathological, and management strategy data were compared between "hot" and "cold" scans. For individuals who underwent diagnostic biopsy or extirpative procedures, the concordance between radiological findings and pathology was indexed. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients (with 88 masses) underwent technetium-99m-sestamibi imaging with 60 (84.5%) patients having at least 1 "cold" mass on imaging and 11 (15.5%) patients exhibiting only "hot" masses. Pathology was available for 7 "hot" masses, with 1 biopsy specimen (14.3%) being discordant (clear cell renal cell carcinoma). Five patients with "cold" masses underwent biopsy. Out of 5 biopsied masses, 4 (80%) were discordant oncocytomas. Of the extirpated specimens, 35/40 (87.5%) harbored renal cell carcinoma and 5/40 (12.5%) yielded discordant oncocytomas. In sum, 20% of pathologically sampled masses that were "cold" on technetium-99m-sestamibi imaging still harbored oncocytoma/hybrid oncocytic/chromophobe tumor/chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Further work is needed to define utility of technetium-99m-sestamibi in real-world clinical practice. Our data suggest this imaging strategy is not yet ready to replace biopsy.

Diabetes, Obesity, and Pathological Upstaging in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From a Large Multi-institutional Consortium.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether clinical risk factors and morphometric features on preoperative imaging can be utilized to identify those patients with cT1 tumors who are at higher risk of upstaging (pT3a). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective international case-control study of consecutive patients treated surgically with radical or partial nephrectomy for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (cT1 N0) conducted between January 2010 and December 2018. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to study associations of preoperative risk factors on pT3a pathological upstaging among all patients, as well as subsets with those with preoperative tumors ≤4 cm, renal nephrometry scores, tumors ≤4 cm with nephrometry scores, and clear cell histology. We also examined association with pT3a subsets (renal vein, sinus fat, perinephric fat). RESULTS: Among the 4,092 partial nephrectomy and 2,056 radical nephrectomy patients, pathological upstaging occurred in 4.9% and 23.3%, respectively. Among each group independent factors associated with pT3a upstaging were increasing preoperative tumor size, increasing age, and the presence of diabetes. Specifically, among partial nephrectomy subjects diabetes (OR=1.65; 95% CI 1.17, 2.29), male sex (OR=1.62; 95% CI 1.14, 2.33), and increasing BMI (OR=1.03; 95% CI 1.00, 1.05 per 1 unit BMI) were statistically associated with upstaging. Subset analyses identified hilar tumors as more likely to be upstaged (partial nephrectomy OR=1.91; 95% CI 1.12, 3.16; radical nephrectomy OR=2.16; 95% CI 1.44, 3.25). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes and higher BMI were associated with pathological upstaging, as were preoperative tumor size, increased age, and male sex. Similarly, hilar tumors were frequently upstaged.

Partial or radical nephrectomy for complex renal mass: a comparative analysis of oncological outcomes and complications from the ROSULA (Robotic Surgery for Large Renal Mass) Collaborative Group.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and minimally invasive radical nephrectomy (MIS-RN) for complex renal masses (CRM). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter analysis of CRM patients who underwent MIS-RN and RAPN. CRM was defined as RENAL score 10-12. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were cancer-specific survival (CSS), recurrence, and complications. Multivariable analysis (MVA) and Kaplan-Meier Analysis (KMA) were used to analyze functional and survival outcomes for RN vs. PN by pathological stage. RESULTS: 926 patients were analyzed (MIS-RN = 437/RAPN = 489; median follow-up 24.0 months). MVA demonstrated lack of transfusion (HR = 1.63, p = 0.005), low-grade (HR = 1.18, p = 0.018) and smaller tumor size (HR = 1.05, p < 0.001) were associated with OS. Younger age (HR = 1.01, p = 0.017), high-grade (HR = 1.18, p = 0.017), smaller tumor size (HR = 1.05, p < 0.001), and lack of transfusion (HR = 1.39, p = 0.038) were associated with CSS. Increasing tumor size (HR = 1.18, p < 0.001), high-grade (HR = 3.21, p < 0.001), and increasing age (HR = 1.02, p = 0.009) were independent risk factors for recurrence. Type of surgery was not associated with major complications (p = 0.094). For KMA of MIS-RN vs. RAPN for pT1, pT2 and pT3, 5-year OS was 85% vs. 88% (p = 0.078); 82% vs. 80% (p = 0.442) and 84% vs. 83% (p = 0.863), respectively. 5-year CSS was 98% for both procedures (p = 0.473); 94% vs. 92% (p = 0.735) and 91% vs. 90% (p = 0.581). 5-year non-CSS was 87% vs. 93% (p = 0.107); 87% for pT2 (p = 0.485) and 92% for pT3 for both procedures (p = 0.403). CONCLUSION: RAPN in CRM is not associated with increased risk of complications or worsened oncological outcomes when compared to MIS-RN and may be preferred when clinically indicated.

The Role of Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Real-World Multi-Institutional Analysis.

PURPOSE: The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) was challenged by the results of the CARMENA trial. Here we evaluate the role of CN in mRCC patients, including those receiving modern therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included patients with synchronous mRCC between 2011-2020 from the de-identified nationwide Flatiron Health database. We evaluated 3 groups: systemic therapy alone, CN followed by systemic therapy (up-front CN [uCN]) and systemic therapy followed by CN (deferred CN [dCN]). The primary outcome was median overall survival (mOS) in patients receiving systemic therapy alone vs uCN. Secondary outcome was overall survival in patients receiving uCN vs dCN. First-treatment, landmark and time-varying covariate analyses were conducted to overcome immortal time bias. Weighted Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to assess the effect of therapy on survival. RESULTS: Of 1,910 patients with mRCC, 972 (57%) received systemic therapy, 605 (32%) received uCN, 142 (8%) dCN and 191 (10%) CN alone; 433 (23%) patients received immunotherapy-based therapy. The adjusted mOS was significantly improved in first-treatment, landmark and time-varying covariate analysis (mOS 26.6 vs 14.6 months, 36.3 vs 21.1 months and 26.1 vs 12.2 months, respectively) in patients undergoing CN. Among patients receiving CN and systemic therapy, the timing of systemic therapy relative to CN was not significantly related to overall survival (HR=1.0, 95% CI 0.76-1.32, p=0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support an oncologic role for CN in select mRCC patients. In patients receiving both CN and systemic therapy, the survival benefit compared to systemic alone was similar for up-front and deferred CN.

Outcomes of Lymph Node Dissection in Nephroureterectomy in the Treatment of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: Analysis of the ROBUUST Registry.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate outcomes of lymph node dissection (LND) in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis utilizing the ROBUUST (for RObotic surgery for Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer Study) registry for patients who did not undergo LND (pNx), LND with negative lymph nodes (pN0) and LND with positive nodes (pN+). Primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Multivariable analyses evaluated predictors of outcomes and pathological node positivity. Kaplan-Meier analyses (KMAs) compared survival outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 877 patients were analyzed (LND performed in 358 [40.8%]/pN+ in 73 [8.3%]). Median nodes obtained were 10.2 for pN+ and 9.8 for pN0. Multivariable analyses noted increasing age (OR 1.1, p <0.001), pN+ (OR 3.1, p <0.001) and pathological stage pTis/3/4 (OR 3.4, p <0.001) as predictors for all-cause mortality. Clinical high-grade tumors (OR 11.74, p=0.015) and increasing tumor size (OR 1.14, p=0.001) were predictive for lymph node positivity. KMAs for pNx, pN0 and pN+ demonstrated 2-year OS of 80%, 86% and 42% (p <0.001) and 2-year RFS of 53%, 61% and 35% (p <0.001), respectively. KMAs comparing pNx, pN0 ≥10 nodes and pN0 <10 nodes showed no significant difference in 2-year OS (82% vs 85% vs 84%, p=0.6) but elicited significantly higher 2-year RFS in the pN0 ≥10 group (60% vs 74% vs 54%, p=0.043). CONCLUSIONS: LND during nephroureterectomy in patients with positive lymph nodes provides prognostic data, but is not associated with improved OS. LND yields ≥10 in patients with clinical node negative disease were associated with improved RFS. In high-grade and large tumors, lymphadenectomy should be considered.

Adjuvant therapy in patients with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: post hoc analysis from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) E2805.

OBJECTIVES: To study the effects of adjuvant therapy in patients with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (sRCC) enrolled in the randomised phase III clinical trial E2805. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The original trial (E2805) was a randomised, double-blinded phase III clinical trial comparing outcomes in 1943 patients with RCC accrued between 2006 and 2010 and treated with up to 1 year of adjuvant placebo, sunitinib, or sorafenib. The present study analyses the cohort of patients with sRCC that participated in E2805. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients (8.8%) had sarcomatoid features. Of these, 52 patients received sunitinib, 58 received sorafenib, and 61 received placebo. Most patients were pT3-4 (71.1%, 63.7%, and 70.5%, respectively); 17.3%, 19.0%, and 27.9% had pathologically positive lymph nodes; and 59.6%, 62.1%, and 62.3% of the patients were University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Integrated Staging System (UISS) very-high risk. In 49% of patients with subsequent development of metastatic disease, recurrence occurred in the lung, followed by 30% in the lymph nodes, and 13% in the liver. There was a high local recurrence rate in the renal bed (16%, 29%, and 18%, respectively). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 33.6%, 36.0%, and 27.8%, for sunitinib, sorafenib and placebo, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-1.20 for sunitinib vs placebo, and HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53-1.28 for sorafenib vs placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with sunitinib or sorafenib did not show an improvement in DFS or OS in patients with sRCC.

Safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and malignant ureteric obstruction.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients with carcinoma invading bladder muscle (MIBC) and ureteric obstruction can safely receive cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (C-NAC), and to determine whether such patients require relief of obstruction with a ureteric stent or percutaneous nephrostomy prior to beginning C-NAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a single-institution retrospective analysis of MIBC patients receiving C-NAC and falling into three groups: no ureteric obstruction (NO); relieved ureteric obstruction (RO); and unrelieved ureteric obstruction (URO). To address whether patients with obstruction can safely receive C-NAC, we compared patients with NO to those with RO, with the primary outcome of premature chemotherapy discontinuation. To investigate whether patients with obstruction should have the obstruction relieved prior to NAC, we compared RO to URO patients using a primary composite outcome of grade ≥ 3 adverse events, premature chemotherapy discontinuation, dose reduction, or dose interruption. The primary outcomes were compared using multivariable logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed for the RO vs URO comparison, in which patients with only mild degrees of obstruction were excluded from the URO group. RESULTS: A total of 193 patients with NO, 49 with RO, and 35 with URO were analysed. There were no statistically significant differences between those with NO and those with RO in chemotherapy discontinuation (15% vs 22%; P = 0.3) or any secondary outcome. There was no statistically significant difference between those with RO and URO in the primary composite outcome (51% vs 53%; P = 1) or any secondary outcome. CONCLUSION: Patients with ureteric obstruction can safely receive C-NAC. Relief of obstruction was not associated with increased safety of C-NAC delivery.

Adverse Events Reported by Patients With Cancer After Administration of a 2-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Most safety and efficacy trials of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines excluded patients with cancer, yet these patients are more likely than healthy individuals to contract SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to become seriously ill after infection. Our objective was to record short-term adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer, to compare the magnitude and duration of these reactions with those of patients without cancer, and to determine whether adverse reactions are related to active cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, single-institution observational study was performed at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All study participants received 2 doses of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine separated by approximately 3 weeks. A report of adverse reactions to dose 1 of the vaccine was completed upon return to the clinic for dose 2. Participants completed an identical survey either online or by telephone 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: The cohort of 1,753 patients included 67.5% who had a history of cancer and 12.0% who were receiving active cancer treatment. Local pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom for all respondents and did not distinguish patients with cancer from those without cancer after either dose 1 (39.3% vs 43.9%; P=.07) or dose 2 (42.5% vs 40.3%; P=.45). Among patients with cancer, those receiving active treatment were less likely to report pain at the injection site after dose 1 compared with those not receiving active treatment (30.0% vs 41.4%; P=.002). The onset and duration of adverse events was otherwise unrelated to active cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: When patients with cancer were compared with those without cancer, few differences in reported adverse events were noted. Active cancer treatment had little impact on adverse event profiles.

A Critical Appraisal of the American College of Surgeons Medically Necessary, Time Sensitive Procedures (MeNTS) Scoring System, Urology Consensus Recommendations and Individual Surgeon Case Prioritization for Resumption of Elective Urological Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: Resumption of elective urology cases postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic requires a systematic approach to case prioritization, which may be based on detailed cross-specialty questionnaires, specialty specific published expert opinion or by individual (operating) surgeon review. We evaluated whether each of these systems effectively stratifies cases and for agreement between approaches in order to inform departmental policy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated triage of elective cases postponed within our department due to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 9, 2020 to May 22, 2020) using questionnaire based surgical prioritization (American College of Surgeons Medically Necessary, Time Sensitive Procedures [MeNTS] instrument), consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization (based on published urological recommendations) and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scoring (developed and managed within our department). Lower scores represented greater urgency. MeNTS scores were compared across consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores. RESULTS: A total of 204 cases were evaluated. Median MeNTS score was 50 (IQR 44, 55), and mean consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores were 2.6±0.6 and 2.2±0.8, respectively. Median MeNTS scores were 52 (46.5, 57.5), 50 (44.5, 54.5) and 48 (43.5, 54) for individual surgeon based surgical prioritization priority 1, 2 and 3 cases (p=0.129), and 55 (51.5, 57), 47.5 (42, 56) and 49 (44, 54) for consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization priority scores 1, 2, and 3 (p=0.002). There was none to slight agreement between consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores (Kappa 0.131, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Questionnaire based, expert opinion based and individual surgeon based approaches to case prioritization result in significantly different case prioritization. Questionnaire based surgical prioritization did not meaningfully stratify urological cases, and consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization frequently disagreed. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these systems should be considered in future disaster planning scenarios.

Renal Mass and Localized Renal Cancer: Evaluation, Management, and Follow-up: AUA Guideline: Part II.

PURPOSE: This AUA Guideline focuses on active surveillance (AS) and follow-up after intervention for adult patients with clinically-localized renal masses suspicious for cancer, including solid enhancing tumors and Bosniak 3/4 complex cystic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In January 2021, the Renal Mass and Localized Renal Cancer guideline underwent additional amendment based on a current literature-search. This literature search retrieved additional studies published between July 2016 to October 2020 using the same Key Questions and search criteria from the Renal Mass and Localized Renal Cancer guideline. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned strength-rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 1[Table: see text]). RESULTS: AS with potential delayed intervention should be considered for patients with solid, enhancing renal masses <2cm or Bosniak 3-4 lesions that are predominantly-cystic. Shared decision-making about AS should consider risks of intervention/competing mortality versus the potential oncologic benefits of intervention. Recommendations for renal mass biopsy and considerations for periodic clinical/imaging-based surveillance are discussed. After intervention, risk-based surveillance protocols are defined incorporating clinical/laboratory evaluation and abdominal/chest imaging designed to detect local/systemic recurrences and possible treatment-related sequelae, such as progressive renal-insufficiency. CONCLUSION: AS is a potential management strategy for some patients with clinically-localized renal masses that requires careful risk-assessment, shared decision-making and periodic-reassessment. Follow-up after intervention is designed to identify local/systemic recurrences and potential treatment-related sequelae. A risk-based approach should be prioritized with selective use of laboratory/imaging resources.

Renal Mass and Localized Renal Cancer: Evaluation, Management, and Follow-Up: AUA Guideline: Part I.

PURPOSE: This AUA Guideline focuses on evaluation/counseling/management of adult patients with clinically-localized renal masses suspicious for cancer, including solid-enhancing tumors and Bosniak 3/4 complex-cystic lesions. MATERIALS/METHODS: The Renal Mass and Localized Renal Cancer guideline underwent an update literature review which resulted in the 2021 amendment. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 1[Table: see text]). RESULTS: Great progress has been made regarding the evaluation/management of clinically-localized renal masses. These guidelines provide updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding evaluation/counseling including the evolving role of renal-mass-biopsy (RMB). Given great variability of clinical/oncologic/functional characteristics, index patients are not utilized and the panel advocates individualized counseling/management. Options for intervention (partial-nephrectomy (PN), radical-nephrectomy (RN), and thermal-ablation (TA)) are reviewed including recent data about comparative-effectiveness/potential morbidities. Oncologic issues are prioritized while recognizing the importance of functional-outcomes for survivorship. Granular criteria for RN are provided to help reduce overutilization of RN while also avoiding imprudent PN. Priority for PN is recommended for clinical T1a lesions, along with selective utilization of TA, which has good efficacy for tumors≤3.0 cm. Recommendations for genetic-counseling have been revised and considerations for adjuvant-therapies are addressed. Active-surveillance and follow-up after intervention are discussed in an adjunctive article. CONCLUSION: Several factors require consideration during counseling/management of patients with clinically-localized renal masses including general health/comorbidities, oncologic-considerations, functional-consequences, and relative efficacy/potential morbidities of various management-strategies.