Overall Survival with Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy after surgery for renal-cell carcinoma was approved on the basis of a significant improvement in disease-free survival in the KEYNOTE-564 trial. Whether the results regarding overall survival from the third prespecified interim analysis of the trial would also favor pembrolizumab was uncertain. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had an increased risk of recurrence after surgery to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles (approximately 1 year) or until recurrence, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. A significant improvement in disease-free survival according to investigator assessment (the primary end point) was shown previously. Overall survival was the key secondary end point. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 496 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab and 498 to receive placebo. As of September 15, 2023, the median follow-up was 57.2 months. The disease-free survival benefit was consistent with that in previous analyses (hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.87). A significant improvement in overall survival was observed with pembrolizumab as compared with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.87; P = 0.005). The estimated overall survival at 48 months was 91.2% in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 86.0% in the placebo group; the benefit was consistent across key subgroups. Pembrolizumab was associated with a higher incidence of serious adverse events of any cause (20.7%, vs. 11.5% with placebo) and of grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to pembrolizumab or placebo (18.6% vs. 1.2%). No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant pembrolizumab was associated with a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival, as compared with placebo, among participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at increased risk for recurrence after surgery. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-564 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03142334.).

Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization. RESULTS: Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P = 0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.).

Cytosolic GDH1 degradation restricts protein synthesis to sustain tumor cell survival following amino acid deprivation.

The mTORC1 pathway plays key roles in regulating various biological processes, including sensing amino acid deprivation and driving expression of ribosomal protein (RP)-coding genes. In this study, we observed that depletion of glutamate dehydrogenase 1 (GDH1), an enzyme that converts glutamate to α-ketoglutarate (αKG), confers resistance to amino acid deprivation on kidney renal clear cell carcinoma (KIRC) cells. Mechanistically, under conditions of adequate nutrition, GDH1 maintains RP gene expression in a manner dependent on its enzymatic activity. Following amino acid deprivation or mTORC1 inhibition, GDH1 translocates from mitochondria to the cytoplasm, where it becomes ubiquitinated and degraded via the E3 ligase RNF213. GDH1 degradation reduces intracellular αKG levels by more than half and decreases the activity of αKG-dependent lysine demethylases (KDMs). Reduced KDM activity in turn leads to increased histone H3 lysine 9 and 27 methylation, further suppressing RP gene expression and preserving nutrition to support cell survival. In summary, our study exemplifies an economical and efficient strategy of solid tumor cells for coping with amino acid deficiency, which might in the future be targeted to block renal carcinoma progression.

Patients with ASPSCR1-TFE3 fusion achieve better response to ICI based combination therapy among TFE3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: TFE3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma (TFE3-rRCC) is a rare but highly heterogeneous renal cell carcinoma (RCC) entity, of which the clinical treatment landscape is largely undefined. This study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy of different systemic treatments and further explore the molecular correlates. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with metastatic TFE3-rRCC were enrolled. Main outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate. RNA sequencing was performed on 32 tumors. RESULTS: Patients receiving first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) based combination therapy achieved longer PFS than those treated without ICI (median PFS: 11.5 vs. 5.1 months, P = 0.098). After stratification of fusion partners, the superior efficacy of first-line ICI based combination therapy was predominantly observed in ASPSCR1-TFE3 rRCC (median PFS: not reached vs. 6.5 months, P = 0.01; ORR: 67.5% vs. 10.0%, P = 0.019), but almost not in non-ASPSCR1-TFE3 rRCC. Transcriptomic data revealed enrichment of ECM and collagen-related signaling in ASPSCR1-TFE3 rRCC, which might interfere with the potential efficacy of anti-angiogenic monotherapy. Whereas angiogenesis and immune activities were exclusively enriched in ASPSCR1-TFE3 rRCC and promised the better clinical outcomes with ICI plus tyrosine kinase inhibitor combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The current study represents the largest cohort comparing treatment outcomes and investigating molecular correlates of metastatic TFE3-rRCC based on fusion partner stratification. ICI based combination therapy could serve as an effective first-line treatment option for metastatic ASPSCR1-TFE3 rRCC patients. Regarding with other fusion subtypes, further investigations should be performed to explore the molecular mechanisms to propose pointed therapeutic strategy accordingly.

Comparison of outcomes for Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database.

BACKGROUND: Existing data on the impact of Hispanic ethnicity on outcomes for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is mixed. The authors investigated outcomes of Hispanic and non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients with advanced RCC receiving systemic therapy at large academic cancer centers using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC). METHODS: Eligible patients included non-Black Hispanic and NHW patients with locally advanced or metastatic RCC initiating systemic therapy. Overall survival (OS) and time to first-line treatment failure (TTF) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The effect of ethnicity on OS and TTF were estimated by Cox regression hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients (181 Hispanic and 1382 NHW) (mostly males [73.8%] with clear cell RCC [81.5%] treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI] monotherapy [69.9%]) were included. IMDC risk groups were similar between groups. Hispanic patients were younger at initial diagnosis (median 57 vs. 59 years, p = .015) and less likely to have greater than one metastatic site (60.8% vs. 76.8%, p < .001) or bone metastases (23.8% vs. 33.4%, p = .009). Median OS and TTF was 38.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.1-59.2) versus 35.7 months (95% CI, 31.9-39.2) and 7.8 months (95% CI, 6.2-9.0) versus 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.9-8.1), respectively, in Hispanic versus NHW patients. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.31, p = .56) or TTF (adjusted HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.26, p = .50). CONCLUSIONS: The authors did not observe statistically significant differences in OS or TTF between Hispanic and NHW patients with advanced RCC. Receiving treatment at tertiary cancer centers may mitigate observed disparities in cancer outcomes.

Treatment and outcomes of clear cell sarcoma of the kidney: A report from the Children's Oncology Group studies AREN0321 and AREN03B2.

BACKGROUND: On the fifth National Wilms Tumor Study, treatment for clear cell sarcoma of the kidney (CCSK) included combined vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (regimen I) plus radiation therapy (RT), yielding 5-year event-free survival (EFS) rates of 100%, 88%, 73%, and 29% for patients who had with stage I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively. In the Children's Oncology Group study AREN0321 of risk-adapted therapy, RT was omitted for stage I disease if lymph nodes were sampled, and carboplatin was added for stage IV disease (regimen UH-1). Patients who had stage II/III disease received regimen I with RT. METHODS: Four-year EFS was analyzed for patients enrolled on AREN0321 and on those enrolled on AREN03B2 who received AREN0321 stage-appropriate chemotherapy. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients with CCSK enrolled on AREN0321, 50 enrolled on AREN03B2 only. The 4-year EFS rate was 82.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.8%-91.4%) for AREN0321 and 89.6% (95% CI, 81.3%-98.7%) for AREN03B2 only (p = .28). When combining studies, the 4-year EFS rates for patients who had stage I (n = 10), II (n = 47), III (n = 65), and IV (n = 10) disease were 90% (95% CI, 73.2%-100.0%), 93.4% (95% CI, 86.4%-100.0%), 82.8% (95% CI, 74.1%-92.6%), and 58.3% (95% CI, 34%-100.0%), respectively. There were no local recurrences among seven patients with stage I disease who were treated without RT. One stage I recurrence occurred in the brain, which was the most common site of relapse overall. Among patients with local stage III tumors, neither initial procedure type, margin status, nor lymph node involvement were prognostic. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with stage I CCSK had excellent outcomes without local recurrences when treated without RT. Patients with stage IV disease appeared to benefit from a carboplatin-containing regimen, although their outcomes remained unsatisfactory. Further research is needed to improve outcomes for patients with advanced-stage disease (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT00335556 and NCT00898365).

The Relationship Between Health-Related Quality of Life and Overall Survival in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in CheckMate 214.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 214 (median follow-up, 25.2 months), nivolumab plus ipilimumab yielded greater overall survival (OS) benefit than sunitinib in patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19) was also more favorable for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group than the sunitinib group. We investigated whether HRQoL scores can predict OS of patients with 5 years follow-up in CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 214 was an open-label, phase III trial in previously untreated aRCC (N = 1096). Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk disease (International mRCC Database Consortium prognostic score ≥ 1; n = 847) were randomized to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib monotherapy. Pooled data for OS and FKSI-19 total and subscales (disease-related symptoms [DRS], DRS-physical [DRS-P], and function/well-being [FWB]) were analyzed. Relationships between HRQoL and OS were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with baseline and longitudinal scores. Associations between HRQoL changes and OS were assessed by landmark analyses. RESULTS: Patients with higher FKSI-19 total and subscale scores at baseline had longer OS than patients with lower scores (HR ≤ 0.834; P < .0001). Longitudinal models indicated stronger associations between HRQoL and OS (HR ≤ 0.69; P < .001 for each). At 3 months after randomization, patients with stable/improved HRQoL versus baseline had longer median OS than patients with worsened/unobserved HRQoL versus baseline (55.9 and 26.0 months, respectively; HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.67; P < .0001). Results at 6-, 9-, and 12-month landmarks were consistent with these findings. CONCLUSION: In aRCC, patient-reported outcomes are important for HRQoL and prognostic evaluation. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02231749; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02231749.

Adjuvant Pembrolizumab after Nephrectomy in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with renal-cell carcinoma who undergo nephrectomy have no options for adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence that have high levels of supporting evidence. METHODS: In a double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who were at high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy, with or without metastasectomy, to receive either adjuvant pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles (approximately 1 year). The primary end point was disease-free survival according to the investigator's assessment. Overall survival was a key secondary end point. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 496 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab, and 498 to receive placebo. At the prespecified interim analysis, the median time from randomization to the data-cutoff date was 24.1 months. Pembrolizumab therapy was associated with significantly longer disease-free survival than placebo (disease-free survival at 24 months, 77.3% vs. 68.1%; hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.87; P = 0.002 [two-sided]). The estimated percentage of patients who remained alive at 24 months was 96.6% in the pembrolizumab group and 93.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.96). Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 32.4% of the patients who received pembrolizumab and in 17.7% of those who received placebo. No deaths related to pembrolizumab therapy occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab treatment led to a significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo after surgery among patients with kidney cancer who were at high risk for recurrence. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-564 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03142334.).

Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).

Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point. RESULTS: Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P<0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P<0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).

Long-term responders to nivolumab in previously treated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a sub-analysis of meet-URO15 study.

BACKGROUND: Although nivolumab prolongs overall survival (OS) in pretreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), underlining clinical and biological features of long-term responses are still to be determined. This study aims to investigate clinical and pathological characteristics of mRCC patients who achieved long-term responses during nivolumab treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on mRCC patients receiving nivolumab as second or further therapy line between May 2016 and January 2019 in 34 Italian Oncology Centres. Outcome assessments and logistic regression were performed to evaluate factors influencing long-term responses. RESULTS: A total of 571 patients with a median age of 61 years (range 17-85) were included in the analysis. With a median follow-up of 22.1 (1.0-89.0) months, 23.1% of patients were 2-year progression-free on treatment with nivolumab, hence they were categorized as long-term responders. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, and histology, were similar between long- and short-term responders. Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 80% was significantly associated with long-term response (p = 0.02), while bone metastases (p = 0.03), International mRCC Database Consortium intermediate-poor risk (p < 0.01) and Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio ≥ 3.2 (p = 0.02) were associate with short-term responses. Long-term responders exhibited a median progression-free survival of 55.0 months versus 4.0 months of the short-term responders. The median OS was not reached in long-term responders while it was 17.0 months for short*term responders. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis sheds light on factors associated with long-term response to nivolumab in mRCC. Understanding these clinical features will be essential for selecting patients who may mostly benefit from immunotherapy.

Sex and survival outcomes in patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving first-line immune-based combinations.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate as to whether sex could be associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) benefit. Existing literature data reveal contradictory results, and data on first-line immune combinations are lacking. METHOD: This was a real-world, multicenter, international, observational study to determine the sex effects on the clinical outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with immuno-oncology combinations as first-line therapy. RESULTS: A total of 1827 mRCC patients from 71 cancer centers in 21 countries were included. The median OS was 38.7 months (95% CI 32.7-44.2) in the overall study population: 40.0 months (95% CI 32.7-51.6) in males and 38.7 months (95% CI 26.4-41.0) in females (p = 0.202). The median OS was higher in males vs. females in patients aged 18-49y (36.9 months, 95% CI 29.0-51.6, vs. 24.8 months, 95% CI 16.8-40.4, p = 0.426, with + 19% of 2y-OS rate, 72% vs. 53%, p = 0.006), in the clear cell histology subgroup (44.2 months, 95% CI 35.8-55.7, vs. 38.7 months, 95% CI 26.0-41.0, p = 0.047), and in patients with sarcomatoid differentiation (34.4 months, 95% CI 26.4-59.0, vs. 15.3 months, 95% CI 8.9-41.0, p < 0.001). Sex female was an independent negative prognostic factor in the sarcomatoid population (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.15 - 2.57, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Although the female's innate and adaptive immunity has been observed to be more active than the male's, women in the subgroup of clear cell histology, sarcomatoid differentiation, and those under 50 years of age showed shorter OS than males.

Mayo Clinic Validation of the AUA Risk Groups for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The AUA guidelines introduced a new risk group stratification system based primarily on tumor stage and grade to guide surveillance for patients treated surgically for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We sought to evaluate the predictive ability of these risk groups using progression-free survival (PFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS), and to compare their performance to that of our published institutional risk models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried our Nephrectomy Registry to identify adults treated with radical or partial nephrectomy for unilateral, M0, clear cell RCC, or papillary RCC from 1980 to 2012. The AUA stratification does not apply to other RCC subtypes as tumor grading for other RCC, such as chromophobe, is not routinely performed. PFS and CSS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Predictive abilities were evaluated using C indexes from Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: A total of 3191 patients with clear cell RCC and 633 patients with papillary RCC were included. For patients with clear cell RCC, C indexes for the AUA risk groups and our model were 0.780 and 0.815, respectively (P < .001) for PFS, and 0.811 and 0.857, respectively (P < .001), for CSS. For patients with papillary RCC, C indexes for the AUA risk groups and our model were 0.775 and 0.751, respectively (P = .002) for PFS, and 0.830 and 0.803, respectively (P = .2) for CSS. CONCLUSIONS: The AUA stratification is a parsimonious system for categorizing RCC that provides C indexes of about 0.80 for PFS and CSS following surgery for localized clear cell and papillary RCC.

Perioperative Complications and In-Hospital Mortality in Partial and Radical Nephrectomy Patients with Heart-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital mortality and complication rates after partial and radical nephrectomy in patients with history of heart-valve replacement are unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Relying on the National Inpatient Sample (2000-2019), kidney cancer patients undergoing partial or radical nephrectomy were stratified according to presence or absence of heart-valve replacement. Multivariable logistic and Poisson regression models addressed adverse hospital outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 39,673 patients underwent partial nephrectomy versus 94,890 radical nephrectomy. Of those, 248 (0.6%) and 676 (0.7%) had a history of heart-valve replacement. Heart-valve replacement patients were older (median partial nephrectomy 69 versus 60 years; radical nephrectomy 71 versus 63 years), and more frequently exhibited Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 3 (partial nephrectomy 22 versus 12%; radical nephrectomy 32 versus 23%). In partial nephrectomy patients, history of heart-valve replacement increased the risk of cardiac complications [odds ratio (OR) 4.33; p < 0.001), blood transfusions (OR 2.00; p < 0.001), intraoperative complications (OR 1.53; p = 0.03), and longer hospital stay [rate ratio (RR) 1.25; p < 0.001], but not in-hospital mortality (p = 0.5). In radical nephrectomy patients, history of heart-valve replacement increased risk of postoperative bleeding (OR 4.13; p < 0.001), cardiac complications (OR 2.72; p < 0.001), intraoperative complications (OR 1.53; p < 0.001), blood transfusions (OR 1.27; p = 0.02), and longer hospital stay (RR 1.12; p < 0.001), but not in-hospital mortality (p = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: History of heart-valve replacement independently predicted four of twelve adverse outcomes in partial nephrectomy and five of twelve adverse outcomes in radical nephrectomy patients including intraoperative and cardiac complications, blood transfusions, and longer hospital stay. Conversely, no statistically significant differences were observed in in-hospital mortality.

Sarcomatoid Dedifferentiation as a Predictor of Cancer-Specific Mortality in Surgically Treated Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In contemporary surgically treated patients with localized high-grade (G3 or G4) clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), it is not known whether presence of sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is an independent predictor and/or an effect modifier, when cancer-specific mortality (CSM) represents an endpoint. METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, all surgically treated localized high-grade ccRCC patients treated between 2010 and 2020 were identified. Univariable and multivariable Cox-regression models were used. RESULTS: In 18,853 surgically treated localized high-grade (G3 or G4) ccRCC patients, 5-year CSM-free survival was 87% (62% vs. 88% with vs. without sarcomatoid dedifferentiation, p < 0.001). Presence of sarcomatoid dedifferentiation was an independent predictor of higher CSM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.8, p < 0.001). In univariable survival analyses predicting CSM, presence versus absence of sarcomatoid dedifferentiation in G3 versus G4 yielded the following hazard ratios: HR 1.0 in absent sarcomatoid dedifferentiation in G3; HR 2.7 (p < 0.001) in absent sarcomatoid dedifferentiation in G4; HR 3.9 (p < 0.001) in present sarcomatoid dedifferentiation in G3; HR 5.1 (p < 0.001) in present sarcomatoid dedifferentiation in G4. Finally, in multivariable Cox-regression analyses, the interaction terms defining present versus absent sarcomatoid dedifferentiation in G3 versus G4 represented independent predictors of higher CSM. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary surgically treated patients with localized high-grade ccRCC, sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is not only an independent multivariable predictor of higher CSM, but also interacts with tumor grade and results in even better ability to predict CSM.

International multicenter real-world REGistry for patients with metastatic renAL cell carcinoma - Meet-URO 33 study (REGAL study).

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, different therapeutic options are available for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Immuno-combinations are the standard first-line therapy in all mRCC patients regardless of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category, even though TKI monotherapy is still a therapeutic option in selected patients. However, comparisons between the different first-line treatment strategies are lacking and few real-world data are available in this setting. For this reason, the regimen choice represents an important issue in clinical practice and the optimal treatment sequence remains unclear. METHODS: The REGAL study is a multicentric prospective observational study enrolling mRCC patients treated with first-line systemic therapy according to clinical practice in a real-world setting. A retrospective cohort of mRCC patients who received first-line systemic therapy from the 1st of January 2021 will also be included. The primary objective is to identify potential prognostic and predictive factors that could help guide the treatment choice; secondary objectives included the assessment of the prognostic performance of the novel prognostic Meet-URO score (IMDC score + neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio + bone metastases) compared with the IMDC score and the comparison between treatment strategies according to response and survival outcomes and toxicity profile. DISCUSSION: Considering the high number of therapeutic first-line strategies available for mRCC, the identification of clinical prognostic and predictive factors to candidate patients to a preferable systemic therapy is still an unmet clinical need. The Meet-URO 33 study aims to provide a large-scale real-world database on mRCC patients, to identify the clinical predictive and prognostic factors and the different performances between the ICI-based combinations according to response, survival and toxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CESC IOV 2023-78.

Clinical outcome predictors for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective multicenter real-life case series.

Over the last decades, the therapeutic armamentarium of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been revolutionized by the advent of tyrosin-kinase inhibitors (TKI), immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), and immune-combinations. RCC is heterogeneous, and even the most used validated prognostic systems, fail to describe its evolution in real-life scenarios. Our aim is to identify potential easily-accessible clinical factors and design a disease course prediction system. Medical records of 453 patients with mRCC receiving sequential systemic therapy in two high-volume oncological centres were reviewed. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard model were used to estimate and compare survival between groups. As first-line treatment 366 patients received TKI monotherapy and 64 patients received ICI, alone or in combination. The mean number of therapy lines was 2.5. A high Systemic Inflammation Index, a BMI under 25 Kg/m2, the presence of bone metastases before systemic therapy start, age over 65 years at the first diagnosis, non-clear-cell histology and sarcomatoid component were correlated with a worse OS. No significant OS difference was observed between patients receiving combination therapies and those receiving exclusively monotherapies in the treatment sequence. Our relapse prediction system based on pathological stage and histological grade was effective in predicting the time between nephrectomy and systemic treatment. Our multicentric retrospective analysis reveals additional potential prognostic factors for mRCC, not included in current validated prognostic systems, suggests a model for disease course prediction and describes the outcomes of the most common therapeutic strategies currently available.

Impact of lymphovascular invasion on survival in surgically treated upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a nationwide analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prognostic ability of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) as a predictor of overall survival (OS) using a large North American cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our cohort included 5940 patients with clinical M0 UTUC who underwent a radical nephroureterectomy (RNU), between 2010 and 2016, within the National Cancer Database. The main variable of interest was LVI status, and its interaction with pathological nodal (pN) status. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to depict the OS also stratifying patients on LVI status. Cox regression analysis tested the impact of LVI status on OS after accounting for the available covariates. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age at diagnosis was 71 (63-78) years and most patients had pathological T1 stage disease (48.6%). Nodal status was pN0, pN1 and pNx in 45.8%, 6.3% and 47.9%, respectively. Overall, 22.1% had LVI. The median (IQR) follow-up time was 32.6 (16.0-53.3) months. At the 5-year postoperative follow-up, the estimated OS rate was 28% in patients with LVI vs 66% in those without LVI (P < 0.001). When patients were stratified based on nodal status those rates were 32% vs 68% in pN0 patients (P < 0.001), 23% vs 30% in pN1 patients (P = 0.8), and 28% vs 65% in pNx patients (P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, the presence of LVI was associated with less favourable OS (hazard ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval 1.60-1.99; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study assessed the impact of LVI on OS in patients with UTUC in a large North American nationwide cohort. Our series, as the largest to date, indicate that LVI is associated with less favourable survival outcomes in patients with UTUC after RNU, and this variable could be used in counselling patients about their prognosis and might be a useful tool for future trials to risk-stratify patients.

Clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma in young adults: clinicopathological features, survival outcomes and prognostic factors.

OBJECTIVES: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is infrequent among young adults. Few studies reported the outcome of RCC in young adults by pathological subtypes. The purpose of this study was to explore the clinicopathological features, survival outcomes and prognostic factors of young adult patients with clear cell (CCRCC) and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (NCCRCC). METHODS: This study included young adult patients aged 18-40 years who were diagnosed as renal cell carcinoma (RCC) between 2012 and 2022 at Peking University Third Hospital. All patients underwent either partial nephrectomy or radical nephrectomy, and some received adjuvant therapy. A comparative analysis was performed to investigate the differences in clinicopathological characteristics between the cohort of CCRCC and NCCRCC. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was utilized to plot survival curves for young adults with RCC. The univariate and multifactorial prognostic analyses were conducted using the log-rank test and COX proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 300 RCC patients aged 18-40 years were performed, of which 201 were diagnosed with CCRCC (67%) and 99 were diagnosed with NCCRCC(33%). The NCCRCC included 29 cases (9.7%) of chromophobe RCC, 28 cases (9.3%) of MiT family translocation RCC, 22 cases (7.3%) of papillary RCC, 11 cases (3.7%) of low malignant potential multifocal cystic RCC, and 6 cases of unclassified RCC (2.0%), 2 cases of mucinous tubule and spindle cell carcinoma (0.7%), and 1 case of FH-deficient RCC (0.3%).The mean age was 33.4 ± 6.1 years old. The overall and progression free 5-year survival rate was 99.1 and 95.3%, respectively. The NCCRCC cohort demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in progression-free survival (PFS) rate when compared to the CCRCC cohort (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference observed in overall survival (OS) (p = 0.069). Pathological stage was a significant independent predictor for OS (p = 0.045). Pathological stage and nuclear grade were both independent predictors for PFS (p = 0.020; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and pathological features of young adults diagnosed with CCRCC exhibit notable distinctions from those of NCCRCC patients. The survival outcome was significantly influenced by the pathological stage, while both the nuclear grade and pathological stage had a significant impact on tumor progression. This study offered significant contributions to the understanding of the clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic determinants of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in young adults.

Endoscopic intervention versus radical nephroureterectomy for the management of localized upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

OBJECTIVE: Localized Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma (UTUC) is an uncommon cancer typically detected at an advanced stage. Currently, radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) with bladder cuff excision is the standard treatment for high-risk UTUC. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival and bladder recurrence rates in studies comparing endoscopic kidney-sparing surgeries (E-KSS) with RNU in localized UTUC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a literature search on 20th April 2023 through PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. The PICOS model was used for study inclusion: P: adult patients with localized UTUC; I: E-KSS. C: RNU; O: primary: overall survival (OS); secondary: cancer-specific survival (CSS), bladder recurrence rate, and metastasis-free survival (MFS). S: retrospective, prospective, and randomized studies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 11 studies involving 2284 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis, 737 in the E-KSS group and 1547 in the RNU group. E-KSS showed a similar overall 5-year OS between E-KSS and RNU, and for low-grade tumors, while 5-year OS favored RNU for high-grade tumors (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.26-2.69, p = 0.002). No difference emerged for 5-year CSS between the two groups, even when the results were stratified for low- and high grade tumors. Bladder recurrence rate and 5-year MFS were also similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our review showed that E-KSS is a viable option for patients with localized UTUC with non-inferior oncological outcomes as compared with RNU, except for 5-year OS in high-grade tumors which favoured RNU.