Current Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Critical Evaluation.

The landscape of local and systemic therapy of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is rapidly changing. The increase in the incidental finding of small renal tumors has increased the application of nephron-sparing procedures, while ten novel agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or the mammalian target of rapamycin pathways, or inhibiting the interaction of the programmed death 1 receptor with its ligand, have been approved since 2006 and have dramatically improved the prognosis of metastatic RCC (mRCC). These rapid developments have resulted in continuous changes in the respective Clinical Practice Guidelines/Expert Recommendations. We conducted a systematic review of the existing guidelines in MEDLINE according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement, aiming to identify areas of agreement and discrepancy among them and to evaluate the underlying reasons for such discrepancies. Data synthesis identified selection criteria for nonsurgical approaches in renal masses; the role of modern laparoscopic techniques in the context of partial nephrectomy; selection criteria for cytoreductive nephrectomy and metastasectomy in mRCC; systemic therapy of metastatic non-clear-cell renal cancers; and optimal sequence of available agents in mRCC relapsed after anti-VEGF therapy as the major areas of uncertainty. Agreement or uncertainty was not always correlated with the availability of data from phase III randomized controlled trials. Our review suggests that the combination of systematic review and critical evaluation can define practices of wide applicability and areas for future research by identifying areas of agreement and uncertainty among existing guidelines. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Currently, there is uncertainity on the role of surgery in MRCC and on the choice of available guidelines in relapsed RCC. The best practice is individualization of targeted therapies. Systematic review of guidelines can help to identify unmet medical needs and areas of future research.

Chemotherapy with gemcitabine, cisplatin, and docetaxel in the treatment for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a multicenter phase II study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG).

PURPOSE: To assess the antitumor activity and toxicity of gemcitabine, cisplatin, and docetaxel (GCD) regimen in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. PATIENT AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients, aged ≤70 years with measurable or evaluable disease and a performance status (PS) of 0-2 were treated with sequential cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (d1), gemcitabine 1,100 mg/m(2) (d1 and d14), and docetaxel 80 mg/m(2) (d14) every 28 days. RESULTS: Sixty patients with an ECOG PS of 0-2 were enroled. Most (71.7%) patients had stage IV disease. A median number of 4 chemotherapy cycles per patient (range, 1-9) was administered. Eight (13.3%) patients achieved a CR and 16 (26.7%) a partial response (PR) (intention-to-treat: ORR 40%; 95% CI 27.6-52.4%). Thirteen (21.7%) and 23 (38.3%) patients experienced stable and progressive disease, respectively. The median time to progression (TTP) was 7.7 months (range, 0.7-43.4), and the median overall survival 21.4 months (range, 0.7-68.6). Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia occurred in 27 (45%) patients and grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia in five (8.3%). Three (5%) patients developed febrile neutropenia. There were no treatment-related deaths. Severe non-haematological toxicity was infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: The GCD combination is an active and well-tolerated regimen in patients with chemotherapy-naive locally advanced or metastatic TCC and merits to be further investigated.