LARCG Articles

Stenio de Cássio Zequi, Francisco Rodriguez-Covarrubias, Ignacio Pablo Tobia, Alberto Jurado, Anamaria Autran Gomez, Luiz Meza-Montoya, Walter Henriques da Costa, Alejandro Nolazco, Thiago Camelo Mourao, Diego Abreu

Abstract

The Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG) was founded in 2013. This is a non-profit collaborative group designed to foster scientific knowledge in all areas of kidney cancer, and to establish international cooperation among well-recognized oncologic institutions. Since its creation, LARCG has reported data from Latin America to the scientific community and has promoted accredited information and advocacy principles for patients, lay people, and medical colleagues. Currently, it consists of 44 centers in 7 Latin American countries and Spain. In this paper, we report our achievements in assistance, teaching, research, and advocacy, and we discuss the successful international collaborations.

Introduction

We created the LARCG (Latin American Renal Cancer Group) in 2013 to address the paucity of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) data in Latin America when compared with North America and Europe and to address the differences between the regions with respect to ethnic composition and health care systems[1]. LARCG is a non-profit collaborative groupdesigned to foster scientific knowledge in all areas of kidney cancer, to produce high-quality scientific information, to establish international cooperation with well-recognized oncological institutions, to report data from Latin America to the scientific community, and to promote accredited information and advocacy principles to patients, lay people, and medical colleagues.

Since its creation, LARCG has grown and incorporated more centers, expanding its activities in several scenarios, in ways unusual for Latin America. In this manuscript, we aimed to report our achievements, divided by subtopics, discussing our future activities.

Thiago Camelo Mourão, Stênio de Cássio Zequi, Juan Yandian, Ignacio Tobía-González, Alberto Jurado, Gustavo Franco Carvalhal, Luis Meza-Montoya, Alejandro Nolazco, Carlos Alberto Ameri, Agustín Rovegno, Rubén Bengió, Carlos Scorticati, Francisco Rodriguez-Covarrubias, Ana María Autran-Gomez, Carmen González-Enguita, José Gadu Campos Salcedo, Hamilton Zampolli, Diego Muguruza, Marcos Tobias-Machado, Jorge Clavijo, Lucas Nogueira, Joan Palou, Diego Abreu.

Abstract

Background and Objective

Some countries in Latin America (LA) may have the greatest increase in the incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in both sexes in the coming decades, according to some projections. Increasing efforts to study prognostic factors related to RCC may shorten the regional discrepancies, particularly in the scenario of scarce literature in LA, in comparison to Europe or North America. The evaluation of RCC prognosis allows a greater capacity to anticipate outcomes, in addition to a better understanding of tumor biology and the orientation of the proposed treatment. Herein, we provide a review of the main prognostic factors described in different stages of the disease, considering the progress of publications on kidney cancer in LA.

Methods

The PubMed database was used to identify studies on this theme, particularly those from  LA. Studies by the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG) and the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) were included.

Key Content and Findings

Overall, tumor-related factors such as pathological stage, tumor size, nuclear grade, and histological subtype had the most important independent prognostic impact. Nevertheless, grouping these data with clinical, demographic, and biomolecular parameters can lead to a better prognosis analysis. Finally, the authors acknowledge the efforts of some nonprofit regional organizations in the activities and studies of RCC in different settings.

Conclusions

Anatomical and histological prognostic factors for RCC have been widely studied for decades. In recent years, biomolecular factors have attracted considerable attention.

Keywords

Prognostic factors; survival predictors; renal cell carcinoma (RCC); Latin America (LA).

LARCG

Abstract

Background

Tumor burden and metastatic disease sites are well-established prognostic factors in many malignancies, including metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC).

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the impact of bone metastasis (BM) location on clinical outcome of mRCC patients.

Methods

This study is a retrospective analysis of 4060 mRCC patients from the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG) database. Clinico-pathological characteristics, 24-months-survival, overall survival (OS), and BM sites were collected. To estimate the association between BM location and clinical outcomes we used Cox regression method

Results

Out of 4060 patients, 530 (14.5%) had metastatic disease. Among those, we analyzed the fifty-six that had only BM. The median follow-up was 20.8 months (range from 0 to 188 months). Non-spinal BM (NSBM) were identified in 33 (58.9%) patients and spinal BM (SBM) in 23 (41.1%) patients. Median OS was 35 months, and 24- months OS was 76% for patients with NSBM and 46% with SBM (HR: 2.22). In multivariable analysis SBM (HR: 3.08), ASA classification 3-4 (HR: 2.37), non-cc histology (HR: 5.11), and age (HR 1.06) were independent prognostic factors for OS.

Conclusions

Our study showed that SBM predicted shorter OS, suggesting that the location of BM may impact the clinical outcome of patients with mRCC.

Stênio de Cássio Zequi, Diego Abreu

Abstract

Introduction

Recently the COVID-19 pandemic became the main global priority; main efforts and health infrastructures have been prioritized in favor of COVID-19 battle and the treatment of benign diseases has been postponed. Renal cell cancer (RCC) patients configure a heterogenous populations: some of them present indolent cases which can safely have postponed their treatments, others present aggressive tumors, deserving immediate care. These scenarios must be properly identified before a tailored therapeutic choice.

Objectives

We propose a risk- based approach for patients with RCC, to be used during this unprecedented viral infection time.

Materials and Methods

After a literature review focused in COVID-19 and current RCC treatments, we suggest therapeutic strategies of RCC in two sections: surgical approach and systemic therapy, in all stages of this malignance.

Results

Patients with cT1a tumors (and complex cysts, Bosniak III/IV), must be put under active surveillance and delayed intervention. cT1b-T2a/b cases must be managed by partial or radical nephrectomy, some selected T1b-T2a (≤7cm) cases can have the surgery postponed by 60-90 days). Locally advanced tumors (≥cT3 and or N+) must be promptly resected. As possible, minimally invasive surgery and early hospital discharge are encouraged. Upfront cytoreduction, is not recommendable for low risk oligometastatic patients, which must start systemic treatment or even could be put under surveillance and delayed therapy. Intermediate and poor risk metastatic patients must start target therapy and/or immunotherapy (few good responder intermediate cases can have postponed cytoreduction). The recommendation about hereditary RCC syndromes are lacking, thus we recommend its usual care. Local or loco regional recurrence must have individualized approaches. For all cases, we suggest the application of a specific informed consent and a shared therapeutic choice.

Conclusions

In the pandemic COVID -19 times, a tailored risk-based approach must be used for a safe management of RCC, aiming to not compromise the oncological outcomes of the patients.

ABSTRACT

Background: The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is increasing globally due to an aging population and widespread use of imaging studies. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and perioperative outcomes of RCC surgery in very elderly patients (VEP), ≥ 75 years of age. Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study of 3656 patients who underwent the treatment for RCC from 1990 to 2015 in 28 centers from eight Latin American countries. We compared baseline characteristics as well as clinical and perioperative outcomes according to age groups (<75 vs. ≥75 years). Surgical complications were classified with the Clavien-Dindo score. We performed logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with perioperative complications. Results: There were 410 VEP patients (11.2%). On bivariate analysis, VEP had a lower body mass index (p < 0.01) and higher ASA score (ASA >2 in 26.3% vs. 12.4%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in performance status and clinical stage between the study groups. There were no differences in surgical margins, estimated blood loss (EBL), complication, and mortality rates (1.3% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.17). On multivariate regression analysis, age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.33, p < 0.01), EBL ≥ 500 cc (OR 3.34, p < 0.01), and > pT2 stage (OR 1.63, p = 0.04) were independently associated with perioperative complications. Conclusions: Surgical resection of RCC was safe and successful in VEP. Age ≥75 years was independently associated with 30-day perioperative complications. However, the vast majority were low-grade complications. Age alone should not guide decision-making in these patients, and treatment must be tailored according to performance status and severity of comorbidities.

LARCG

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the effect of clinical and pathological variables on cancer-specific and overall survival (OS) in de novo metastatic patients from a collaborative of primarily Latin American countries.

Patients and methods

Of 4,060 patients with renal cell carcinoma diagnosed between 1990 and 2015, a total of 530 (14.5%) had metastasis at clinical presentation. Relationships between clinical and pathological parameters and treatment-related outcomes were analyzed by Cox regression and the log-rank method.

Results

Of 530 patients, 184 (90.6%) had died of renal cell carcinoma. The median OS of the entire cohort was 24 months. American Society of Anesthesiology classification 3-4 (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.64), perirenal fat invasion (HR: 2.02), and ≥ 2 metastatic organ sites (HR: 2.19) were independent prognostic factors for 5-year OS in multivariable analyses. We created a risk group stratification with these variables: no adverse risk factors (favorable group), median OS not reached; one adverse factor (intermediate group), median OS 33 months (HR: 2.04); and two or three adverse factors (poor risk group), median OS 14 months (HR: 3.58).

Conclusions

Our study defines novel prognostic factors that are relevant to a Latin American cohort. With external validation, these easily discerned clinical variables can be used to offer prognostic information across low- and middle-income countries.