noviembre 2019

Adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma

Gul A, Rini B
Cancer;125:2935–44. September, 2019


Localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has an associated risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. Several clinical risk models attempt to predict oncologic outcomes based on clinical and pathologic features. In addition, novel gene signatures have been developed to refine risk prediction based on tumor biology. Systemic therapies targeting angiogenic pathways that are effective in metastatic RCC failed to show an improvement in overall survival in the adjuvant setting. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown significant antitumor activity with prolonged and durable responses in metastatic RCC, which led to an interest in evaluating these agents in the adjuvant setting. In this review, clinical risk predictive models, novel gene signatures, major clinical trials completed in the adjuvant setting, ongoing immune checkpoint inhibitor trials, and the perspective of adjuvant treatment in RCC are discussed.

Read article

Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy (SAbR) Used to Defer Systemic Therapy in Oligometastatic Renal Cell Cancer

Zhang Y, Schoenhals J, Christie A, et al.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, Vol 105, 2, 367 – 375, October 2019



Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) is a promising alternative for selected patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with oligometastasis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential of SAbR for longitudinal control in patients with persistently oligometastatic RCC. We report the impact of SAbR on tumor control rates as well as its tolerability in systemic therapy–naïve patients with oligometastatic disease (without brain metastases) and assess the effect of SAbR on subsequent first line systemic therapy by comparison to historical controls.

Methods and Materials

We reviewed patients with metastatic RCC treated with front-line SAbR with a curative intent from 2007 to 2017 at UT Southwestern Kidney Cancer Program. We analyzed local control rates (LCR), toxicity, freedom from systemic therapy (FST), type and duration of first-line systemic therapy, and overall survival (OS). Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used.


We identified 47 patients with oligometastatic RCC treated with SAbR to 88 metastases; 11 patients had more than 1 SAbR course. The local control rate was 91.5% at 2 years with no reported grade ≥3 toxicity. With a median follow-up of 30 months (interquartile range, 13.7-40.9), median FST from first SAbR was 15.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8-40.1). The most common systemic therapies initiated after SAbR were pazopanib (60.7%) and sunitinib (14.3%). The duration of first line systemic therapy appeared unaffected by SAbR. Improved FST was observed in patients with metachronous disease (hazard ratio, 2.67; P = .02), solitary metastasis (HR, 2.26; P = .05), and non-bone metastasis (HR, 2.21; P = .04). One-year and 2-year OS after SAbR were 93.1% (95% CI, 80.1-97.7) and 84.8% (95% CI, 69.1-92.9), respectively. Median OS was not reached.


SAbR is an effective and safe treatment for selected patients with oligometastatic RCC, can provide longitudinal disease control without systemic therapy for over a year, and does not appear to adversely affect the effectiveness of first-line systemic therapy once initiated. Prospective validation of these findings is being sought through a phase 2 trial.

Read article

First-line Immuno-Oncology Combination Therapies in Metastatic Renal-cell Carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal-cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

Dudani S, Graham J, Wells JC, et al.
European Urology, Volume 0, Issue 0, Article in Press



In metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), recent data have shown efficacy of first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi-nivo) as well as immuno-oncology (IO)/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor combinations. Comparative data between these strategies are limited.


To compare the efficacy of ipi-nivo versus IO-VEGF (IOVE) combinations in mRCC, and describe practice patterns and effectiveness of second-line therapies.

Design, setting, and participants

Using the International Metastatic Renal-cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset, patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo.


All patients received first-line IO combination therapies.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

First- and second-line response rates, time to treatment failure (TTF), time to next treatment (TNT), and overall survival (OS) were analysed. Hazard ratios were adjusted for IMDC risk factors.

Results and limitations

In total, 113 patients received IOVE combinations and 75 received ipi-nivo. For IOVE combinations versus ipi-nivo, first-line response rates were 33% versus 40% (between-group difference 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] –8% to 22%, p =  0.4), TTF was 14.3 versus 10.2 mo (p =  0.2), TNT was 19.7 versus 17.9 mo (p =  0.4), and median OS was immature but not statistically different (p = 0.17). Adjusted hazard ratios for TTF, TNT, and OS were 0.71 (95% CI 0.46–1.12, p =  0.14), 0.65 (95% CI 0.38–1.11, p =  0.11), and 1.74 (95% CI 0.82–3.68, p =  0.14), respectively. Sixty-four (34%) patients received second-line treatment. In patients receiving subsequent VEGF-based therapy, second-line response rates were lower in the IOVE cohort than in the ipi-nivo cohort (15% vs 45%; between-group difference 30%, 95% CI 3–57%, p =  0.04; n = 40), though second-line TTF was not significantly different (3.7 vs 5.4 mo; p =  0.4; n = 55). Limitations include the study’s retrospective design and sample size.


There were no significant differences in first-line outcomes between IOVE combinations and ipi-nivo. Most patients received VEGF-based therapy in the second line. In this group, second-line response rate was greater in patients who received ipi-nivo initially.

Patient summary

There were no significant differences in key first-line outcomes for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma receiving immuno-oncology/vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor combinations versus ipilimumab and nivolumab.

Read article

Familial Kidney Cancer: Implications of New Syndromes and Molecular Insights

Carlo M, Hakimi AA, Stewart GD, et al.
European Urology, Volume 0, Issue 0, Articles in Press



Hereditary cases account for about 5% of all cases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). With advances in next-generation sequencing, several new hereditary syndromes have been described in the last few years.


To review and summarise the recent preclinical and clinical literature in hereditary renal cancer.

Evidence acquisition

A systematic review of the literature was performed in November 2018 using PubMed and OMIM databases, with an emphasis on kidney cancer, genetics and genomics, clinical criteria, and management.

Evidence synthesis

Several autosomal dominant hereditary RCC syndromes have been described, including those related to germline pathogenic variants in VHLMETFHTSC1/TSC2FLCN, SDHA/B/C/DBAP1CDC73, and MITF. Clinical spectrum of SDHBAP1, and MITF is still being defined, although these appear to be associated with a lower incidence of RCC. FH and likely BAP1RCC are associated with more aggressive disease. Preclinical and clinical studies show that using systemic therapy that exploits specific genetic pathways is a promising strategy.


There are several well-described hereditary RCC syndromes, as well as recently identified ones, for which the full clinical spectrum is yet to be defined. In the new era of precision medicine, identification of these syndromes may play an important role in management and systemic treatment selection.

Patient summary

This review covers updates in the diagnosis and management of familial kidney cancer syndromes. We describe updates in testing and management of the most common syndromes such as von Hippel-Lindau, and hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma. We also provide insights into recently described familial kidney cancer syndromes.

Read article
You don't have permission to register