| 1. |
- Bratulic, Sinisa, 1981, et al.
(författare)
-
Noninvasive detection of any-stage cancer using free glycosaminoglycans.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. - : Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. - 0027-8424 .- 1091-6490. ; 119:50
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cancer mortality is exacerbated by late-stage diagnosis. Liquid biopsies based on genomic biomarkers can noninvasively diagnose cancers. However, validation studies have reported ~10% sensitivity to detect stage I cancer in a screening population and specific types, such as brain or genitourinary tumors, remain undetectable. We investigated urine and plasma free glycosaminoglycan profiles (GAGomes) as tumor metabolism biomarkers for multi-cancer early detection (MCED) of 14 cancer types using 2,064 samples from 1,260 cancer or healthy subjects. We observed widespread cancer-specific changes in biofluidic GAGomes recapitulated in an in vivo cancer progression model. We developed three machine learning models based on urine (Nurine = 220 cancer vs. 360 healthy) and plasma (Nplasma = 517 vs. 425) GAGomes that can detect any cancer with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83-0.93 with up to 62% sensitivity to stage I disease at 95% specificity. Undetected patients had a 39 to 50% lower risk of death. GAGomes predicted the putative cancer location with 89% accuracy. In a validation study on a screening-like population requiring ≥ 99% specificity, combined GAGomes predicted any cancer type with poor prognosis within 18 months with 43% sensitivity (21% in stage I; N = 121 and 49 cases). Overall, GAGomes appeared to be powerful MCED metabolic biomarkers, potentially doubling the number of stage I cancers detectable using genomic biomarkers.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ljungberg, Börje, 1949-, et al.
(författare)
-
European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma : The 2019 Update
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 75:5, s. 799-810
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: The European Association of Urology Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Guideline Panel has prepared evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the management of RCC. Objective: To provide an updated RCC guideline based on standardised methodology including systematic reviews, which is robust, transparent, reproducible, and reliable. Evidence acquisition: For the 2019 update, evidence synthesis was undertaken based on a comprehensive and structured literature assessment for new and relevant data. Where necessary, formal systematic reviews adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were undertaken. Relevant databases (Medline, Cochrane Libraries, trial registries, conference proceedings) were searched until June 2018, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective or controlled studies with a comparator arm, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Where relevant, risk of bias (RoB) assessment, and qualitative and quantitative syntheses of the evidence were performed. The remaining sections of the document were updated following a structured literature assessment. Clinical practice recommendations were developed and issued based on the modified GRADE framework. Evidence synthesis: All chapters of the RCC guidelines were updated based on a structured literature assessment, for prioritised topics based on the availability of robust data. For RCTs, RoB was low across studies. For most non-RCTs, clinical and methodological heterogeneity prevented pooling of data. The majority of included studies were retrospective with matched or unmatched cohorts, based on single- or multi-institutional data or national registries. The exception was for the treatment of metastatic RCC, for which there were several large RCTs, resulting in recommendations based on higher levels of evidence. Conclusions: The 2019 RCC guidelines have been updated by the multidisciplinary panel using the highest methodological standards. These guidelines provide the most reliable contemporary evidence base for the management of RCC in 2019. Patient summary: The European Association of Urology Renal Cell Carcinoma Guideline Panel has thoroughly evaluated the available research data on kidney cancer to establish international standards for the care of kidney cancer patients.
|
|
| 3. |
- Gatto, Francesco, 1987, et al.
(författare)
-
Plasma and Urine Free Glycosaminoglycans as Monitoring Biomarkers in Nonmetastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma—A Prospective Cohort Study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Urology Open Science. - : Elsevier BV. - 2666-1683 .- 2666-1691. ; 42, s. 30-39
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: No liquid biomarkers are approved in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), making early detection of recurrence in surgically treated nonmetastatic (M0) patients dependent on radiological imaging. Urine- and plasma free glycosaminoglycan profiles—or free GAGomes—are promising biomarkers reflective of RCC metabolism. Objective: To explore whether free GAGomes could detect M0 RCC recurrence noninvasively. Design, setting, and participants: Between June 2016 and February 2021, we enrolled a prospective consecutive series of patients elected for (1) partial or radical nephrectomy for clinical M0 RCC (cohort 1) or (2) first-line therapy following RCC metachronous metastatic recurrence (cohort 2) at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. The study population included M0 RCC patients with recurrent disease (RD) versus no evidence of disease (NED) in at least one follow-up visit. Plasma and urine free GAGomes—consisting of 40 chondroitin sulfate (CS), heparan sulfate, and hyaluronic acid (HA) features—were measured in a blinded central laboratory preoperatively and at each postoperative follow-up visit until recurrence or end of follow-up in cohort 1, or before treatment start in cohort 2. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We used Bayesian logistic regression to correlate GAGome features with RD versus NED and with various histopathological variables. We developed three recurrence scores (plasma, urine, and combined) proportional to the predicted probability of RD. We internally validated the area under the curve (AUC) using bootstrap resampling. We performed a decision curve analysis to select a cutoff and report the corresponding net benefit, sensitivity, and specificity of each score. We used univariable analyses to correlate each preoperative score with recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results and limitations: Of 127 enrolled patients in total, 62 M0 RCC patients were in the study population (median age: 63 year, 35% female, and 82% clear cell). The median follow-up time was 3 months, totaling 72 postoperative visits —17 RD and 55 NED cases. RD was compatible with alterations in 14 (52%) of the detectable GAGome features, mostly free CS. Eleven (79%) of these correlated with at least one histopathological variable. We developed a plasma, a urine, and a combined free CS RCC recurrence score to diagnose RD versus NED with AUCs 0.91, 0.93, and 0.94, respectively. At a cutoff equivalent to ≥30% predicted probability of RD, the sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 69% and 84% in plasma, 81% and 80% in urine, and 80% and 82% when combined, and the net benefit was equivalent to finding an extra ten, 13, and 12 cases of RD per hundred patients without any unnecessary imaging for plasma, urine, and combined, respectively. The combined score was prognostic of RFS in univariable analysis (hazard ratio = 1.90, p = 0.02). Limitations include a lack of external validation. Conclusions: Free CS scores detected postsurgical recurrence noninvasively in M0 RCC with substantial net benefit. External validity is required before wider clinical implementation. Patient summary: In this study, we examined a new noninvasive blood and urine test to detect whether renal cell carcinoma recurred after surgery.
|
|
| 4. |
- Fallara, Giuseppe, et al.
(författare)
-
Recurrence pattern in localized RCC : results from a European multicenter database (RECUR)
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Urologic Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1078-1439 .- 1873-2496. ; 40:11, s. 494.e11-494.e17
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: The impact of open versus minimally invasive surgery on recurrence pattern in the management of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains uncertain. We thus aimed to determine the impact of surgical approach on survival and recurrence pattern.Material and methods: This is a multi-institutional, matched cohort study on patients with pT1-3aN0M0 RCC from the RECUR database. After propensity score matching between open and minimally invasive surgery, disease-free (DFS) survival and risk of first recurrence according to recurrence site, namely local recurrence, abdominal/retroperitoneal, thoracic/mediastinal or uncommon site metastases were investigated with Cox regression analysis. Overall (OS) and Cancer Specific Survival (CSS) were also assessed.Results: After matching, 1,019 patients who underwent open and 1,019 who underwent minimally invasive surgery were included (of which 70 robot-assisted). At 5.2 years of median follow-up, 130 patients in open and 125 in minimally invasive group experienced disease progression. A higher risk of local recurrence (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.18–3.58, P-value = 0.01) and uncommon site metastases (HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01–1.16; P-value = .04) was found for minimally invasive surgery relative to open surgery, while no difference was found in terms of DFS (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.64–1.06; P-value = .14). No differences were found in terms of OS and CSS. Main limitation is the retrospective nature of the study.Conclusions: The risk for local recurrence and uncommon site metastases was higher for minimally invasive surgery compared to open surgery, although no differences were found for OS, CSS, and DFS.
|
|
| 5. |
- Ljungberg, Börje, Professor, 1949-, et al.
(författare)
-
European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma : the 2022 Update
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 82:4, s. 399-410
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: The European Association of Urology (EAU) Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Guideline Panel has prepared evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the management of RCC.Objective: To present a summary of the 2022 RCC guideline, which is based on a standardised methodology including systematic reviews (SRs) and provides transparent and reliable evidence for the management of RCC.Evidence acquisition: For the 2022 update, a new literature search was carried out with a cutoff date of May 28, 2021, covering the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. The data search focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective or controlled comparator-arm studies, SRs, and meta-analyses. Evidence synthesis was conducted using modified GRADE criteria as outlined for all the EAU guidelines.Evidence synthesis: All chapters of the RCC guideline were updated on the basis of a structured literature assessment, and clinical practice recommendations were developed. The majority of the studies included were retrospective with matched or unmatched cohorts and were based on single- or multi-institution data or national registries. The exception was systemic treatment of metastatic RCC, for which there are several large RCTs, resulting in recommendations that are based on higher levels of evidence.Conclusions: The 2022 RCC guidelines have been updated by a multidisciplinary panel of experts using the highest methodological standards. These guidelines provide the most reliable contemporary evidence base for the management of RCC in 2022. Patient summary: The European Association of Urology panel for guidelines on kidney cancer has thoroughly evaluated the research data available to establish up-to-date international standards for the care of patients with kidney cancer.
|
|
| 6. |
- Abu-Ghanem, Yasmin, et al.
(författare)
-
Should patients with low-risk renal cell carcinoma be followed differently after nephron-sparing surgery vs radical nephrectomy?
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BJU International. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1464-4096 .- 1464-410X. ; 128:3, s. 386-394
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To investigate whether pT1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be followed differently after partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) based on a retrospective analysis of a multicentre database (RECUR).Subjects: A retrospective study was conducted in 3380 patients treated for nonmetastatic RCC between January 2006 and December 2011 across 15 centres from 10 countries, as part of the RECUR database project. For patients with pT1 clear-cell RCC, patterns of recurrence were compared between RN and PN according to recurrence site. Univariate and multivariate models were used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM).Results: From the database 1995 patients were identified as low-risk patients (pT1, pN0, pNx), of whom 1055 (52.9%) underwent PN. On multivariate analysis, features associated with worse RFS included tumour size (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14–1.39; P < 0.001), nuclear grade (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.73–3.08; P < 0.001), tumour necrosis (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03–2.3; P = 0.037), vascular invasion (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3–4.4; P = 0.005) and positive surgical margins (HR 4.4, 95% CI 2.3–8.5; P < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier analysis of CSM revealed that the survival of patients with recurrence after PN was significantly better than those with recurrence after RN (P = 0.02). While the above-mentioned risk factors were associated with prognosis, type of surgery alone was not an independent prognostic variable for RFS nor CSM. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study.Conclusion: Our results showed that follow-up protocols should not rely solely on stage and type of primary surgery. An optimized regimen should also include validated risk factors rather than type of surgery alone to select the best imaging method and to avoid unnecessary imaging. A follow-up of more than 3 years should be considered in patients with pT1 tumours after RN. A novel follow-up strategy is proposed.
|
|
| 7. |
- Albiges, Laurence, et al.
(författare)
-
Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma : Immune Checkpoint Inhibition Is the New Backbone in First-line Treatment of Metastatic Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 76:2, s. 151-156
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Recent randomised trials have demonstrated a survival benefit for a front-line ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy, and pembrolizumab and axitinib combination therapy in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel has updated its recommendations based on these studies. Patient summary: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib is a new standard of care for patients diagnosed with kidney cancer spread outside the kidney and who did not receive any prior treatment for their cancer (treatment naïve). This applies to all risk groups as determined by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria.
|
|
| 8. |
- Bedke, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
2021 Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines on the Use of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab for Renal Cell Carcinoma
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 81:2, s. 134-137
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Adjuvant treatment of nonmetastatic high-risk renal cell carcinoma is an unmet medical need. In the past, several tyrosine kinase inhibitor trials have failed to demonstrate an improvement of disease-free survival (DFS) in this setting. Only one trial (S-TRAC) provided evidence for improved DFS with sunitinib but without an overall survival (OS) signal. Keynote-564 is the first trial of an immune checkpoint inhibitor that significantly improved DFS with adjuvant pembrolizumab, a programmed death receptor-1 antibody, in clear cell renal cell carcinoma with a high risk of relapse. The intention-to-treat population, which included a group of patients after metastasectomy and no evidence of disease (M1 NED), had a significant DFS benefit. The OS data are not mature as yet. The Renal Cell Carcinoma Guideline Panel issues a weak recommendation for the adjuvant use of pembrolizumab for high-risk clear cell renal carcinoma, as defined by the trial until final OS data are available. However, the trial reilluminates the discussion on when and in whom metastasectomy should be performed. Here, caution is necessary not to perform metastasectomy in patients with poor prognostic features and rapid progressive disease, which must be excluded by a confirmatory scan of disease status prior to planned metastasectomy.Patient summary: New data from the adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor trial with pembrolizumab (a programmed death receptor-1 antibody) for the treatment of high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) after surgery showed that the drug prolonged the period of being cancer free significantly, although whether it prolonged survival remained uncertain. Consequently, pembrolizumab is cautiously recommended as additional (ie, adjuvant) treatment in high-risk ccRCC after kidney cancer surgery.
|
|
| 9. |
- Bedke, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
The 2021 Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma : Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor–based Combination Therapies for Treatment-naive Metastatic Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Are Standard of Care
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 80:4, s. 393-397
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The recent randomized controlled phase III CLEAR trial results are the last to complement immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based doublet combination therapies for treatment-naïve metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. The CLEAR trial demonstrated an improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and an objective response rate (ORR) benefit for the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib. The CheckMate-9ER trial update demonstrated an ongoing PFS, OS, and quality-of-life benefit for cabozantinib plus nivolumab over sunitinib as did the update of Keynote-426 for axitinib plus pembrolizumab in the intention-to-treat population, with a PFS benefit seen across all International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) subgroups. In the IMDC intermediate- and poor-risk groups, the CheckMate-214 trial of ipilimumab plus nivolumab confirmed the OS benefit with a PFS plateauing after 30 months. The RCC Guidelines Panel recommends three tyrosine kinase inhibitors + ICI combinations of axitinib plus pembrolizumab, cabozantinib plus nivolumab, and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab across all IMDC risk groups in advanced first-line RCC, and dual immunotherapy of ipilimumab and nivolumab in IMDC intermediate- and poor-risk groups. Patient summary: New data from combination trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced kidney cancer confirm a survival benefit for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, cabozantinib plus nivolumab (with improved quality-of-life), axitinib plus pembrolizumab, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab. These combination therapies are recommended as first-line treatment for advanced kidney cancer.
|
|
| 10. |
- Bedke, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
The 2022 updated European association of urology guidelines on the use of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for renal cell carcinoma
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 83:1, s. 10-14
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In KEYNOTE-564, adjuvant pembrolizumab, a PD-1 antibody, significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) in localised clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) with a high risk of relapse. In 2021, the European Association of Urology RCC Guidelines Panel issued a weak recommendation for adjuvant pembrolizumab for high-risk ccRCC as defined by the trial until final overall survival data and results from other trials were available. Meanwhile, the primary DFS endpoints were not met for adjuvant atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor; IMmotion010), adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 914), or perioperative nivolumab (PROSPER). Owing to heterogeneity, a meta-analysis is not recommended. Pembrolizumab remains the only immune checkpoint inhibitor currently recommended in this setting. Overall survival data are immature and biomarkers to predict outcome are lacking. Uncertainty exists and overtreatment is occurring. Treatment decisions should be made with caution and with the involvement of each patient.Patient summary: New results from three trials of immunotherapy after surgery for kidney cancer to reduce the risk of recurrence showed no improvement with these treatments. These results are in contrast to an earlier study that showed that the antibody pembrolizumab did extend the time before kidney cancer recurrence, even though it is not yet clear if overall survival is longer. Thus, we cautiously recommend pembrolizumab as additional treatment in high-risk kidney cancer after surgery, but patient preference should be carefully considered and the risk of overtreatment should be discussed.
|
|
