| 1. |
- Abu-Ghanem, Yasmin, et al.
(författare)
-
Limitations of Available Studies Prevent Reliable Comparison Between Tumour Ablation and Partial Nephrectomy for Patients with Localised Renal Masses : A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Renal Cell Cancer Guideline Panel
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Urology Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 2588-9311. ; 3:4, s. 423-442
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European Association of Urology (EAU) Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Guideline Panel performed a protocol-driven systematic review (SR) on thermal ablation (TA) compared with partial nephrectomy (PN) for T1N0M0 renal masses, in order to provide evidence to support its recommendations. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and only comparative studies published between 2000 and 2019 were included. Twenty-six nonrandomised comparative studies were included, recruiting a total of 167 80 patients. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment revealed high or uncertain RoB across all studies, with the vast majority being retrospective, observational studies with poorly matched controls and short follow-up. Limited data showed TA to be safe, but its long-term oncological effectiveness compared with PN remains uncertain. A quality assessment of pre-existing SRs (n = 11) on the topic, using AMSTAR, revealed that all SRs had low confidence rating, with all but two SRs being rated critically low. In conclusion, the current data are inadequate to make any strong and clear conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of TA for treating T1N0M0 renal masses compared with PN. Therefore, TA may be cautiously considered an alternative to PN for T1N0M0 renal masses, but patients must be counselled carefully regarding the prevailing uncertainties. We recommend specific steps to improve the evidence base based on robust primary and secondary studies.Patient summary: In this report, we looked at the literature to determine the effectiveness of thermoablation (TA) in the treatment of small kidney tumours compared with surgical removal. We found that TA could cautiously be offered as an option due to many remaining uncertainties regarding its effectiveness.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Abu-Ghanem, Yasmin, et al.
(författare)
-
The Impact of Histological Subtype on the Incidence, Timing, and Patterns of Recurrence in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma After Surgery : Results from RECUR Consortium
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Urology Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 2588-9311. ; 4:3, s. 473-482
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Current follow-up strategies for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after curative surgery rely mainly on risk models and the treatment delivered, regardless of the histological subtype.Objective: To determine the impact of RCC histological subtype on recurrence and to examine the incidence, pattern, and timing of recurrences to improve follow-up recommendations.Design, setting, and participants: This study included consecutive patients treated surgically with curative intention (ie, radical and partial nephrectomy) for nonmetastatic RCC (cT1–4, M0) between January 2006 and December 2011 across 15 centres from 10 countries, as part of the euRopEan association of urology renal cell carcinoma guidelines panel Collaborative multicenter consortium for the studies of follow-Up and recurrence patterns in Radically treated renal cell carcinoma patients (RECUR) database project.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The impact of histological subtype (ie, clear cell RCC [ccRCC], papillary RCC [pRCC], and chromophobe RCC [chRCC]) on recurrence-free survival (RFS) was assessed via univariate and multivariate analyses, adjusting for potential interactions with important variables (stage, grade, risk score, etc.) Patterns of recurrence for all histological subtypes were compared according to recurrence site and risk criteria.Results and limitations: Of the 3331 patients, 62.2% underwent radical nephrectomy and 37.8% partial nephrectomy. A total of 2565 patients (77.0%) had ccRCC, 535 (16.1%) had pRCC, and 231 (6.9%) had chRCC. The median postoperative follow-up period was 61.7 (interquartile range: 47–83) mo. Patients with ccRCC had significantly poorer 5-yr RFS than patients with pRCC and chRCC (78% vs 86% vs 91%, p = 0.001). The most common sites of recurrence for ccRCC were the lung and bone. Intermediate-/high-risk pRCC patients had an increased rate of lymphatic recurrence, both mediastinal and retroperitoneal, while recurrence in chRCC was rare (8.2%), associated with higher stage and positive margins, and predominantly in the liver and bone. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study.Conclusions: The main histological subtypes of RCC exhibit a distinct pattern and dynamics of recurrence. Results suggest that intermediate- to high-risk pRCC may benefit from cross-sectional abdominal imaging every 6 mo until 2 yr after surgery, while routine imaging might be abandoned for chRCC except for abdominal computed tomography in patients with advanced tumour stage or positive margins.Patient summary: In this analysis of a large database from 15 countries around Europe, we found that the main histological subtypes of renal cell carcinoma have a distinct pattern and dynamics of recurrence. Patients should be followed differently according to subtype and risk score.
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
- 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.
|
|
| 7. |
- 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.
|
|
| 8. |
- Bedke, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma : Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib Joins Immune Checkpoint Inhibition Combination Therapies for Treatment-naïve Metastatic Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 79:3, s. 339-342
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Longer follow-up and new trial data from phase 3 randomised controlled trials investigating immune checkpoint blockade (PD-1 or its ligand PD-L1) in advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have recently become available. The CheckMate 9ER trial demonstrated an improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit for the combination of cabozantinib plus nivolumab. A Keynote-426 update demonstrated an ongoing OS benefit for pembrolizumab plus axitinib in the intention-to-treat population, with a PFS benefit seen across all International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) subgroups, while an update of CheckMate 214 confirmed the long-term benefit of ipilimumab plus nivolumab in IMDC intermediate and poor risk patients. The RCC Guidelines Panel continues to recommend these tyrosine kinase inhibitors + immunotherapy (IO) combination across IMDC risk groups in advanced first-line RCC and dual immunotherapy of ipilimumab and nivolumab in IMDC intermediate and poor risk. PATIENT SUMMARY: New data from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced kidney cancer confirm a survival benefit with the combination of cabozantinib plus nivolumab and pembrolizumab plus axitinib and ipilimumab plus nivolumab. These combination therapies are recommended as first-line treatment for advanced kidney cancer.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Bex, Axel, et al.
(författare)
-
Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines for Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients with Synchronous Metastatic Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 74:6, s. 805-809
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has been the standard of care in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cancer who present with the tumour in place. The CARMENA trial compared systemic therapy alone with CN followed by systemic therapy. This article outlines the new guidelines based on these data.Patient summary: The CARMENA trial demonstrates that immediate cytoreductive nephrectomy should no longer be considered the standard of care in patients diagnosed with intermediate and poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma when medical treatment is required. However, the psychological burden poor risk patients experience hearing that removal of their primary tumour will not be beneficial, should be carefully considered.
|
|
| 11. |
- Capitanio, Umberto, et al.
(författare)
-
A renewal of the tnm staging system for patients with renal cancer to comply with current decision-making : Proposal from the European Association of Urology guidelines panel
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 83:1, s. 3-5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Risk classification for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is critical for clinical decision-making and ultimately for patient outcomes [1]. Staging is the single most informative piece of information for risk assessment in patients with cancer. Currently, the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC)/American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM scheme is the most universally accepted staging system [2]. Since its first publication in 1977, the UICC/AJCC TNM staging system has changed while still retaining its characteristics of simplicity, reproducibility, and user-friendliness.
|
|
| 12. |
- Capitanio, Umberto, et al.
(författare)
-
Reply to Yaxiong Tang, Xu Hu, Kan Wu, Yanxiang Shao, and Xiang Li’s Letter to the Editor re: Umberto Capitanio, Jens Bedke, Laurence Albiges, et al. A Renewal of the TNM Staging System for Patients with Renal Cancer To Comply with Current Decision-making: Proposal from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2022;83:3–5
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 83:3, s. e74-e75
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 13. |
- Dabestani, Saeed, et al.
(författare)
-
Increased use of cross-sectional imaging for follow-up does not improve post-recurrence survival of surgically treated initially localized RCC : results from a European multicenter database (RECUR)
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian journal of urology. - : Taylor & Francis Group. - 2168-1805 .- 2168-1813. ; 53:1, s. 14-20
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Modality and frequency of image-based renal cell carcinoma (R.C.C.) follow-up strategies are based on risk of recurrence. Using the R.E.C.U.R.-database, frequency of imaging was studied in regard to prognostic risk groups. Furthermore, it was investigated whether imaging modality utilized in contemporary follow-up were associated with outcome after detection of recurrence. Moreover, outcome was compared based on whether the assessment of potential curability was a pre-defined set of criteria's (per-protocol) or stated by the investigator. Materials and methods: Consecutive non-metastatic R.C.C. patients (n = 1,612) treated with curative intent at 12 institutes across eight European countries between 2006 and 2011 were included. Leibovich or U.I.S.S. risk group, recurrence characteristics, imaging modality, frequency and survival were recorded. Primary endpoints were overall survival (O.S.) after detection of recurrence and frequency of features associated with favourable outcome (non-symptomatic recurrences and detection within the follow-up-programme). Results: Recurrence occurred in 336 patients. Within low, intermediate and high risk for recurrence groups, the frequency of follow-up imaging was highest in the early phase of follow-up and decreased significantly over time (p < 0.001). However, neither the image modality for detection nor >= 50% cross-sectional imaging during follow-up were associated with improved O.S. after recurrence. Differences between per protocol and investigator based assessment of curability did not translate into differences in O.S. Conclusions: As expected, the frequency of imaging was highest during early follow-up. Cross-sectional imaging use for detection of recurrences following surgery for localized R.C.C. did not improve O.S. post-recurrence. Prospective studies are needed to determine the value of imaging in follow-up.
|
|
| 14. |
- Dabestani, Saeed, et al.
(författare)
-
Intensive Imaging-based Follow-up of Surgically Treated Localised Renal Cell Carcinoma Does Not Improve Post-recurrence Survival : Results from a European Multicentre Database (RECUR)
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 75:2, s. 261-264
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The optimal follow-up (FU) strategy for patients treated for localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains unclear. Using the RECUR database, we studied imaging intensity utilised in contemporary FU to evaluate its association with outcome after detection of disease recurrence. Consecutive patients with nonmetastatic RCC (n = 1612) treated with curative intent at 12 institutes across eight European countries between 2006 and 2011 were included. Recurrence occurred in 336 patients. Cross-sectional (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging) and conventional (chest X-ray, ultrasound) methods were used in 47% and 53%, respectively. More intensive FU imaging (more than twofold) than recommended by the European Association of Urology (EAU) was not associated with improved overall survival (OS) after recurrence. Overall, per patient treated for recurrence remaining alive with no evidence of disease, the number of FU images needed was 542, and 697 for high-risk patients. The study results suggest that use of more imaging during FU than that recommended in the 2017 EAU guidelines is unlikely to improve OS after recurrence. Prospective studies are needed to design optimal FU strategies for the future. Patient summary: After curative treatment for localised kidney cancer, follow-up is necessary to detect any recurrence. This study illustrates that increasing the imaging frequency during follow-up, even to double the number of follow-up imaging procedures recommended by the European Association of Urology guidelines, does not translate into improved survival for those with recurrence. After curative treatment for localised kidney cancer, a more intensive follow-up regimen than that recommended in the 2017 European Association of Urology guidelines did not improve overall survival among those experiencing recurrence, irrespective of the risk of recurrence. This suggests that an increase in follow-up imaging frequency is not cost-efficient. Prospective studies to identify more optimal follow-up strategies are needed.
|
|
| 15. |
- Dabestani, Saeed, et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term Outcomes of Follow-up for Initially Localised Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma : RECUR Database Analysis
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Urology Focus. - : Elsevier. - 2405-4569. ; :5, s. 857-866
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Optimal follow-up (FU) strategy to detect potentially curable (PC) recurrences after treatment of localised clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is unclear. This study retrospectively analysed a large international database to determine recurrence patterns and overall survival (OS), as part of a wider project to issue recommendations on FU protocols.OBJECTIVE: To analyse associations between RCC recurrences in patients with ccRCC, their risk group stratifications, treatments, and subsequent outcomes.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Nonmetastatic ccRCC patients treated with curative intent between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2011, with at least 4 yr of FU, were included. Patient, tumour and recurrence characteristics, Leibovich score, and management and survival data were recorded. Isolated local, solitary, and oligometastatic (three or fewer lesions at a single site) recurrences were considered PC, while all others were probably incurable (PI).INTERVENTION: Primarily curative surgical treatment of ccRCC while at recurrence detection metastasectomy, systemic therapy, best supportive care, or observation.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Incidence, time to recurrence (TTR), and OS were measured. Competing risk analysis, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox regression models were used.RESULTS AND LIMITATION: Of 1265 patients with ccRCC, 286 had a recurrence, with 131 being PC and 155 PI. Five-year cumulative risks of recurrence for low- (n=53), intermediate- (n=105), and high-risk (n=128) patients were, respectively, 7.2%, 23.2%, and 61.6%, of whom 52.8%, 37.1%, and 30.5% were PC, respectively. Median TTR was 25.0 for PC patients versus 17.3 mo for PI patients (p=0.004). Median OS was longer in PC compared with that in PI patients (p<0.001). Competing risk analysis showed highest risk of ccRCC-related death in younger and high-risk patients. Limitations were no data on comorbidities, retrospective cohort, and insufficient data excluding 12% of cohort.CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk group recurrences are rare and develop later. Treatment of recurrences with curative intent is disappointing, especially in high-risk patients. An age- and risk score-dependent FU approach is suggested.PATIENT SUMMARY: We analysed data from eight European countries, and found that the incidence of the kidney cancer recurrence and patient survival correlated with clinical factors known to predict cancer recurrence reliably and age. We conclude that these factors should be used to design follow-up strategies.
|
|
| 16. |
- 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.
|
|
| 17. |
- Fernández-Pello, Sergio, et al.
(författare)
-
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing the Effectiveness and Adverse Effects of Different Systemic Treatments for Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 71:3, s. 426-436
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context While vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition are effective strategies in treating clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), the most effective therapeutic approach for patients with non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC) is unknown. Objective To systematically review relevant literature comparing the oncological outcomes and adverse events of different systemic therapies for patients with metastatic non-ccRCC. Evidence acquisition Relevant databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to March 24, 2016. Only comparative studies were included. Risk of bias and confounding assessments were performed. A meta-analysis was planned for and only performed if methodologically appropriate; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Evidence synthesis The literature search identified 812 potential titles and abstracts. Five randomized controlled trials, recruiting a total of 365 patients, were included. Three studies compared sunitinib against everolimus, one of which reported the results for non-ccRCC as a subgroup rather than as an entire randomized cohort. Individually, the studies showed a trend towards favoring sunitinib in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS; Everolimus versus Sunitinib in Patients with Metastatic Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41, 80% confidence interval [CI] 1.03–1.92 and 1.41, 95% CI: 0.88–2.27, Evaluation in Metastatic Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.67–2.01, Efficacy and Safety Comparison of RAD001 Versus Sunitinib in the First-line and Second-line Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.9–2.8), but this trend did not reach statistical significance in any study. Meta-analysis was performed on two studies which solely recruited patients with non-ccRCC reporting on PFS, the results of which were inconclusive (HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.91–1.86). Sunitinib was associated with more Grade 3–4 adverse events than everolimus, although this was not statistically significant. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis represent a robust summary of the evidence base for systemic treatment of metastatic non-ccRCC. The results show a trend towards favoring vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy for PFS and overall survival compared with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, although statistical significance was not reached. The relative benefits and harms of these treatments remain uncertain. Further research, either in the form of an individual patient data meta-analysis involving all relevant trials, or a randomized controlled trial with sufficient power to detect potential differences between treatments, is needed. Patient summary We examined the literature to determine the most effective treatments for advanced kidney cancer patients whose tumors are not of the clear cell subtype. The results suggest that a drug called sunitinib might be more effective than everolimus, but the statistics supporting this statement are not yet entirely reliable. Further research is required to clarify this unmet medical need.
|
|
| 18. |
- Fernández-Pello, Sergio, et al.
(författare)
-
Management of Sporadic Renal Angiomyolipomas : A Systematic Review of Available Evidence to Guide Recommendations from the European Association of Urology Renal Cell Carcinoma Guidelines Panel
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Urology Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 2588-9311. ; 3:1, s. 57-72
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: Little is known about the natural history of sporadic angiomyolipomas (AMLs); there is uncertainty regarding the indications of treatment and treatment options. Objective: To evaluate the indications, effectiveness, harms, and follow-up of different management modalities for sporadic AML to provide guidance for clinical practice. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken, incorporating Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (from 1 January 1990 to 30 June 2017), in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. No restriction on study design was imposed. Patients with sporadic AML were included. The main interventions included active surveillance, surgery (nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy), selective arterial embolisation, and percutaneous or laparoscopic thermal ablations (radiofrequency, microwaves, or cryoablation). The outcomes included indications for active treatment, AML growth rate, AML recurrence rate, risk of bleeding, post-treatment renal function, adverse events of treatments, and modalities of followup. Risk of bias assessment was performed using standard Cochrane methods. Evidence synthesis: Among 2704 articles identified, 43 were eligible for inclusion (zero randomised controlled trials, nine nonrandomised comparative retrospective studies, and 34 single-arm case series). Most studies were retrospective and uncontrolled, and had a moderate to high risk of bias. Conclusions: In active surveillance series, spontaneous bleeding was reported in 2% of patients and active treatment was undertaken in 5%. Active surveillance is the most chosen option in 48% of the cases, followed by surgery in 31% and selective arterial embolisation in 17% of the cases. Selective arterial embolisation appeared to reduce AML volume but required secondary treatment in 30% of the cases. Surgery (particularly nephron-sparing surgery) was the most effective treatment in terms of recurrence and need for secondary procedures. Thermal ablation was an infrequent option. The association between AML size and the risk of bleeding remained unclear; as such the traditional 4-cm cut-off should not per se trigger active treatment. In spite of the limitations and uncertainties relating to the evidence base, the findings may be used to guide and inform clinical practice, until more robust data emerge. Patient summary: Sporadic angiomyolipoma (AML) is a benign tumour of the kidney consisting of a mixture of blood vessels, fat, and muscle. Large tumours may have a risk of spontaneous bleeding. However, the size beyond which these tumours need to be treated remains unclear. Most small AMLs can be monitored without any active treatment. For those who need treatment, options include surgical removal of the tumour or stopping its blood supply (selective embolisation). Surgery has a lower recurrence rate and lower need for a repeat surgical procedure.
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
- 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.
|
|
| 21. |
- 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.
|
|
| 22. |
- Marconi, Lorenzo, et al.
(författare)
-
Local treatment of recurrent renal cell carcinoma may have a significant survival effect across all risk-of-recurrence groups
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Urology Open Science. - : Elsevier. - 2666-1691 .- 2666-1683. ; 47, s. 65-72
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Retrospective comparative studies suggest a survival benefit after complete local treatment of recurrence (LTR) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which may be largely due to an indication bias.OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of LTR in a homogeneous population characterised by limited and potentially resectable recurrence.DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: RECUR is a protocol-based multicentre European registry capturing patient and tumour characteristics, risk of recurrence (RoR), recurrence patterns, and survival of those curatively treated for nonmetastatic RCC from 2006 to 2011. Per-protocol resectable disease (RD) recurrence was defined as (1) solitary metastases, (2) oligometastases, or (3) renal fossa or renal recurrence after radical or partial nephrectomy, respectively.INTERVENTION: Local treatment of recurrence.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival was compared in the RD population that underwent LTR versus no LTR. We constructed a multivariate model to predict risk factors for overall mortality and analysed the effect of LTR across RoR groups.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 3039 patients with localised RCC treated with curative intent, 505 presented with recurrence, including 176 with RD. Of these patients, 97 underwent LTR and 79 no LTR. Patients in the LTR group were younger (64.3 [40-80] vs 69.2 [45-87] yr; p = 0.001). The median OS was 70.3 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 58-82.6) versus 27.4 mo (95% CI 23.6-31.15) in the LTR versus no-LTR group (p < 0.001). After a multivariate analysis, having LTR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.37 [95% CI 0.2-0.6]), having low- versus high-risk RoR (HR 0.42 [95% CI [0.20-0.83]), and not having extra-abdominal/thoracic metastasis (HR 1.96 [95% CI 1.02-3.77]) were prognostic factors of longer OS. The LTR effect on survival was consistent across risk groups. OS HR for high, intermediate, and low risks were 0.36 (0.2-0.64), 0.27 (0.11-0.65), and 0.26 (0.08-0.8), respectively. Limitations include retrospective design.CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study assessing the effectiveness of LTR in RCC in a comparable population with RD. This study supports the role of LTR across all RoR groups.PATIENT SUMMARY: We assessed the effectiveness of local treatment of resectable recurrent renal cell carcinoma after surgical treatment of the primary kidney tumour. Local treatment of recurrence was associated with longer survival across groups with a risk of recurrence.
|
|
| 23. |
- Powles, Thomas, et al.
(författare)
-
Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines : Recommendations for the Treatment of First-line Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cancer
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 73:3, s. 311-315
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The randomised phase III clinical trial Checkmate-214 showed a survival superiority for the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab when compared with the previous standard of care in first-line metastatic/advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (Escudier B, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al. CheckMate 214: efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib for treatment-naive advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma, including IMDC risk and PD-L1 expression subgroups. LBA5, ESMO 2017, 2017). These results change the frontline standard of care for this disease and have implications for the selection of subsequent therapies. For this reason the European Association of Urology RCC guidelines have been updated. Patient summary: The European Association of Urology guidelines will be updated based on the results of the phase III Checkmate-214 clinical trial. The trial showed superior survival for a combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab (IN), compared with the previous standard of care, in intermediate-and poor-risk patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. When IN is not safe or feasible, alternative agents such as sunitinib, pazopanib, and cabozantinib should be considered. Furthermore, at present, the data from the trial are immature in favourable-risk patients. Therefore, sunitinib or pazopanib remains the favoured agent for this subgroup of patients.
|
|
