| 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. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
- 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.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- 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.
|
|
| 9. |
- Bex, Axel, et al.
(författare)
-
Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines Regarding Adjuvant Therapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 71:5, s. 719-722
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European Association of Urology Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) guidelines panel updated their recommendation on adjuvant therapy in unfavourable, clinically nonmetastatic RCC following the recently reported results of a second randomised controlled phase 3 trial comparing 1-yr sunitinib to placebo for high-risk RCC after nephrectomy (S-TRAC). On the basis of conflicting results from the two available studies, the panel rated the quality of the evidence, the harm-to-benefit ratio, patient preferences, and costs. Finally, the panel, including representatives from a patient advocate group (International Kidney Cancer Coalition) voted and reached a consensus to not recommend adjuvant therapy with sunitinib for patients with high-risk RCC after nephrectomy. Patient summary: In two studies, sunitinib was given for 1 yr and compared to no active treatment (placebo) in patients who had their kidney tumour removed and who had a high risk of cancer coming back after surgery. Although one study demonstrated that 1 yr of sunitinib therapy resulted in a 1.2-yr longer time before the disease recurred, the other study did not show a benefit and it has not been shown that patients live longer. Despite having been diagnosed with high-risk disease, many patients remain without recurrence, and the side effects of sunitinib are high. Therefore, the panel members, including patient representatives, do not recommend sunitinib after tumour removal in these patients.
|
|
| 10. |
- 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.
|
|
| 11. |
- 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)
|
|
| 12. |
- 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.
|
|
| 13. |
- 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.
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
- Lardas, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
Systematic Review of Surgical Management of Nonmetastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma with Vena Caval Thrombus
- 2016
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 70:2, s. 265-280
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- CONTEXT: Overall, 4-10% of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) present with venous tumour thrombus. It is uncertain which surgical technique is best for these patients. Appraisal of outcomes with differing techniques would guide practice.OBJECTIVE: To systematically review relevant literature comparing the outcomes of different surgical therapies and approaches in treating vena caval thrombus (VCT) from nonmetastatic RCC.EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) were searched to identify relevant comparative studies. Risk of bias and confounding assessments were performed. A narrative synthesis of the evidence was presented.EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The literature search identified 824 articles. Fourteen studies reporting on 2262 patients were included. No distinct surgical method was superior for the excision of VCT, although the method appeared to be dependent on tumour thrombus level. Minimal access techniques appeared to have better perioperative and recovery outcomes than traditional median sternotomy, but the impact on oncologic outcomes is unknown. Preoperative renal artery embolisation did not offer any oncologic benefits and instead resulted in significantly worse perioperative and recovery outcomes, including possibly higher perioperative mortality. The comparison of cardiopulmonary bypass versus no cardiopulmonary bypass showed no differences in oncologic outcomes. Overall, there were high risks of bias and confounding.CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base, although derived from retrospective case series and complemented by expert opinion, suggests that patients with nonmetastatic RCC and VCT and acceptable performance status should be considered for surgical intervention. Despite a robust review, the findings were associated with uncertainty due to the poor quality of primary studies available. The most efficacious surgical technique remains unclear.PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the literature on the benefits of surgery to remove kidney cancers that have spread to neighbouring veins. The results suggest such surgery, although challenging and associated with high risk of complications, appears to be feasible and effective and should be contemplated for suitable patients if possible; however, many uncertainties remain due to the poor quality of the data.
|
|
| 16. |
- Ljungberg, Börje, et al.
(författare)
-
EAU Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma : 2014 Update
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 67:5, s. 913-924
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: The European Association of Urology Guideline Panel for Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) has prepared evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for RCC management. Objectives: To provide an update of the 2010 RCC guideline based on a standardised methodology that is robust, transparent, reproducible, and reliable. Evidence acquisition: For the 2014 update, the panel prioritised the following topics: percutaneous biopsy of renal masses, treatment of localised RCC (including surgical and nonsurgical management), lymph node dissection, management of venous thrombus, systemic therapy, and local treatment of metastases, for which evidence synthesis was undertaken based on systematic reviews adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant databases (Medline, Cochrane Library, trial registries, conference proceedings) were searched (January 2000 to November 2013) including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective or controlled studies with a comparator arm. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment and qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence were performed. The remaining sections of the document were updated following a structured literature assessment. Evidence synthesis: All chapters of the RCC guideline were updated. For the various systematic reviews, the search identified a total of 10 862 articles. A total of 151 studies reporting on 78 792 patients were eligible for inclusion; where applicable, data from RCTs were included and meta-analyses were performed. For RCTs, there was low RoB across studies; however, clinical and methodological heterogeneity prevented data pooling for most studies. The majority of studies included were retrospective with matched or unmatched cohorts based on single or multi-institutional data or national registries. The exception was for systemic treatment of metastatic RCC, in which several RCTs have been performed, resulting in recommendations based on higher levels of evidence. Conclusions: The 2014 guideline has been updated by a multidisciplinary panel using the highest methodological standards, and provides the best and most reliable contemporary evidence base for RCC management. Patient summary: The European Association of Urology Guideline Panel for Renal Cell Carcinoma has thoroughly evaluated available research data on kidney cancer to establish international standards for the care of kidney cancer patients.
|
|
| 17. |
- Ljungberg, Börje, et al.
(författare)
-
EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma : the 2010 update
- 2010
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 58:3, s. 398-406
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context and objectives The European Association of Urology Guideline Group for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has prepared these guidelines to help clinicians assess the current evidence-based management of RCC and to incorporate the present recommendations into daily clinical practice. Evidence acquisition The recommendations provided in the current updated guidelines are based on a thorough review of available RCC guidelines and review articles combined with a systematic literature search using Medline and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Evidence synthesis A number of recent prospective randomised studies concerning RCC are now available with a high level of evidence, whereas earlier publications were based on retrospective analyses, including some larger multicentre validation studies, meta-analyses, and well-designed controlled studies. Conclusions These guidelines contain information for the treatment of an individual patient according to a current standardised general approach. Updated recommendations concerning diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up can improve the clinical handling of patients with RCC. Take Home Message This review of the 2010 European Association of Urology renal cell carcinoma guidelines is intended to help clinicians access knowledge of current evidence-based management according to a standardised general approach. Structured literature searches were carried out in different databases of systematic reviews and clinical trials. Grade of recommendation was assigned based on the underlying evidence.
|
|
| 18. |
- 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.
|
|
| 19. |
- 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.
|
|
| 20. |
- Marconi, Lorenzo, et al.
(författare)
-
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Percutaneous Renal Tumour Biopsy
- 2016
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 69:4, s. 660-673
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: The role of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy (RTB) remains controversial due to uncertainties regarding its diagnostic accuracy and safety.Objective: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety and accuracy of percutaneous RTB for the diagnosis of malignancy, histologic tumour subtype, and grade.Evidence acquisition: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies providing data on diagnostic accuracy and complications of percutaneous core biopsy (CB) or fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of renal tumours. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of malignancy. The Cohen kappa coefficient (κ) was estimated for the analysis of histotype/grade concordance between diagnosis on RTB and surgical specimen. Risk of bias assessment was performed (QUADAS-2).Evidence synthesis: A total of 57 studies recruiting 5228 patients were included. The overall median diagnostic rate of RTB was 92%. The sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic CBs and FNAs were 99.1% and 99.7%, and 93.2% and 89.8%, respectively. A good (κ = 0.683) and a fair (κ = 0.34) agreement were observed between histologic subtype and Fuhrman grade on RTB and surgical specimen, respectively. A very low rate of Clavien ≥2 complications was reported. Study limitations included selection and differential-verification bias.Conclusions: RTB is safe and has a high diagnostic yield in experienced centres. Both CB and FNA have good accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy and histologic subtype, with better performance for CB. The accuracy for Fuhrman grade is fair. Overall, the quality of the evidence was moderate. Prospective cohort studies recruiting consecutive patients and using homogeneous reference standards are required.Patient summary: We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the safety and diagnostic performance of renal tumour biopsy (RTB). The results suggest that RTB has good accuracy in diagnosing renal cancer and its subtypes, and it appears to be safe. However, the quality of evidence was moderate, and better quality studies are required to provide a more definitive answer.
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| 24. |
- Vogel, Christian, et al.
(författare)
-
Imaging in Suspected Renal-Cell Carcinoma : Systematic Review
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. - : Elsevier. - 1558-7673 .- 1938-0682. ; 17:2, s. E345-E355
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To systematically assessed the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) compared to other imaging modalities for diagnosing and staging renal-cell carcinoma in adults.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted through various electronic databases. Data from the selected studies were extracted and pooled, and median sensitivity and specificity were calculated wherever possible. Forty studies analyzing data of 4354 patients were included. They examined CT, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography-CT, and ultrasound (US).Results: For CT, median sensitivity and specificity were 88% (interquartile range [IQR] 81%-94%) and 75% (IQR 51%-90%), and for MRI they were 87.5% (IQR 75.25%-100%) and 89% (IQR 75%-96%). Staging sensitivity and specificity for CT were 87% and 74.5%, while MRI showed a median sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 75%. For US, the results varied greatly depending on the corresponding technique. Contrast-enhanced US had a median diagnostic sensitivity of 93% (IQR 88.75%-98.25%) combined with mediocre specificity. The diagnostic performance of unenhanced US was poor. For positron emission tomography-CT, diagnostic accuracy values were good but were based on only a small amount of data. Limitations include the strong heterogeneity of data due to the large variety in imaging techniques and tumor histotypes. Contrast-enhanced CT and MRI remain the diagnostic mainstay for renal-cell carcinoma, with almost equally high diagnostic and staging accuracy.Conclusion: For specific questions, a combination of different imaging techniques such as CT or MRI and contrast-enhanced US may be useful. There is a need for future large prospective studies to further increase the quality of evidence.
|
|
