The European Association of Urology Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Guideline Panel has prepared evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the management of RCC.
To provide an updated RCC ...guideline based on standardised methodology including systematic reviews, which is robust, transparent, reproducible, and reliable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The 2019 European Association of Urology renal cell cancer guidelines have been updated by a multidisciplinary panel of experts, based on the highest methodological standards. These guidelines provide the most reliable contemporaneous evidence base for the management of patients with renal cell cancer in 2019.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
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.
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.
Pembrolizumab plus axitinib are recommended as a new standard of care in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. For treatment-naïve IMDC intermediate- and poor-risk patients, ipilimumab plus nivolumab remains the standard treatment. Sunitinib, pazopanib, and cabozantinib (in IMDC intermediate- and poor-risk disease) are alternative treatment options in patients who cannot receive or tolerate immune checkpoint inhibition in a first-line setting.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the targeted therapy (TT) era is controversial.
To assess if CN versus no CN is associated ...with improved overall survival (OS) in patients with mRCC treated in the TT era and beyond, characterize the morbidity of CN, identify prognostic and predictive factors, and evaluate outcomes following treatment sequencing.
Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to June 4, 2018 for English-language clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies evaluating patients with mRCC who underwent and those who did not undergo CN. The primary outcome was OS. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaborative tools.
We identified 63 reports on 56 studies. Risk of bias was considered moderate or serious for 50 studies. CN was associated with improved OS among patients with mRCC in 10 nonrandomized studies, while one randomized trial (CARMENA) found that OS with sunitinib alone was noninferior to that with CN followed by sunitinib. The risk of perioperative mortality and Clavien ≥3 complications ranged from 0% to 10.4% and from 3% to 29.4%, respectively, with no meaningful differences between upfront CN or CN after presurgical systemic therapy (ST). Notably, 12.9–30.4% of patients did not receive ST after CN. Factors most consistently prognostic of decreased OS were progression on presurgical ST, high C-reactive protein, high neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, poor International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC)/Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk classification, sarcomatoid dedifferentiation, and poor performance status. At the same time, good performance status and good/intermediate IMDC/MSKCC risk classification were most consistently predictive of OS benefit with CN. In a randomized trial investigating the sequence of CN and ST (SURTIME), an OS trend was observed with CN after a period of ST in patients without progression compared with upfront CN. However, the study was underpowered and results are exploratory.
Currently, ST should be prioritized in the management of patients with de novo mRCC who require medical therapy. CN maintains a role in patients with limited metastatic burden amenable to surveillance or metastasectomy, and may potentially be considered in patients with favorable response after initial ST or for symptom's palliation.
In the contemporary era, receiving systemic therapy is the priority in metastatic kidney cancer. Nephrectomy still has a role in patients with limited burden of metastases, well-selected patients based on established prognostic and predictive factors, and patients with a favorable response after initial systemic therapy.
In the targeted therapy era and beyond, systemic therapy is a priority in the management of de novo metastatic renal cell carcinoma. However, cytoreductive nephrectomy still has a role in patients with limited metastatic burden amenable to surveillance or metastasectomy, well-selected patients based on established prognostic and predictive factors, and patients with a favorable response after initial systemic therapy.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Renal cell carcinoma is the third type of urologic cancer and has a poor prognosis with 30% of metastatic patients at diagnosis. The antiangiogenics and targeted immunotherapies led to treatment ...remodeling emphasizing the role of the tumour microenvironment. However, long-term responses are rare with a high rate of resistance. New strategies are emerging to improve the efficacy and the emerging drugs are under evaluation in ongoing trials. With the different treatment options, there is an urgent need to identify biomarkers in order to predict the efficacy of drugs and to better stratify patients. Owing to the limitations of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), the most studied immunohistochemistry biomarkers, and of the tumor mutational burden, the identification of more reliable markers is an unmet need. New technologies could help in this purpose.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
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-naïve 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.
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.
Based on the Checkmate-214 trial, the European Association of Urology guidelines, which will be updated, recommend ipilimumab and nivolumab (IN) as the standard of care in intermediate- and poor-risk patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Alternative agents such as sunitinib, pazopanib, and cabozantinib should be considered when IN is not safe or feasible. At present, in favourable-risk patients, the data from the trial are immature. Therefore, sunitinib or pazopanib remains the preferred agent in this subgroup of patients.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
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.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
Renal cell carcinoma encompass distinct diseases with different pathologic features and distinct molecular pathways. Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the programmed death receptor ligand 1 ...(PD-L1)/programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) pathway alone or in combination have greatly changed clinical management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, now competing with antiangiogenic drugs in monotherapy for first-line treatment. However, long-term response rates are low, and biomarkers are needed to predict treatment response. Quantification of PD-L1 expression by immunohistochemistry was developed as a promising biomarker in clinical trials, but with many limitations (different antibodies, tumour heterogeneity, specimens, and different thresholds of positivity). Other biomarkers, including tumour mutational burden and molecular signatures, are also developed and discussed in this review.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Background
Only a few studies have compared the outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN). This study aimed to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes of ...RPN and OPN.
Methods
The data of all patients who underwent partial nephrectomy from 2006 to 2014 in six academic departments of urology were retrospectively collected. Perioperative outcomes were compared between OPN and RPN patients. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.
Results
The study included 1800 patients: 937 who underwent RPN and 863 who underwent OPN. The patients in the robotic group had smaller tumors (33.1 vs. 39.9 mm;
p
< 0.001) but comparable RENAL scores (6.8 vs. 6.7;
p
= 0.37). The complication rate was higher in the OPN group (28.6 vs. 18 %;
p
< 0.001). The OPN patients had greater estimated blood loss (359.5 vs. 275 ml;
p
< 0.001) and more frequent hemorrhagic complications (12.1 vs. 6.9 %;
p
< 0.001). The robotic approach was associated with a shorter warm ischemia time (WIT 15.7 vs. 18.6 min;
p
< 0.001) and a shorter hospital of stay (4.7 vs. 10.1 days;
p
< 0.001). In the propensity score-weighted analysis, the inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted odds ratio for the risk of complication after OPN versus RPN was 2.11 (95 % confidence interval, 1.53–2.91;
p
< 0.001). After a median postoperative follow-up period of 13 months for OPN and 39 months for RPN (
p
< 0.001), CSS and RFS were similar in the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, RPN showed an impact on the occurrence of a complication but had no effect on WIT or RFS.
Conclusion
In this study, RPN was less morbid than OPN, with lower complications, less blood loss, and a shorter hospital of stay. The intermediate-term oncologic outcomes were similar in the two groups.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
Objective
To assess the impact of ischaemia on renal function after partial nephrectomy (PN).
Materials and methods
A literature review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for ...Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. In January 2015, the Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched using the protocol (‘warm ischemia’mesh OR ‘warm ischemia’ti) AND (‘nephrectomy’mesh OR ‘partial nephrectomy’ti). An updated search was performed in December 2015. Only studies based on a solitary kidney model or on a two‐kidney model but with assessment of split renal function were included in this review.
Results
Of the 1119 studies identified, 969 s were screened after duplicates were removed: 29 articles were finally included in this review, including nine studies that focused on patients with a solitary kidney. None of the nine studies adjusting for the amount of preserved parenchyma found a negative impact of warm ischaemia time on postoperative renal function, unless this was extended beyond a 25‐min threshold. The quality and the quantity of preserved parenchyma appeared to be the main contributors to postoperative renal function.
Conclusion
Currently, no evidence supports that limited ischaemia time (i.e. ≤25 min) has a higher risk of reducing renal function after PN compared to a ‘zero ischaemia’ technique. Several recent studies have suggested that prolonged warm ischaemia (>25–30 min) could cause an irreversible ischaemic insult to the surgically treated kidney.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Abstract
To describe clinical outcomes of patients aged 75 years and above after partial nephrectomy (PN), and to assess independent factors of postoperative complications. We retrospectively ...reviewed information from our multi-institutional database. Every patient over 75 years old who underwent a PN between 2003 and 2016 was included. Peri-operative and follow up data were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine independent predictive factors of postoperative complications. We reviewed 191 procedures including 69 (40%) open-surgery, and 122 (60%) laparoscopic procedures, of which 105 were robot-assisted. Median follow-up was 25 months. The mean age was 78 75–88. The American Society of Anesthesiologist’s score was 1, 2, 3 and 4 in 10.5%, 60%, 29% and 0.5% of patients respectively. The mean tumor size was 4.6 cm. Indication of PN was elective in 122 (65%) patients and imperative in 52 patients (28%). The median length of surgery was 150(± 60) minutes, and the median estimated blood loss 200 ml. The mean glomerular filtration rate was 71.5 ml/minute preoperatively, and 62 ml/min three months after surgery. The severe complications (Clavien III-V) rate was 6.2%. On multivariate analysis, the robotic-assisted procedure was an independent protective factor of medical postoperative complications (Odds Ration (OR) = 0.31 0.12–0.80, p = 0.01). It was adjusted for age and RENAL score, robotic-assisted surgery (OR = 0.22 0.06–0.79, p = 0.02), and tumor size (OR = 1.13 1.02–1.26, p = 0.01), but the patients age did not forecast surgical complications. Partial nephrectomy can be performed safely in elderly patients with an acceptable morbidity, and should be considered as a viable treatment option. Robotic assistance is an independent protective factor of postoperative complications.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
