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, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
The 2022 guideline provides the current best evidence base for renal cell carcinoma management. Changes in medical management in recent years include the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), ...ICI–ICI combinations, and ICI-targeted therapy combinations. Surgery remains the mainstay for lower-grade tumours, with increasing use of minimally invasive approaches. More robust data are needed to identify optimal follow-up schedules.
The European Association of Urology (EAU) Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Guideline Panel has prepared evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the management of RCC.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
Approximately 70% of cases of kidney cancer are localized or locally advanced at diagnosis. Among patients who undergo surgery for these cancers, 30-35% will eventually develop potentially fatal ...metachronous distant metastases. Effective adjuvant treatments are urgently needed to reduce the risk of recurrence of kidney cancer and of dying of metastatic disease. To date, almost all of the tested adjuvant agents have failed to demonstrate any benefit. Only two trials of an autologous renal tumour cell vaccine and of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib have shown positive results, but these have been criticized for methodological reasons and conflicting data, respectively. The results of two additional trials of targeted agents as adjuvant therapies have not yet been published. Novel immune checkpoint inhibitors are promising approaches to adjuvant therapy in kidney cancer, and a number of trials are now underway. An important component of the management of patients with kidney cancer, particularly those who undergo radical resection for localized renal cell carcinoma, is the preservation of kidney function to reduce morbidity and mortality. The optimal management of these patients therefore requires a multidisciplinary approach involving nephrologists, oncologists, urologists and pathologists.
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
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
Systemic therapy for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) has greatly evolved over the last 15yr. More recently, combination strategies involving contemporary immunotherapy have ...emerged as key opportunities to further shift the treatment landscape.
To review the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of standard therapeutic options in mccRCC as well as combination immunotherapy options on the horizon.
PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to February 2018 and according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. A narrative review of studies was performed.
Twenty-six studies were included regarding therapies for metastatic RCC including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-directed therapy (n=9), mTOR inhibitors (n=2), cytokines (n=3), vaccines (n=3), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs, n=9). VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy had been the standard therapy, and its use is evolving in the front-line setting with ICIs; cabozantinib provides superior progression-free survival versus sunitinib in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium criteria. The mTOR therapy is largely inferior to VEGF-directed therapy, although it has a role in combination strategies. Cytokines have largely been replaced in current practice throughout most regions, and vaccines have failed to show improved survival in phase III studies to date. ICIs have now become standard care in untreated patients with intermediate and poor risks, given overall survival benefit seen with CheckMate-214 study; survival data from IMmotion 151 are not yet mature. Several ongoing phase III combination trials, with promising early-phase data, are due to be read out.
The treatment landscape for mccRCC has evolved since the introduction of VEGF inhibitors. Combination therapies involving checkpoint inhibitors could be the next standard of care.
With the expanding role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma, the treatment paradigm has shifted to include combination therapy in the untreated setting. As the field advances, the bar has been raised in evaluating ongoing combination strategies.
With the expanding role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma, the treatment paradigm has shifted to include combination therapy in the untreated setting. As the field advances, the bar has been raised in evaluating ongoing combination strategies.
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
Purpose
Radiomics is a specific field of medical research that uses programmable recognition tools to extract objective information from standard images to combine with clinical data, with the aim of ...improving diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive accuracy beyond standard visual interpretation. We performed a narrative review of radiomic applications that may support improved characterization of small renal masses (SRM). The main focus of the review was to identify and discuss methods which may accurately differentiate benign from malignant renal masses, specifically between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes and from angiomyolipoma without visible fat (fat-poor AML) and oncocytoma. Furthermore, prediction of grade, sarcomatoid features, and gene mutations would be of importance in terms of potential clinical utility in prognostic stratification and selecting personalised patient management strategies.
Methods
A detailed search of original articles was performed using the PubMed–MEDLINE database until 20 September 2020 to identify the English literature relevant to radiomics applications in renal tumour assessment. In total, 42 articles were included in the analysis in 3 main categories related to SRM: prediction of benign versus malignant SRM, subtypes, and nuclear grade, and other features of aggressiveness.
Conclusion
Overall, studies reported the superiority of radiomics over expert radiological assessment, but were mainly of retrospective design and therefore of low-quality evidence. However, it is clear that radiomics is an attractive modality that has the potential to improve the non-invasive diagnostic accuracy of SRM imaging and prediction of its natural behaviour. Further prospective validation studies of radiomics are needed to augment management algorithms of SRM.
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
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
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.
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.
Longer follow-up data 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. A recent update of Keynote-426 demonstrated an ongoing overall survival benefit for pembrolizumab plus axitinib in the intention-to-treat population, with a progression-free survival benefit seen across all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) subgroups. The RCC Guidelines Panel continues to recommend this combination across IMDC risk groups in advanced first-line RCC.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Summary Local treatment of metastases such as metastasectomy or radiotherapy remains controversial in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. To investigate the benefits and harms of ...various local treatments, we did a systematic review of all types of comparative studies on local treatment of metastases from renal cell carcinoma in any organ. Interventions included metastasectomy, radiotherapy modalities, and no local treatment. The results suggest that patients treated with complete metastasectomy have better survival and symptom control (including pain relief in bone metastases) than those treated with either incomplete or no metastasectomy. Nevertheless, the available evidence was marred by high risks of bias and confounding across all studies. Although the findings presented here should be interpreted with caution, they and the identified gaps in knowledge should provide guidance for clinicians and researchers, and directions for further research.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
PDF
