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, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
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, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, 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
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
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
The spectrum of the renal oncocytic tumors has been expanded in recent years to include several novel and emerging entities. We describe a cohort of novel, hitherto unrecognized and morphologically ...distinct high-grade oncocytic tumors (HOT), currently diagnosed as “unclassified” in the WHO classification. We identified 14 HOT by searching multiple institutional archives. Morphologic, immunohistochemical (IHC), molecular genetic, and molecular karyotyping studies were performed to investigate these tumors. The patients included 3 men and 11 women, with age range from 25 to 73 years (median 50, mean 49 years). Tumor size ranged from 1.5 to 7.0 cm in the greatest dimension (median 3, mean 3.4 cm). The tumors were all pT1 stage. Microscopically, they showed nested to solid growth, and focal tubulocystic architecture. The neoplastic cells were uniform with voluminous oncocytic cytoplasm. Prominent intracytoplasmic vacuoles were frequently seen, but no irregular (raisinoid) nuclei or perinuclear halos were present. All tumors demonstrated prominent nucleoli (WHO/ISUP grade 3 equivalent). Nine of 14 cases were positive for CD117 and cytokeratin (CK) 7 was either negative or only focally positive in of 6/14 cases. All tumors were positive for AE1-AE3, CK18, PAX 8, antimitochondrial antigen, and SDHB. Cathepsin K was positive in 13/14 cases and CD10 was positive in 12/13 cases. All cases were negative for TFE3, HMB45, Melan-A. No
TFEB
and
TFE3
genes rearrangement was found in analyzable cases. By array CGH, complete chromosomal losses or gains were not found in any of the cases, and 3/9 cases showed absence of any abnormalities. Chromosomal losses were detected on chromosome 19 (4/9), 3 with losses of the short arm (p) and 1 with losses of both arms (p and q). Loss of chromosome 1 was found in 3/9 cases; gain of 5q was found in 1/9 cases. On molecular karyotyping, 3/3 evaluated cases showed loss of heterozygosity (LOH) on 16p11.2-11.1 and 2/3 cases showed LOH at 7q31.31. Copy number (CN) losses were found at 7q11.21 (3/3), Xp11.21 (3/3), Xp11.22-11.21 (3/3), and Xq24-25 (2/3). CN gains were found at 13q34 (2/3). Ten patients with available follow up information were alive and without disease progression, after a mean follow-up of 28 months (1 to 112 months). HOT is a tumor with unique morphology and its IHC profile appears mostly consistent. HOT should be considered as an emerging renal entity because it does not meet the diagnostic criteria for other recognized eosinophilic renal tumors, such as oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC), TFE3 and TFEB RCC, SDH-deficient RCC, and eosinophilic solid and cystic RCC.
PDF
