Search

Background and Objective: Randomised data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and prostatectomy in localised prostate cancer are lacking. PACE-A compared patient-reported health-related quality of life after SBRT with that after prostatectomy., Methods: PACE is a phase 3 open-label, randomised controlled trial. PACE-A randomised men with low- to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer to SBRT or prostatectomy (1:1). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was not permitted. The coprimary outcomes were the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) number of absorbent urinary pads required daily and bowel domain score at 2 yr. The secondary endpoints were clinician-reported toxicity, sexual functioning, and other PROs., Key Findings and Limitations: In total, 123 men were randomised (60 undergoing prostatectomy and 63 SBRT) from August 2012 to February 2022. The median follow-up time was 60.7 mo. The median age was 65.5 yr and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value 7.9 ng/ml; 92% had National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-risk disease. Fifty participants received prostatectomy and 60 received SBRT. At 2 yr, 16/32 (50%) prostatectomy and three of 46 (6.5%) SBRT participants used one or more urinary pads daily (p < 0.001; 15 and two, respectively, used one pad daily); the estimated difference was 43% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25%, 62%). At 2 yr, bowel scores were better for prostatectomy (median [interquartile range] 100 [100-100]) than for SBRT (87.5 [79.2-100]; p < 0.001), with an estimated mean difference of 8.9 between these (95% CI: 4.2, 13.7); sexual scores were worse for prostatectomy (18 [13.8-40.3]) than for SBRT (62.5 [32.0-87.5]). The limitations were slow recruitment and incomplete 2-yr PRO response rates., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: SBRT was associated with less patient-reported urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction, and slightly more bowel bother than prostatectomy. These randomised data should inform treatment decision-making for patients with localised, intermediate-risk prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but real-world data on sequential treatment are scarce. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of first-line (1L) systemic therapy following adjuvant immune oncology (IO)-based regimens., Methods: A retrospective study including patients with recurrent RCC following adjuvant IO across 29 international institutions was conducted. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) on 1L systemic therapy estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Preplanned subanalyses of clinical outcomes by type of 1L systemic therapy, recurrence timing, and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups were performed. Treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, or corticosteroid use were assessed., Key Findings and Limitations: A total of 94 patients were included. Most received adjuvant pembrolizumab (n = 37, 39%), atezolizumab (n = 28, 30%), or nivolumab + ipilimumab (n = 15, 16%). The cohort included 49 (52%) patients who had recurrence within 3 mo of the last adjuvant IO dose, whereas 45 (48%) recurred beyond 3 mo. Bone metastases were significantly higher in tumors recurring at <3 mo (10/49, 20%) than those recurring at >3 mo (1/45, 2.2%; p = 0.008). Most patients received 1L vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (VEGF-TT; n = 37, 39%), IO + VEGF-TT (n = 26, 28%), or IO + IO (n = 12, 13%). The remaining underwent local therapy. The median follow-up for the 1L systemic therapy cohort was 15 mo. The 18-mo PFS and OS rates were 45% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-60) and 85% (95% CI: 75-95), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (42%) patients and included skin toxicity (n = 7, 9.2%), fatigue (n = 6, 7.9%), and diarrhea/colitis (n = 4, 5.3%). Limitations included selecting patients from large academic centers and the short follow-up period., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: A subset of patients with recurrent RCC following adjuvant IO respond to systemic therapies, including VEGF-TT and IO-based regimens. Notably, patients with favorable-risk disease may derive more benefit from VEGF-TT than from IO therapies in this setting. Future approaches utilizing radiographic tools and biomarker-based liquid biopsies are warranted to detect occult metastatic disease and identify candidate patients for adjuvant IO therapy., Patient Summary: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). There are limited data on clinical outcomes after the recurrence of RCC tumors following adjuvant immunotherapy. In this study, we find that patients respond to subsequent systemic therapies across different treatment options., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cyclic high-dose testosterone injections, also known as bipolar androgen therapy (BAT), is a novel treatment strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). BAT has shown clinical activity in prior studies enrolling men with mCRPC and may potentially restore sensitivity to prior androgen receptor (AR)-targeted agents., Objective: To evaluate the clinical activity of BAT in patients progressing on AR-targeted therapy as well as responses to abiraterone or enzalutamide upon rechallenge after BAT., Design, Setting, and Participants: RESTORE is a multicohort phase II study enrolling asymptomatic mCRPC patients after abiraterone or enzalutamide at Johns Hopkins Hospital (NCT02090114). Participants (29 after abiraterone and 30 after enzalutamide) received 400 mg testosterone cypionate intramuscularly every 28 days, with ongoing luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist treatment (ie, BAT). Following progression on BAT, patients were rechallenged with their most recent AR-targeted therapy., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Coprimary endpoints were >50% decline in PSA from baseline (PSA 50 ) responses to BAT and following AR-targeted therapy rechallenge. Outcomes in the post-abiraterone cohort are presented, as well as updated results from the post-enzalutamide cohort and an exploratory AR-V7 analysis., Results and Limitations: No statistically significant difference in PSA 50 response rates to BAT was observed (30% [post-enzalutamide cohort] vs 17% [post-abiraterone cohort], p = 0.4). However, PSA 50 responses to AR-targeted therapy rechallenge were higher in the post-enzalutamide cohort (68% vs 16%, p = 0.001). The median time from enrollment to progression following rechallenge with AR-targeted therapy (ie, progression-free survival 2; PFS2) was longer in the post-enzalutamide versus post-abiraterone patients (12.8 vs 8.1 mo, p = 0.04). Outcomes were worse in patients with detectable AR-V7 in circulating tumor cells (median PFS2: 10.3 vs 7.1 mo, p = 0.005)., Conclusions: BAT shows clinical activity in mCRPC patients and may be more effective at resensitizing to enzalutamide versus abiraterone., Patient Summary: BAT is well tolerated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. The type of prior AR-targeted therapy might affect response to BAT as well as AR-therapy rechallenge. BAT followed by AR-targeted therapy rechallenge did not improve outcomes in AR-V7-positive patients., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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. 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., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)