Recommendations for the clinical and radiological evaluation of response to treatment in metastatic renal cell cancer

Liver metastasis and Heng risk are prognostic factors in patients with non-nephrectomized synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with systemic therapy

Objective

This study aimed to determine the prognostic factors of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in non-nephrectomized patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receiving first-line vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy or immunotherapy.

Methods

Of 70 patients, 57 (81.4%) were treated with targeted therapy, including 5 (7.1%) with previous immunotherapy and 13 (18.6%) with immunotherapy only. The medical records of patients were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed to determine factors of PFS and OS using the Cox proportional hazards model with a statistical significance p-value <0.05.

Results

The median treatment and follow-up periods were 3.9 and 30.9 months, respectively. Disease progression was reported in 90.0% of patients, with an objective response rate and clinical benefit rate of 26.1% and 76.8%, respectively. The lung (77.1%) was the most common site of metastasis. Multivariable analysis showed that poor Heng risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.37) and liver metastasis (HR: 2.34) were significant prognostic factors for PFS, and female sex (HR: 2.13), poor Heng risk (HR: 3.14), and liver metastasis (HR: 2.78) were significant prognostic factors for OS (p < 0.05). A subset analysis of risk factors among patients without previous history of immunotherapy also showed poor Heng risk (HR 2.92 and HR 4.24 for PFS) and liver metastasis (HR 2.87 and HR 4.81 for OS) as significant factors for both PFS and OS (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Poor Heng risk, sex, and liver metastasis were associated with survival outcomes after first-line systemic therapy in patients with non-nephrectomized synchronous mRCC.

Initial computed tomography imaging details during first-line systemic therapy is of significant prognostic value in patients with naïve, unresectable metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Purpose

We aimed to determine the prognostic significance of computed tomography imaging parameters of unresectable primary renal tumor lesions, obtained at baseline and at first follow-up, on overall survival in naïve, unresectable metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients during first-line systemic therapy.

Materials and methods

Clinicopathological parameters of 56 patients treated between 2007 and 2015, including imaging parameters (such as the longest tumor diameter, necrotic area diameter, and attenuation in primary renal tumor lesions on baseline vs. follow-up computed tomography), were retrospectively reviewed to derive predictive factors of overall survival. The best overall response was measured according to the RECIST v1.1.

Results

The median treatment period was 206.3 days and the median follow-up was 14.6 months. Forty-four (78.6%) patients progressed after a median 4.6 months of progression-free survival, and 6 (10.7%) patients survived with a median overall survival of 12.5 months. Multivariate analysis showed that the baseline tumor diameter (hazard ratio [HR] 0.903) and mean attenuation (HR 0.936), change of tumor diameter (HR 0.714) and necrosis diameter (HR 0.861), change in the percentage of tumor diameter (HR 1.483) and of necrosis diameter (HR 1.028) between baseline and follow-up computed tomography images; treatment duration (HR 0.986) and baseline serum hemoglobin (HR 1.790) and albumin level (HR 0.060) were significant factors for overall survival (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The study showed that baseline and first follow-up computed tomography findings of primary renal lesions during first-line systemic therapy are useful and significant predictors of OS in patients with naïve unresectable mRCC.

A retrospective study of predictive factors for unexpectedly prolonged or shortened progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received first-line targeted therapy

Background

To identify predictors of prolonged or shortened progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who received first-line targeted therapies.

Methods

This retrospective study included 146 patients with mRCC who were treated during 2007–2015. These patients were divided into a group with the worst response (WG), an expected group (EG), and a group with the best response (BG), based on their PFS (≤3 monthsnths, 3–18 monthsnths, and >18 monthsnths, respectively) and OS (<1 year, 1–3 years, and >3 years, respectively). To identify significant predictive factors, the BG and WG were compared to the EG using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Heng risk models.

Results

The overall PFS and OS were 9.3 months and 16.4 months, respectively. The median PFS for the WG (41.8 %), EG (45.9 %), and BG (12.3 %) were 2.7 months, 9.3 months, and 56.6 months, respectively, and the median OS for the WG (45.9 %), EG (35.6 %), and BG (18.5 %) were 5.5 months, 21.6 months, and 63.1 months, respectively; these outcomes were significantly different (p < 0.001). Nephrectomy (odds ratio [OR]: 7.15) was a significant predictor of PFS in the BG, and the significant predictors of OS in the BG were MSKCC intermediate risk (OR: 0.12), poor risk (OR: 0.04), and a disease-free interval of <1 year (OR: 0.23) (all, p < 0.05). Anemia (OR: 3.25) was a significant predictor of PFS in the WG, and the significant predictors of OS were age (OR: 1.05), anemia (OR: 4.13), lymphocytopenia (OR: 4.76), disease-free interval of <1 year (OR: 4.8), and synchronous metastasis (OR: 3.52) (all, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

We identified several significant predictors of unexpectedly good and poor response to first-line targeted therapy among patients with mRCC.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2615-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma

The purpose of this article was to provide updated recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of renal cell carcinoma. Pathological confirmation is mandatory before treatment with ablative or focal therapies before any type of systemic therapy. Renal cell cancer should be staged according to the TNM classification system. A laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery should be the approach for tumors <4 cm if technically feasible. Otherwise, radical (or partial in selected cases) nephrectomy is the treatment of choice, with lymph node dissection only performed in patients with clinically detected lymph node involvement. Some retrospective evidence for a cytoreductive nephrectomy in the postimmunotherapy era suggests a benefit in patients with good or intermediate risk or for patients with a symptomatic primary lesion. Adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy or with targeted agents is not recommended and studies are ongoing today. Patients with metastatic disease should be staged by computed tomography scans of the chest, abdomen and pelvis. The efficacy of sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon-α, and pazopanib is well established in patients with good and intermediate risk as well for temsirolimus in poor-risk patients. These four agents are considered standard of care in first-line treatment. Sorafenib, axitinib and everolimus are standard of care in second line in different settings based on their benefit in PFS. Besides some benefit described for IL-2 in highly selected patients in first line, there is a promising and emerging role for the new immunotherapeutic approaches in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Translation in solid cancer: are size-based response criteria an anachronism?

The purpose of translation is the development of effective medicinal products based on validated science. A parallel objective is to obtain marketing authorization for the translated product. Unfortunately, in solid cancer, these two objectives are not mutually consistent as evidenced by the contrast between major advances in science and the continuing dismal record of pharmaceutical productivity. If the problem is unrelated to science, then the process of translation may require a closer examination, namely, the criteria for regulatory approval. This realization is important because, in this context, the objective of translation is regulatory approval, and science does not passively translate into useful medicinal products. Today, in solid cancer, response criteria related to tumor size are less useful than during the earlier cytotoxic drugs era; advanced imaging and biomarkers now allow for tracking of the natural history of the disease in the laboratory and the clinic. Also, it is difficult to infer clinical benefit from tumor shrinkage since it is rarely sustained. Accordingly, size-based response criteria may represent an anachronism relative to translation in solid cancer and it may be appropriate to align preclinical and clinical effort and shift the focus to local invasion and metastasis. The shift from a cancer cell-centric model to a stroma centric model offers novel opportunities not only to interupt the natural history of the disease, but also to rethink the relevance of outdated criteria of clinical response. Current evidence favors the opinion that, in solid cancer, a different, broader, and contextual approach may lead to interventions that could delay local invasion and metastasis. All elements supporting this shift, especially advanced imaging, are in place.