Outcomes and prognosticators of stage 4 renal cell carcinoma with pathological T4 primary lesion using a large, Canadian, multi-institutional database

First-Line Immune Combination Therapies for Nonclear Cell Versus Clear Cell Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Real-World Multicenter Data From Germany

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to compare treatment outcomes of clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (ccmRCC) versus non-ccmRCC (nccmRCC) patients who received first-line immune combination therapies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Within our retrospective multi-institutional consecutive database of eight tertiary-care centers, we identified mRCC patients treated with first-line immune combination therapies between 11/2017 and 12/2022. Using log-rank analysis and multivariable Cox regression, we tested for differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of nccmRCC versus ccmRCC patients. Covariables consisted of age at diagnosis, sex, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and sarcomatoid feature.

RESULTS

Of 289 study patients, 39 (13%) patients harbored nccmRCC. Median OS was 37 months versus not reached for ccmRCC versus nccmRCC patients (P = .6). Median PFS was 13 versus 15 months (P = .9). Multivariable Cox regression models did not identify nccmRCC as an independent predictor of higher overall mortality in mRCC patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.23; P = .6) or a higher progression rate (HR: 1.0; P = 1.0).

CONCLUSION

In our real-world multi-institutional study, no differences in OS and PFS between ccmRCC and nccmRCC patients receiving first-line immune combination treatment were observed, even after adjustment for important patient and tumor characteristics. More prospective trials in nccmRCC patients are needed.

Nephrectomy improves the survival of metastatic renal cell cancer patients with moderate to good performance status-results from a Finnish nation-wide population-based study from 2005 to 2010

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) and metastasectomies on the survival of patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) using real-life, population-based national dataset.

Methods

Nationwide data, including all cases of synchronous mRCC in Finland diagnosed on a 6-year timeframe, based on the Finnish Cancer Registry and complemented with patient records from the treating hospitals, were analyzed. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 3–4 were excluded. Univariate and adjusted multivariable survival analysis were performed, including subgroup analysis for patients with different medical therapies. Nephrectomy complications were also analyzed.

Results

A total of 732 patients were included in the analysis. CN was performed for 389 (53.1%) patients, whereas 68 (9.3%) patients underwent nephrectomy and metastasectomies of all lesions (surgery with curative intent). Median overall survival (OS) for patients who did not undergo nephrectomy was 5.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.6–7.2) months. Patients who had a CN had a median OS of 16.6 (95% CI = 14.2–19.1, p < 0.001) months, whereas patients who had surgery with curative intent had a median OS of 51.3 (95% CI = 36.0–66.6, p < 0.001) months. The survival benefit of CN and metastasectomies remained significant in all medical therapy subgroups and in both of the applied multivariable statistical models.

Conclusions

Surgical treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer is associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with good and moderate performance status, regardless of the chosen medical therapy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02308-0.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Patients with Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Despite advances in systemic therapy and immunotherapy, surgery continues to have a role in management of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is considered standard of care for smaller, localized tumors due to faster recovery without compromising oncologic outcomes. There are concerns about MIS for aRCC due to a potential risk of inferior oncologic outcomes and unusual patterns of disease recurrence. Recent studies, however, suggest that in properly selected patients with aRCC, MIS can provide improved peri-operative outcomes without compromising oncologic control.