open access

Vol 16, No 6 (2020)
Guidelines / Expert consensus
Published online: 2021-01-12
Get Citation

Polish Society of Clinical Oncology and Polish Urological Association Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of renal cell cancer

Piotr J. Wysocki, Piotr Chłosta, Robert Chrzan, Anna Czech, Katarzyna Gronostaj, Kamil Konopka, Maciej Krzakowski, Jakub Kucharz, Krzysztof Małecki, Mikołaj Przydacz, Piotr Tomczak, Paweł Wiechno, Jakub Żołnierek
DOI: 10.5603/OCP.2020.0029
·
Oncol Clin Pract 2020;16(6):301-330.

open access

Vol 16, No 6 (2020)
GUIDELINES FOR DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC MANAGEMENT
Published online: 2021-01-12

Abstract

.

Abstract

.

Get Citation

Keywords

renal cell cancer, RCC; nephrectomy; targeted therapy; tyrosine kinase inhibitors; anti-angiogenic therapy; diagnostics

About this article
Title

Polish Society of Clinical Oncology and Polish Urological Association Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of renal cell cancer

Journal

Oncology in Clinical Practice

Issue

Vol 16, No 6 (2020)

Article type

Guidelines / Expert consensus

Pages

301-330

Published online

2021-01-12

DOI

10.5603/OCP.2020.0029

Bibliographic record

Oncol Clin Pract 2020;16(6):301-330.

Keywords

renal cell cancer
RCC
nephrectomy
targeted therapy
tyrosine kinase inhibitors
anti-angiogenic therapy
diagnostics

Authors

Piotr J. Wysocki
Piotr Chłosta
Robert Chrzan
Anna Czech
Katarzyna Gronostaj
Kamil Konopka
Maciej Krzakowski
Jakub Kucharz
Krzysztof Małecki
Mikołaj Przydacz
Piotr Tomczak
Paweł Wiechno
Jakub Żołnierek

References (172)
  1. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine. JAMA. 2008; 300(15): 1814–1816.
  2. Cherny NI, Dafni U, Bogaerts J, et al. ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28(10): 2340–2366.
  3. Antwi SO, Eckel-Passow JE, Diehl ND, et al. Coffee consumption and risk of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Causes Control. 2017; 28(8): 857–866.
  4. Israel GM, Bosniak MA. How I do it: evaluating renal masses. Radiology. 2005; 236(2): 441–450.
  5. Choudhary S, Rajesh A, Mayer NJ, et al. Renal oncocytoma: CT features cannot reliably distinguish oncocytoma from other renal neoplasms. Clin Radiol. 2009; 64(5): 517–522.
  6. Hindman N, Ngo L, Genega EM, et al. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: can it be differentiated from clear cell renal cell carcinoma by using standard MR techniques? Radiology. 2012; 265(2): 468–477.
  7. Silverman SG, Pedrosa I, Ellis JH, et al. Bosniak classification of cystic renal masses, version 2019: an update proposal and needs assessment. Radiology. 2019; 292(2): 475–488.
  8. Kang SK, Zhang A, Pandharipande PV, et al. DWI for renal mass characterization: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 205(2): 317–324.
  9. Mueller-Lisse UG, Mueller-Lisse UL. Imaging of advanced renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol. 2010; 28(3): 253–261.
  10. Putra LG, Minor TX, Bolton DM, et al. Improved assessment of renal lesions in pregnancy with magnetic resonance imaging. Urology. 2009; 74(3): 535–539.
  11. Defortescu G, Cornu JN, Béjar S, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of complex renal cysts: A prospective study. Int J Urol. 2017; 24(3): 184–189.
  12. Capogrosso P, Capitanio U, La Croce G, et al. Follow-up After Treatment for Renal Cell Carcinoma: The Evidence Beyond the Guidelines. Eur Urol Focus. 2016; 1(3): 272–281.
  13. Sadowski EA, Bennett LK, Chan MR, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: risk factors and incidence estimation. Radiology. 2007; 243(1): 148–157.
  14. Grünwald V, Eberhardt B, Bex A, et al. An interdisciplinary consensus on the management of bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma. Nat Rev Urol. 2018; 15(8): 511–521.
  15. Liu Y. The place of FDG PET/CT in renal cell carcinoma: value and limitations. Front Oncol. 2016; 6: 201.
  16. Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17(6): 1471–1474.
  17. Verhoest G, Avakian R, Bensalah K, et al. Urinary collecting system invasion is an independent prognostic factor of organ confined renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2009; 182(3): 854–859.
  18. Anderson CB, Clark PE, Morgan TM, et al. Urinary collecting system invasion is a predictor for overall and disease-specific survival in locally invasive renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 2011; 78(1): 99–104.
  19. Gilbert SM, Murphy AM, Katz AE, et al. Reevaluation of TNM staging of renal cortical tumors: recurrence and survival for T1N0M0 and T3aN0M0 tumors are equivalent. Urology. 2006; 68(2): 287–291.
  20. Alt AL, Boorjian SA, Lohse CM, et al. Survival after complete surgical resection of multiple metastases from renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2011; 117(13): 2873–2882.
  21. Tsui KH, Shvarts O, Smith RB, et al. Prognostic indicators for renal cell carcinoma: a multivariate analysis of 643 patients using the revised 1997 TNM staging criteria. J Urol. 2000; 163(4): 1090–5; quiz 1295.
  22. Sengupta S, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, et al. Histologic coagulative tumor necrosis as a prognostic indicator of renal cell carcinoma aggressiveness. Cancer. 2005; 104(3): 511–520.
  23. Motzer RJ, Bacik J, Murphy BA, et al. Interferon-alfa as a comparative treatment for clinical trials of new therapies against advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20(1): 289–296.
  24. Heng DYC, Xie W, Regan MM, et al. External validation and comparison with other models of the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14(2): 141–148.
  25. Ko JJ, Xie W, Kroeger N, et al. The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model as a prognostic tool in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma previously treated with first-line targeted therapy: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16(3): 293–300.
  26. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, et al. Five-year survival after surgical treatment for kidney cancer: a population-based competing risk analysis. Cancer. 2007; 109(9): 1763–1768.
  27. Lane BR, Abouassaly R, Gao T, et al. Active treatment of localized renal tumors may not impact overall survival in patients aged 75 years or older. Cancer. 2010; 116(13): 3119–3126.
  28. Smaldone MC, Kutikov A, Egleston BL, et al. Small renal masses progressing to metastases under active surveillance: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Cancer. 2012; 118(4): 997–1006.
  29. Pierorazio PM, Johnson MH, Ball MW, et al. Five-year analysis of a multi-institutional prospective clinical trial of delayed intervention and surveillance for small renal masses: the DISSRM registry. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(3): 408–415.
  30. Uzosike AC, Patel HD, Alam R, et al. Growth kinetics of small renal masses on active surveillance: variability and results from the DISSRM registry. J Urol. 2018; 199(3): 641–648.
  31. Jiang K, Tang K, Guo X, et al. Laparoscopic cryoablation vs. percutaneous cryoablation for treatment of small renal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017; 8(16): 27635–27644.
  32. Aboumarzouk OM, Ismail M, Breen DJ, et al. Laparoscopic vs percutaneous cryotherapy for renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2018; 32(3): 177–183.
  33. O'Malley RL, Berger AD, Kanofsky JA, et al. A matched-cohort comparison of laparoscopic cryoablation and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for treating renal masses. BJU Int. 2007; 99(2): 395–398.
  34. Ko YH, Park HS, Moon DuG, et al. A matched-cohort comparison of laparoscopic renal cryoablation using ultra-thin cryoprobes with open partial nephrectomy for the treatment of small renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Res Treat. 2008; 40(4): 184–189.
  35. Guillotreau J, Haber GP, Autorino R, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic cryoablation for the small renal mass. Eur Urol. 2012; 61(5): 899–904.
  36. Deng W, Chen L, Wang Y, et al. Cryoablation versus partial nephrectomy for clinical stage T1 renal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer. 2019; 10(5): 1226–1236.
  37. Trudeau V, Larcher A, Boehm K, et al. Comparison of Postoperative Complications and Mortality Between Laparoscopic and Percutaneous Local Tumor Ablation for T1a Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Population-based Study. Urology. 2016; 89: 63–67.
  38. Young EE, Castle SM, Gorbatiy V, et al. Comparison of safety, renal function outcomes and efficacy of laparoscopic and percutaneous radio frequency ablation of renal masses. J Urol. 2012; 187(4): 1177–1182.
  39. Lian H, Guo H, Zhang G, et al. Single-center comparison of complications in laparoscopic and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation with ultrasound guidance for renal tumors. Urology. 2012; 80(1): 119–124.
  40. Kim SD, Yoon SG, Sung GT. Radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors: four-year follow-up results in 47 patients. Korean J Radiol. 2012; 13(5): 625–633.
  41. Patel N, Cranston D, Akhtar MZ, et al. Active surveillance of small renal masses offers short-term oncological efficacy equivalent to radical and partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2012; 110(9): 1270–1275.
  42. Takaki H, Yamakado K, Soga N, et al. Midterm results of radiofrequency ablation versus nephrectomy for T1a renal cell carcinoma. Jpn J Radiol. 2010; 28(6): 460–468.
  43. Pan XW, Cui XM, Huang H, et al. Radiofrequency ablation versus partial nephrectomy for treatment of renal masses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2015; 31(12): 649–658.
  44. Rivero JR, De La Cerda J, Wang H, et al. Partial Nephrectomy versus Thermal Ablation for Clinical Stage T1 Renal Masses: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of More than 3,900 Patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018; 29(1): 18–29.
  45. Atwell TD, Schmit GD, Boorjian SA, et al. Percutaneous ablation of renal masses measuring 3.0 cm and smaller: comparative local control and complications after radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 200(2): 461–466.
  46. Samarasekera D, Khalifeh A, Autorino R, et al. 1795 Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation versus percutaneous cryoablation: long-term outcomes following ablation for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2013; 189(4S).
  47. Van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, et al. A prospective, randomised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2011; 59(4): 543–552.
  48. Butler BP, Novick AC, Miller DP, et al. Management of small unilateral renal cell carcinomas: radical versus nephron-sparing surgery. Urology. 1995; 45(1): 34–40.
  49. D'Armiento M, Damiano R, Feleppa B, et al. Elective conservative surgery for renal carcinoma versus radical nephrectomy: a prospective study. Br J Urol. 1997; 79(1): 15–19.
  50. Gratzke C, Seitz M, Bayrle F, et al. Quality of life and perioperative outcomes after retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy (RN), open RN and nephron-sparing surgery in patients with renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2009; 104(4): 470–475.
  51. Kunath F, Schmidt S, Krabbe LM, et al. Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy for clinical localised renal masses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 5: CD012045.
  52. Sun M, Bianchi M, Trinh QD, et al. Comparison of partial vs radical nephrectomy with regard to other-cause mortality in T1 renal cell carcinoma among patients aged ≥75 years with multiple comorbidities. BJU Int. 2013; 111(1): 67–73.
  53. Shuch B, Hanley J, Lai J, et al. Urologic Diseases in America Project. Overall survival advantage with partial nephrectomy: a bias of observational data? Cancer. 2013; 119(16): 2981–2989.
  54. MacLennan S, Imamura M, Lapitan M, et al. Systematic review of perioperative and quality-of-life outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer. Eur Urol. 2012; 62(6): 1097–1117.
  55. Shekarriz B, Upadhyay J, Shekarriz H, et al. Comparison of costs and complications of radical and partial nephrectomy for treatment of localized renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 2002; 59(2): 211–215.
  56. Van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, et al. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG), Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). A prospective randomized EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the complications of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrectomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2007; 51(6): 1606–1615.
  57. Miller DC, Schoniau M, Litwin MS, et al. Renal and cardiovascular morbidity after partial or radical nephrectomy. Cancer. 2008; 112: 511–520.
  58. Mir MC, Derweesh I, Porpiglia F, et al. Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy for clinical T1B and T2 renal mass: A meta-analysis of over 9000 cases. J Urol. 2016.
  59. Janssen MWW, Linxweiler J, Terwey S, et al. Survival outcomes in patients with large (≥7cm) clear cell renal cell carcinomas treated with nephron-sparing surgery versus radical nephrectomy: Results of a multicenter cohort with long-term follow-up. PLoS One. 2018; 13(5): e0196427.
  60. Hemal AK, Kumar A, Kumar R, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for large renal tumors: a long-term prospective comparison. J Urol. 2007; 177(3): 862–866.
  61. Peng B, Zheng JH, Xu DF, et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy for radical treatment of renal cell carcinoma: A comparison of clinical outcomes. Acad J Second Mil Med Univ. 2006.
  62. Nadler RB, Loeb S, Clemens JQ, et al. A prospective study of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for T1 tumors -- is transperitoneal, retroperitoneal or hand assisted the best approach? J Urol. 2006; 175(4): 1230–3; discussion 1234.
  63. Desai MM, Strzempkowski B, Matin SF, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Urol. 2005; 173(1): 38–41.
  64. Asimakopoulos AD, Miano R, Annino F, et al. Robotic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review. BMC Urol. 2014; 14: 75.
  65. Lane BR, Gill IS. 7-year oncological outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2010; 183(2): 473–479.
  66. Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lane BR, et al. Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol. 2007; 178(1): 41–46.
  67. Gong EM, Orvieto MA, Zorn KC, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy in clinical T1a renal tumors. J Endourol. 2008; 22(5): 953–957.
  68. Minervini A, Ficarra V, Rocco F, et al. SATURN Project-LUNA Foundation. Simple enucleation is equivalent to traditional partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: results of a nonrandomized, retrospective, comparative study. J Urol. 2011; 185(5): 1604–1610.
  69. Chang KiD, Abdel Raheem A, Kim KH, et al. Functional and oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a multicentre comparative matched-pair analyses with a median of 5 years' follow-up. BJU Int. 2018; 122(4): 618–626.
  70. Masson-Lecomte A, Yates DR, Hupertan V, et al. A prospective comparison of the pathologic and surgical outcomes obtained after elective treatment of renal cell carcinoma by open or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Urol Oncol. 2013; 31(6): 924–929.
  71. Peyronnet B, Seisen T, Oger E, et al. French Comittee of Urologic Oncology (CCAFU). Comparison of 1800 Robotic and Open Partial Nephrectomies for Renal Tumors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23(13): 4277–4283.
  72. Choi JE, You JiH, Kim DK, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015; 67(5): 891–901.
  73. Arora S, Keeley J, Pucheril D, et al. What is the hospital volume threshold to optimize inpatient complication rate after partial nephrectomy? Urol Oncol. 2018; 36(7): 339.e17–339.e23.
  74. Peyronnet B, Tondut L, Bernhard JC, et al. Impact of hospital volume and surgeon volume on robot-assisted partial nephrectomy outcomes: a multicentre study. BJU Int. 2018; 121(6): 916–922.
  75. Wood EL, Adibi M, Qiao W, et al. Local tumor bed recurrence following partial nephrectomy in patients with small renal masses. J Urol. 2018; 199(2): 393–400.
  76. Bensalah K, Pantuck AJ, Rioux-Leclercq N, et al. Positive surgical margin appears to have negligible impact on survival of renal cell carcinomas treated by nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol. 2010; 57(3): 466–471.
  77. Tabayoyong W, Abouassaly R, Kiechle JE, et al. Variation in surgical margin status by surgical approach among patients undergoing partial nephrectomy for small renal masses. J Urol. 2015; 194(6): 1548–1553.
  78. Kim S, Abouassaly R. Treatment of Patients with Positive Margins after Partial Nephrectomy. J Urol. 2016; 196(2): 301–302.
  79. Blom JHM, van Poppel H, Maréchal JM, et al. EORTC Genitourinary Tract Cancer Group. Radical nephrectomy with and without lymph-node dissection: final results of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) randomized phase 3 trial 30881. Eur Urol. 2009; 55(1): 28–34.
  80. Gershman B, Thompson R, Boorjian S, et al. Radical nephrectomy with or without lymph node dissection for high risk nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma: a multi-institutional analysis. J Urol. 2018; 199(5): 1143–1148.
  81. Whitson JM, Harris CR, Reese AC, et al. Lymphadenectomy improves survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma and nodal metastases. J Urol. 2011; 185(5): 1615–1620.
  82. Capitanio U, Suardi N, Matloob R, et al. Extent of lymph node dissection at nephrectomy affects cancer-specific survival and metastatic progression in specific sub-categories of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). BJU Int. 2014; 114(2): 210–215.
  83. Lane BR, Tiong HY, Campbell SC, et al. Management of the adrenal gland during partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2009; 181(6): 2430–6; discussion 2436.
  84. May M, Brookman-Amissah S, Pflanz S, et al. Pre-operative renal arterial embolisation does not provide survival benefit in patients with radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Br J Radiol. 2009; 82(981): 724–731.
  85. Subramanian VS, Stephenson AJ, Goldfarb DA, et al. Utility of preoperative renal artery embolization for management of renal tumors with inferior vena caval thrombi. Urology. 2009; 74(1): 154–159.
  86. Lamb GWA, Bromwich EJ, Vasey P, et al. Management of renal masses in patients medically unsuitable for nephrectomy -- natural history, complications, and outcome. Urology. 2004; 64(5): 909–913.
  87. Moinzadeh A, Libertino JA. Prognostic significance of tumor thrombus level in patients with renal cell carcinoma and venous tumor thrombus extension. Is all T3b the same? J Urol. 2004; 171(2 Pt 1): 598–601.
  88. Pritchett TR, Lieskovsky G, Skinner DG. Extension of renal cell carcinoma into the vena cava: clinical review and surgical approach. J Urol. 1986; 135(3): 460–464.
  89. Wilkinson CJ, Kimovec MA, Uejima T. Cardiopulmonary bypass in patients with malignant renal neoplasms. Br J Anaesth. 1986; 58(4): 461–465.
  90. Libertino JA, Zinman L, Watkins E. Long-term results of resection of renal cell cancer with extension into inferior vena cava. J Urol. 1987; 137(1): 21–24.
  91. Neves RJ, Zincke H. Surgical treatment of renal cancer with vena cava extension. Br J Urol. 1987; 59(5): 390–395.
  92. Novick A, Streem S, Pontes E. Stewart’s Operative Urology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Williams & Wilkins. 1989.
  93. Hinman F. Atlas of Urologic Surgery. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co. 1998.
  94. Nesbitt JC, Soltero ER, Dinney CP, et al. Surgical management of renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997; 63(6): 1592–1600.
  95. Hatcher PA, Paulson DF, Anderson EE, et al. Surgical management and prognosis of renal cell carcinoma invading the vena cava. J Urol. 1991; 145(1): 20–23.
  96. Orihashi K, Sueda T, Usui T, et al. Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest for resection of renal tumor in the inferior vena cava: beneficial or deleterious? Circ J. 2008; 72(7): 1175–1177.
  97. Martínez-Salamanca JI, Huang WC, Millán I, et al. International Renal Cell Carcinoma-Venous Thrombus Consortium. Prognostic impact of the 2009 UICC/AJCC TNM staging system for renal cell carcinoma with venous extension. Eur Urol. 2011; 59(1): 120–127.
  98. Klaver S, Joniau S, Suy R, et al. Analysis of renal cell carcinoma with subdiaphragmatic macroscopic venous invasion (T3b). BJU Int. 2008; 101(4): 444–449.
  99. Ficarra V, Galfano A, Guillé F, et al. A new staging system for locally advanced (pT3-4) renal cell carcinoma: a multicenter European study including 2,000 patients. J Urol. 2007; 178(2): 418–24; discussion 423.
  100. Rini BI, Dorff TB, Elson P, et al. Active surveillance in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a prospective, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(9): 1317–1324.
  101. Flanigan RC, Mickisch G, Sylvester R, et al. Cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cancer: a combined analysis. J Urol. 2004; 171(3): 1071–1076.
  102. Hanna N, Sun M, Meyer CP, et al. Survival analyses of patients with metastatic renal cancer treated with targeted therapy with or without cytoreductive nephrectomy: a national cancer data base study. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(27): 3267–3275.
  103. Méjean A, Ravaud A, Thezenas S, et al. Sunitinib alone or after nephrectomy in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(5): 417–427.
  104. Bex A, Mulders P, Jewett M, et al. Comparison of Immediate vs Deferred Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients With Synchronous Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Sunitinib: The SURTIME Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019; 5(2): 164–170.
  105. Mejean A, Thezenas S, Chevreau C, et al. Cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in metastatic renal cancer (mRCC): Update on Carmena trial with focus on intermediate IMDC-risk population. J Clin Oncol. 2019; 37(15_suppl): 4508–4508.
  106. Freed SZ, Halperin JP, Gordon M. Idiopathic regression of metastases from renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 1977; 118(4): 538–542.
  107. Marcus SG, Choyke PL, Reiter R, et al. Regression of metastatic renal cell carcinoma after cytoreductive nephrectomy. J Urol. 1993; 150(2 Pt 1): 463–466.
  108. Barney J, Churchill E. Adenocarcinoma of the kidney with metastasis to the lung: cured by nephrectomy and lobectomy. J Urol. 1939; 42(3): 269–276.
  109. Ouzaid I, Capitanio U, Staehler M, et al. Young Academic Urologists Kidney Cancer Working Group of the European Association of Urology. Surgical metastasectomy in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 2(2): 141–149.
  110. Achkar T, Maranchie J, Appleman L. Metastasectomy in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review. Kidney Cancer. 2019; 3(1): 31–40.
  111. Motzer RJ, Haas NB, Donskov F, et al. PROTECT investigators. Randomized phase III trial of adjuvant pazopanib versus placebo after nephrectomy in patients with localized or locally advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35(35): 3916–3923.
  112. Haas NB, Manola J, Uzzo RG, et al. Adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib for high-risk, non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (ECOG-ACRIN E2805): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2016; 387(10032): 2008–2016.
  113. Motzer RJ, Escudier B, Ravaud A, et al. S-TRAC Investigators. Adjuvant sunitinib in high-risk renal-cell carcinoma after nephrectomy. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(23): 2246–2254.
  114. Larkin J, Eisen T. Kinase inhibitors in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2006; 60(3): 216–226.
  115. Patil S, Figlin RA, Hutson TE, et al. Overall survival and updated results for sunitinib compared with interferon alfa in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(22): 3584–3590.
  116. Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Cella D, et al. Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(8): 722–731.
  117. Escudier B, Porta C, Bono P, et al. Randomized, controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial assessing treatment preference for pazopanib versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: PISCES Study. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(14): 1412–1418.
  118. Motzer RJ, Nosov D, Eisen T, et al. Tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(30): 3791–3799.
  119. Hutson TE, Lesovoy V, Al-Shukri S, et al. Axitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14(13): 1287–1294.
  120. Choueiri TK, Hessel C, Halabi S, et al. Cabozantinib versus sunitinib as initial therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma of intermediate or poor risk (Alliance A031203 CABOSUN randomised trial): Progression-free survival by independent review and overall survival update. Eur J Cancer. 2018; 94: 115–125.
  121. Hudes GR, Carducci MA, Choueiri TK, et al. Global ARCC Trial. Temsirolimus, interferon alfa, or both for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356(22): 2271–2281.
  122. Motzer RJ, Rini BI, McDermott DF, et al. CheckMate 214 investigators. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20(10): 1370–1385.
  123. Motzer RJ, Rini BI, McDermott DF, et al. CheckMate 214 investigators, CheckMate 214 Investigators. Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378(14): 1277–1290.
  124. Rini BI, Plimack ER, Stus V, et al. KEYNOTE-426 Investigators. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380(12): 1116–1127.
  125. Motzer RJ, Penkov K, Haanen J, et al. Avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380(12): 1103–1115.
  126. Motzer RJ, Escudier B, Oudard S, et al. RECORD‐1 Study Group. Phase 3 trial of everolimus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma : final results and analysis of prognostic factors. Cancer. 2010; 116(18): 4256–4265.
  127. Motzer RJ, Escudier B, Tomczak P, et al. Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14(6): 552–562.
  128. Choueiri TK, Escudier B, Powles T, et al. METEOR investigators. Cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (METEOR): final results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(7): 917–927.
  129. Escudier B, Sharma P, McDermott DF, et al. CheckMate 025 investigators, CheckMate 025 investigators, CheckMate 025 Investigators. Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(19): 1803–1813.
  130. Cella D, Grünwald V, Nathan P, et al. Quality of life in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma given nivolumab versus everolimus in CheckMate 025: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(7): 994–1003.
  131. Cella D, Escudier B, Tannir NM, et al. Quality of life outcomes for cabozantinib versus everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: METEOR phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018; 36(8): 757–764.
  132. Wells JC, Stukalin I, Norton C, et al. Third-line Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. Eur Urol. 2017; 71(2): 204–209.
  133. Naito S, Ichiyanagi O, Kato T, et al. Effect of third- and fourth-line systemic therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1): 15451.
  134. Vallet S, Pahernik S, Höfner T, et al. Renal Cancer Center at the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Germany. Efficacy of targeted treatment beyond third-line therapy in metastatic kidney cancer: retrospective analysis from a large-volume cancer center. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015; 13(3): e145–e152.
  135. Ralla B, Erber B, Goranova I, et al. Efficacy of fourth-line targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective analysis. World J Urol. 2016; 34(8): 1147–1154.
  136. Yip SM, Wells C, Moreira R, et al. Checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. Cancer. 2018; 124(18): 3677–3683.
  137. Santoni M, Heng DY, Bracarda S, et al. Real-World data on cabozantinib in previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: focus on sequences and prognostic factors. Cancers (Basel). 2019; 12(1).
  138. Prisciandaro M, Ratta R, Massari F, et al. Safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: real-world data from an italian managed access program. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018; 16(4): e945–e951.
  139. Motzer RJ, Porta C, Vogelzang NJ, et al. Dovitinib versus sorafenib for third-line targeted treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15(3): 286–296.
  140. Escudier B, Sharma P, McDermott DF, et al. CheckMate 025 investigators, CheckMate 025 investigators. CheckMate 025 Randomized Phase 3 Study: Outcomes by Key Baseline Factors and Prior Therapy for Nivolumab Versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2017; 72(6): 962–971.
  141. Armstrong AJ, Halabi S, Eisen T, et al. Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(3): 378–388.
  142. Tannir NM, Jonasch E, Albiges L, et al. Everolimus Versus Sunitinib Prospective Evaluation in Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ESPN): A Randomized Multicenter Phase 2 Trial. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(5): 866–874.
  143. Schöffski P, Wozniak A, Escudier B, et al. Crizotinib achieves long-lasting disease control in advanced papillary renal-cell carcinoma type 1 patients with MET mutations or amplification. EORTC 90101 CREATE trial. Eur J Cancer. 2017; 87: 147–163.
  144. Oudard S, Banu E, Vieillefond A, et al. GETUG (Groupe d'Etudes des Tumeurs Uro-Génitales). Prospective multicenter phase II study of gemcitabine plus platinum salt for metastatic collecting duct carcinoma: results of a GETUG (Groupe d'Etudes des Tumeurs Uro-Génitales) study. J Urol. 2007; 177(5): 1698–1702.
  145. Shah AY, Karam JA, Malouf GG, et al. Management and outcomes of patients with renal medullary carcinoma: a multicentre collaborative study. BJU Int. 2017; 120(6): 782–792.
  146. Iacovelli R, Modica D, Palazzo A, et al. Clinical outcome and prognostic factors in renal medullary carcinoma: A pooled analysis from 18 years of medical literature. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015; 9(3-4): E172–E177.
  147. Dason S, Allard C, Sheridan-Jonah A, et al. Management of renal collecting duct carcinoma: a systematic review and the McMaster experience. Curr Oncol. 2013; 20(3): e223–e232.
  148. Beckermann KE, Sharma D, Chaturvedi S, et al. Renal Medullary Carcinoma: Establishing Standards in Practice. J Oncol Pract. 2017; 13(7): 414–421.
  149. Juusela H, Malmio K, Alfthan O, et al. Preoperative irradiation in the treatment of renal adenocarcinoma. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1977; 11(3): 277–281.
  150. Paly JJ, Hallemeier CL, Biggs PJ, et al. Outcomes in a multi-institutional cohort of patients treated with intraoperative radiation therapy for advanced or recurrent renal cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014; 88(3): 618–623.
  151. Kjaer M, Iversen P, Hvidt V, et al. A randomized trial of postoperative radiotherapy versus observation in stage II and III renal adenocarcinoma. A study by the Copenhagen Renal Cancer Study Group. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1987; 21(4): 285–289.
  152. Ulutin HC, Aksu G, Fayda M, et al. The value of postoperative radiotherapy in renal cell carcinoma: a single-institution experience. Tumori. 2006; 92(3): 202–206.
  153. Tunio MA, Hashmi A, Rafi M. Need for a new trial to evaluate postoperative radiotherapy in renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Oncol. 2010; 21(9): 1839–1845.
  154. Chang JH, Cheung P, Erler D, et al. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for primary renal cell carcinoma in non-surgical candidates: initial clinical experience. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2016; 28(9): e109–e114.
  155. Dabestani S, Marconi L, Hofmann F, et al. Local treatments for metastases of renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15(12): e549–e561.
  156. Kothari G, Foroudi F, Gill S, et al. Outcomes of stereotactic radiotherapy for cranial and extracranial metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review. Acta Oncol. 2015; 54(2): 148–157.
  157. Mahajan A, Ahmed S, McAleer MF, et al. Post-operative stereotactic radiosurgery versus observation for completely resected brain metastases: a single-centre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18(8): 1040–1048.
  158. Brown PD, Ballman KV, Cerhan JH, et al. Postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery compared with whole brain radiotherapy for resected metastatic brain disease (NCCTG N107C/CEC·3): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18(8): 1049–1060.
  159. Lee J, Hodgson D, Chow E, et al. A phase II trial of palliative radiotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2005; 104(9): 1894–1900.
  160. Siva S, Kothari G, Muacevic A, et al. Radiotherapy for renal cell carcinoma: renaissance of an overlooked approach. Nat Rev Urol. 2017; 14(9): 549–563.
  161. Scoll BJ, Wong YN, Egleston BL, et al. Age, tumor size and relative survival of patients with localized renal cell carcinoma: a surveillance, epidemiology and end results analysis. J Urol. 2009; 181(2): 506–511.
  162. Capitanio U, Cloutier V, Zini L, et al. A critical assessment of the prognostic value of clear cell, papillary and chromophobe histological subtypes in renal cell carcinoma: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2009; 103(11): 1496–1500.
  163. Beisland C, Guðbrandsdottir G, Reisæter LAR, et al. A prospective risk-stratified follow-up programme for radically treated renal cell carcinoma patients: evaluation after eight years of clinical use. World J Urol. 2016; 34(8): 1087–1099.
  164. Patard JJ, Kim HL, Lam JS, et al. Use of the University of California Los Angeles integrated staging system to predict survival in renal cell carcinoma: an international multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(16): 3316–3322.
  165. Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Wieder J, et al. Risk group assessment and clinical outcome algorithm to predict the natural history of patients with surgically resected renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20(23): 4559–4566.
  166. Pettus JA, Jang TL, Thompson RH, et al. Effect of baseline glomerular filtration rate on survival in patients undergoing partial or radical nephrectomy for renal cortical tumors. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008; 83(10): 1101–1106.
  167. Bruno JJ, Snyder ME, Motzer RJ, et al. Renal cell carcinoma local recurrences: impact of surgical treatment and concomitant metastasis on survival. BJU Int. 2006; 97(5): 933–938.
  168. Sandhu SS, Symes A, A'Hern R, et al. Surgical excision of isolated renal-bed recurrence after radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2005; 95(4): 522–525.
  169. Bani-Hani AH, Leibovich BC, Lohse CM, et al. Associations with contralateral recurrence following nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma using a cohort of 2,352 patients. J Urol. 2005; 173(2): 391–394.
  170. Patard JJ, Shvarts O, Lam JS, et al. Safety and efficacy of partial nephrectomy for all T1 tumors based on an international multicenter experience. J Urol. 2004; 171(6 Pt 1): 2181–5, quiz 2435.
  171. Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A, Chun FKH, et al. Multi-institutional validation of a new renal cancer-specific survival nomogram. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(11): 1316–1322.
  172. Lam JS, Shvarts O, Leppert JT, et al. Postoperative surveillance protocol for patients with localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma based on a validated prognostic nomogram and risk group stratification system. J Urol. 2005; 174(2): 466–72; discussion 472; quiz 801.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

Wydawcą serwisu jest  "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl