暂无摘要。

The European Association of Urology (EAU) Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Guideline Panel performed a protocol-driven systematic review (SR) on thermal ablation (TA) compared with partial nephrectomy (PN) for T1N0M0 renal masses, in order to provide evidence to support its recommendations. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and only comparative studies published between 2000 and 2019 were included. Twenty-six nonrandomised comparative studies were included, recruiting a total of 167 80 patients. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment revealed high or uncertain RoB across all studies, with the vast majority being retrospective, observational studies with poorly matched controls and short follow-up. Limited data showed TA to be safe, but its long-term oncological effectiveness compared with PN remains uncertain. A quality assessment of pre-existing SRs (n=11) on the topic, using AMSTAR, revealed that all SRs had low confidence rating, with all but two SRs being rated critically low. In conclusion, the current data are inadequate to make any strong and clear conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of TA for treating T1N0M0 renal masses compared with PN. Therefore, TA may be cautiously considered an alternative to PN for T1N0M0 renal masses, but patients must be counselled carefully regarding the prevailing uncertainties. We recommend specific steps to improve the evidence base based on robust primary and secondary studies. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we looked at the literature to determine the effectiveness of thermoablation (TA) in the treatment of small kidney tumours compared with surgical removal. We found that TA could cautiously be offered as an option due to many remaining uncertainties regarding its effectiveness.

In the past two decades, the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma has significantly changed thanks to the approval of several targeted molecular therapies (VEGF and mTOR inhibitors) and recently immune-checkpoint inhibitors. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Renal Cell Cancer (RCC) Guidelines Panel has developed clinical guidelines to provide evidence-based information and recommendations to oncologists, urologists and all professionals involved in the management of patients with renal cell cancer.

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.

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.

We aim to introduce and discuss the statements and recommendations of the German S3 guideline on renal cell cancer for daily practice of radiation oncologists.
This report comprises indication, treatment decision, dose prescription and current literature including treatment of oligometastatic disease.
According to different stages of the disease and the structure of the guideline we focus on five treatment situations and recommendations for decision making: (1) Neo-/adjuvant treatment before or after nephrectomy: No indication for radiotherapy. (2) Small renal mass: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy is currently seen as experimental option due to small patient numbers reported in the literature. However, local tumor control achieved by SBRT appears favourable with >90% at 2 years. (3) Oligometastasis: Radiation treatment with higher local doses or stereotactic treatment is possible after interdisciplinary discussion. Indications for palliative (4) and symptomatic treatment (5) are not different compared to other tumor entities.
Currently, there is no evidence-based indication for radiation treatment in the primary setting (adjuvant/neoadjuvant or definitive) of renal cell cancer. In the future stereotactic radiotherapy should have a stronger role in the treatment of medically inoperable patients with primary renal cell cancer and especially in the setting of oligometastasis.

The European Association of Urology Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) guidelines panel updated their recommendation on adjuvant therapy in unfavourable, clinically nonmetastatic RCC following the recently reported results of a second randomised controlled phase 3 trial comparing 1-yr sunitinib to placebo for high-risk RCC after nephrectomy (S-TRAC). On the basis of conflicting results from the two available studies, the panel rated the quality of the evidence, the harm-to-benefit ratio, patient preferences, and costs. Finally, the panel, including representatives from a patient advocate group (International Kidney Cancer Coalition) voted and reached a consensus to not recommend adjuvant therapy with sunitinib for patients with high-risk RCC after nephrectomy.
In two studies, sunitinib was given for 1 yr and compared to no active treatment (placebo) in patients who had their kidney tumour removed and who had a high risk of cancer coming back after surgery. Although one study demonstrated that 1 yr of sunitinib therapy resulted in a 1.2-yr longer time before the disease recurred, the other study did not show a benefit and it has not been shown that patients live longer. Despite having been diagnosed with high-risk disease, many patients remain without recurrence, and the side effects of sunitinib are high. Therefore, the panel members, including patient representatives, do not recommend sunitinib after tumour removal in these patients.

BACKGROUND: Second-line systemic treatment options for metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer (mccRCC) are diverse and treatment strategies are variable among experts. Our aim was to investigate the approach for the second-line treatment after first-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Recently two phase III trials have demonstrated a potential role for nivolumab (NIV) and cabozantinib (CAB) in this setting. We aimed to estimate the impact of these trials on clinical decision making.
METHODS: Eleven international experts were asked to provide their treatment strategies for second-line systemic therapy for mccRCC in the current setting and once NIV and CAB will be approved and available. The treatment strategies were analyzed with the objective consensus approach.
RESULTS: The analysis of the decision trees revealed everolimus (EVE), axitinib (AXI), NIV and TKI switch (sTKI) as therapeutic options after first-line TKI therapy in the current situation and mostly NIV and CAB in the future setting. The most commonly used criteria for treatment decisions were duration of response, TKI tolerance and zugzwang a composite of several related criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the first-line setting, recommendations for second-line systemic treatment of mccRCC among experts were not as heterogeneous. The agents mostly used after disease progression on a first-line TKI included: EVE, AXI, NIV and sTKI. In the future setting of NIV and CAB availability, NIV was the most commonly chosen drug, whereas several experts identified situations where CAB would be preferred.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, the use of intermediate time-to-event end points (TEEs) is increasingly common, yet their choice and definitions are not standardized. This limits the usefulness for comparing treatment effects between studies. The aim of the DATECAN Kidney project is to clarify and recommend definitions of TEE in renal cell cancer (RCC) through a formal consensus method for end point definitions.
METHODS: A formal modified Delphi method was used for establishing consensus. From a 2006-2009 literature review, the Steering Committee (SC) selected 9 TEE and 15 events in the nonmetastatic (NM) and metastatic/advanced (MA) RCC disease settings. Events were scored on the range of 1 (totally disagree to include) to 9 (totally agree to include) in the definition of each end point. Rating Committee (RC) experts were contacted for the scoring rounds. From these results, final recommendations were established for selecting pertinent end points and the associated events.
RESULTS: Thirty-four experts scored 121 events for 9 end points. Consensus was reached for 31%, 43% and 85% events during the first, second and third rounds, respectively. The expert recommend the use of three and two endpoints in NM and MA setting, respectively. In the NM setting: disease-free survival (contralateral RCC, appearance of metastases, local or regional recurrence, death from RCC or protocol treatment), metastasis-free survival (appearance of metastases, regional recurrence, death from RCC); and local-regional-free survival (local or regional recurrence, death from RCC). In the MA setting: kidney cancer-specific survival (death from RCC or protocol treatment) and progression-free survival (death from RCC, local, regional, or metastatic progression).
CONCLUSIONS: The consensus method revealed that intermediate end points have not been well defined, because all of the selected end points had at least one event definition for which no consensus was obtained. These clarified definitions of TEE should become standard practice in all RCC clinical trials, thus facilitating reporting and increasing precision in between trial comparisons.