Introduction: incidence and epidemiology
Methodology
Category, grade | Criteria |
---|---|
Quality of evidence | |
I | Evidence from at least 1 properly randomized, controlled triala |
II | Evidence from at least 1 well-designed clinical trial without randomization, from cohort or case-controlled analytical studies (preferably from more than 1 centre), or from multiple time-series or dramatic results from uncontrolled experiments |
III | Evidence from opinions of respected authorities based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees |
Strength of recommendation | |
A | Both strong evidence of efficacy and substantial clinical benefit support recommendation for use. Should always be offered |
B | Moderate evidence of efficacy—or strong evidence of efficacy but only limited clinical benefit—supports recommendation for use. Should generally be offered |
C | Evidence of efficacy is insufficient to support a recommendation for or against use, or evidence for efficacy might not outweigh adverse consequences (e.g., drug toxicity, drug interactions) or cost of the chemoprophylaxis or alternative approaches Optional |
D | Moderate evidence of lack of efficacy or of adverse outcome supports a recommendation against use Should generally not be offered |
E | Good evidence of lack of efficacy or of adverse outcome supports a recommendation against use Should never be offered |
Diagnosis and staging
Diagnosis
Staging
T | Primary tumour | ||
TX | Primary tumour cannot be assessed | ||
T0 | No evidence of primary tumour | ||
T1 | Tumour 7 cm or less in greatest dimension, limited to the kidney | ||
T1a | Tumour 4 cm or less | ||
T1b | Tumour more than 4 cm but not more than 7 cm | ||
T2 | Tumour more than 7 cm in greatest dimension, limited to the kidney | ||
T2a | Tumour more than 7 cm but not more than 10 cm | ||
T2b | Tumour more than 10 cm, limited to the kidney | ||
T3 | Tumour extends into major veins or perinephric tissues but not into the ipsilateral adrenal gland and not beyond Gerota fascia | ||
T3a | Tumour extends into the renal vein or its segmental branches, or tumour invades the pelvicalyceal system or tumour invades perirenal and/or renal sinus fat (peripelvic) fat but not beyond Gerota fascia | ||
T3b | Tumour extends into vena cava below diaphragm | ||
T3c | Tumour extends into vena cava above the diaphragm or invades the wall of the vena cava | ||
T4 | Tumour invades beyond Gerota fascia (including contiguous extension into the ipsilateral adrenal gland) | ||
N | Regional lymph nodes | ||
NX | Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed | ||
N0 | No regional lymph node metastasis | ||
N1 | Metastasis in regional lymph node(s) | ||
M | Distant metastasis | ||
M0 | No distant metastasis | ||
M1 | Distant metastasis |
Stage | |
---|---|
Stage I | T1 N0 M0 |
Stage II | T2 N0 M0 |
Stage III | T3 N0 M0 |
T1, T2, T3 N1 M0 | |
Stage IV | T4 Any N M0 |
Any T Any N M1 |
Recommendations
-
CT scan is the gold standard for staging of RCC. Level of evidence: III. Grade of recommendation: A.
-
Abdominal MRI is an alternative in several circumstances. Level of evidence: III. Grade of recommendation: C.
-
The use of bone scan or brain CT (or MRI) is not recommended for routine clinical practice. Level of evidence: III. Grade of recommendation: D.
-
In patients without previous tumour diagnosis, a renal tumour core biopsy is recommended before treatment with ablative therapies, as well as in patients with metastatic disease before starting systemic treatment. Level of evidence: III. Grade of recommendation: A.
Pathological and molecular classification
Local and locoregional disease
Recommendations
-
Partial nephrectomy is recommended in T1 tumours, if technically feasible, as well as in bilateral tumours or a single functional kidney. Level of evidence: I. Grade of recommendation: A (Fig. 1).×
-
Radical nephrectomy is recommended in T2-4 tumours. Level of evidence: II. Grade of recommendation: A.
-
Adjuvant therapy after nephrectomy is not generally recommended (Level of evidence: I, Grade of recommendation: A); however, treatment with 1-year sunitinib could be individually considered in patients with high-risk features (Level of evidence I, Grade of recommendation: D).
Advanced disease
Prognostic classification
Prognostic factor (PF) | Risk category | Median OS (months) |
---|---|---|
KPS < 80 Diagnosis to therapy < 1 year Anemia Hypercalcemia Elevated lactate dehydrogenase | Favorable risk (0 PF) | 30 |
Intermediate risk (1–2 PF) | 14 | |
Poor risk (≥ 3 PF) | 5 |
Prognostic factor (PF) | Risk category | Median OS (months) |
---|---|---|
KPS < 80 Diagnosis to therapy < 1 year Anemia Hypercalcemia Thrombocytosis Neutrophilia | Favorable risk (0 PF) | 43 |
Intermediate risk (1–2 PF) | 22 | |
Poor risk (≥ 3 PF) | 7.8 |
Recommendation
Role of surgery in advanced renal cell carcinoma
Recommendations
-
Debulking or cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) should not be considered mandatory in patients with intermediate–poor IMDC/MSKCC risk who require systemic therapy. Level of evidence: I. Grade of recommendation: A.
-
CN may have a role in the management of mRCC in patients with limited metastatic burden amenable to surveillance or metastasectomy, in patients requiring palliation, and potentially delayed CN in patients with a favorable response or stable disease after initial systemic therapy. Level of evidence: II. Grade of recommendation: B.
-
Metastasectomy can be considered in selected patients with limited number of metastases with long metachronous disease-free interval. Level of evidence: II. Grade of recommendation: C.
First-line systemic therapy
Recommendations
-
Considering a decision based on the whole population of patients with metastatic clear-cell RCC, the combination of pembrolizumab–axitinib should be considered the first option, based on the benefit observed in OS over sunitinib (Level of evidence: I, grade of recommendation A). Until mature results of OS are available, the combination of avelumab–axitinib is recommended as an alternative that increase PFS over antiangiogenic TKI (Level of evidence: I, grade of recommendation B). Sunitinib, pazopanib and tivozanib are reasonable options when the above-mentioned combinations are not available, particularly in patients with good and intermediate IMDC prognosis, based on the longer PFS observed compared to interferon placebo, or sorafenib, respectively (Level of evidence: I, grade of recommendation B). HD-IL2 could be still considered as an option for high-selected patients in centres with experience (Level of evidence: III, grade of recommendation: C) (Fig. 2).×
-
Considering a decision based on IMDC subgroups, the combination of Ipilimumab–nivolumab should be considered the first option for patients with metastatic clear-cell RCC and IMDC intermediate or poor prognosis, based on the benefit observed in OS over sunitinib (Level of evidence: I, grade of recommendation A). In this subpopulation, cabozantinib could be preferable to sunitinib based on the longer PFS obtained in a randomized phase II study (Level of evidence: I, grade of recommendation: C). Although not very used, temsirolimus remains still an option for poor- risk IMDC patients (Level of evidence I, grade of recommendation C).
-
No definitive evidence is available on the benefit of the anti PD1/PDL1 plus either ipilimumab or TKI over TKI alone in patients with IMDC favorable subgroup. For asymptomatic patients with indolent and good-prognosis disease, active surveillance can be considered (Level of evidence II; grade of recommendation: C).
Second-line treatment and sequences
Recommendations
-
In patients with advanced RCC previously treated with one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, nivolumab and cabozantinib are the recommended options. Level of evidence: I. Grade of recommendation: A. Decisions to use either agent may be based on the expected toxicity and on contraindications for each drug, as randomized data is lacking.
-
Axitinib, everolimus, lenvatinib plus everolimus, and tivozanib are alternatives for second-line, providing that they are available, and patients cannot receive nivolumab or cabozantinib (level of evidence I. Grade of recommendation B). In addition, they may be also acceptable options following Nivolumab and Cabozantinib. Level of evidence: III. Grade of recommendation: C.
-
For patients who progress after initial immunotherapy-based treatment, we suggest treatment with a TKI-VEGFR. Options include cabozantinib, axitinib, tivozanib, sunitinib, and pazopanib. Further research is required in this context. Level of evidence: III. Grade of recommendation: C.
-
Patients should be encouraged to participate in clinical trials whenever possible.
Non-clear-cell renal carcinoma
Study | Arms | n patients NCCRC | % NCCRC | Median OS | Median PFS | G3–4 toxicity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ESPN | Everolimus vs. Sunitinib | 35/33 | 100 | 14.9 (95% CI 8–23.4) vs. 16.2 (95% CI 14.2–NA) | 4.1 (95% CI 2.7–10.5) vs. 6.1(95% CI 4.2–9.4) | 54 vs. 88% |
ASPEN | Everolimus vs. Sunitinib | 57/51 | 100 | 13.2 (95% CI 8–23.4) vs. 31.5 (95% CI 14.8–NA) | 5.6 (80% CI 5.5–60) vs. 8.3 (80% CI 5.8–11.4) | 60 vs. 78% |
RECORD3 | Everolimus vs. Sunitinib | 31/35 | 13/15% | – | 5.1 (range 2.6–7.9) vs. 7.2 (range 5.4–13.8 | – |
ARCC | IFN vs. temsirolimus | 36/37 | 17/18% | 4.3 (95% CI 3.2–7.3) vs. 11.6 (95% CI 8.9–13) | 1.8 (95% CI 1.6–2.1)vs. 7(95% CI 3.9–8.9) | – |
SWOG 1107 | Tivantinib vs. tivantinib–erlotinib | 25/25 | 100 | – | 2 vs. 5.4 | 32 vs. 56% |
Recommendations
-
First line: The current evidence is mainly based on small prospective studies and subgroup analyses from larger trials, which mainly focus on TKI or mTOR inhibitor testing. Overall, the most robust data exist for the use of sunitinib.
-
Papilar: Standard: Sunitinib [I, B] Pazopanib [II, B] Option: Everolimus [II, C] Cabozantinib [II, C].
-
Cromophobe: Option: Sunitinib [II, C] Pazopanib, [II, C] Everolimus [II, C].
-
Collecting duct/Medulary: Option: Cisplatin-based regimen [II, C] Sunitinib [II, C] Pazopanib, [II, C].
-
Sarcomatoid: Option: Nivolumab + ipilimumab [II, B] Sunitinib [II, B] Pazopanib, [II, C].
-
-
‘Genetic’ recommendations can´t be graded, as data are limited and no clear treatment recommendation can be made for these subgroups with distinct biology.
-
After first-line: There is no recommendation possible based on available data.