Renal cell carcinoma: The role of radical surgery on different patterns of local or distant recurrence

IntroductionWith the increasing reliance on targeted therapies and immunotherapy, no standard management strategy is today available for the treatment of locally, distant, or both renal cell carcinoma (RCC) recurrences, and their surgical treatment seems to play a crucial role. We report the 20-year experience of our center evaluating the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergone surgical resection of RCC recurrences, and the possible role of repeated surgical resections of RCC recurrences.Materials and methodsFrom January 1999 to January 2019, 40 patients underwent surgical resection of isolated locally recurrent RCC (iLR-RCC-group), locally recurrent RCC associated with the presence of distant recurrence (LR-DR-RCC-group), and distant-only recurrent RCC (DR-RCC-group). Data regarding pre-, intra-, post-operative course, and follow-up, prospectively collected in an institutional database, were retrospectively analyzed and compared.ResultsiLR-RCC-group was composed of 9 patients, LR-DR-RCC-group of 6 patients, and DR-RCC-group of 25 patients. The recurrence rate was 55.6% (5/9 patients) in iLR-RCC-group, 50% (3/6 patients) in LR-DR-RCC-group, and 44% (11/25) patients in DR-RCC-group, p = 0.830. 3/5 (60%) patients in iLR-RCC-group, 2/3 (66.7%) patients in LR-DR-RCC-group, and 7/11 (63.6%) patients in DR-RCC group underwent to almost one further local treatments of their recurrences, respectively (p = 0.981). No differences in the mean disease-free survival (p = 0.384), overall survival (OS) (p = 0.881), and cancer-specific survival (p = 0.265) were reported between the three groups. In DR-RCC-group, patients who underwent further local treatments of new recurrences presented a longer OS: 150.7 versus 66.5 months (p = 0.004).ConclusionsA surgical resection of RCC recurrences should be always taken in consideration, also in metastatic patients and/or in those who have already undergone surgery of previous RCC recurrence, whenever radicality is still possible, because this approach may offer a potentially long survival.     

Genotype-phenotype correlation in von Hippel-Lindau families with renal lesions

von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease arises from mutations in the VHL gene and predisposes patients to develop a variety of tumors in different organs. In the kidney, single or multiple cysts and renal cell carcinomas (RCC) may occur. Both inter- and intrafamilial heterogeneity in clinical expression are well recognized. To identify VHL-dependent genetic factors, we investigated the renal phenotype in 274 individuals from 126 unrelated VHL families in whom 92 different VHL mutations were characterized. The incidence of renal involvement was increased in families with mutations leading to truncated protein (MLTP) or large rearrangement, as compared to families with missense changes (81 vs. 63%, respectively; P=0.03). In the latter group, we identified two mutation cluster regions (MCRs) associated with a high risk of harboring renal lesions: MCR-1 (codons 74-90) and MCR-2 (codons 130-136). In addition, the incidence of RCC was higher in families with MLTP than in families with missense changes (75 vs. 57%; P=0.04). Furthermore, mutations within MCR-1 but not MCR-2 conferred genetic susceptibility to develop RCC. Overall, our data argued for a substantial contribution of the genetic change in the VHL gene to susceptibility to renal phenotype in VHL patients.     

Towards a new WHO classification of renal cell tumor: what the clinician needs to know—a narrative review

In 1952, renal cell carcinomas had been divided into 2 categories—clear cell or granular cell—depending upon their cytoplasmic staining characteristics. In the following years, the inventory of renal epithelial tumors has expanded by the addition of tumors named by their architectural pattern (i.e., papillary RCC, tubulocystic RCC), anatomic location (i.e., collecting duct carcinoma, renal medullary carcinoma), associated diseases (i.e., acquired cystic disease-associated RCCs). With the extensive application of molecular diagnostic techniques, it becomes possible to detect genetic distinctions between various types of renal neoplasm and discover new entities, otherwise misdiagnosed or diagnosed as unclassified RCC. Some tumors such as ALK rearrangement-associated RCC, MiT family translocation renal carcinomas, SDH-deficient renal cancer or FH-deficient RCC, are defined by their molecular characteristics. The most recent World Health Organization (WHO) classification of renal neoplasms account for more than 50 entities and provisional entities. New entities might be included in the upcoming WHO classification. The aim of this review is to summarise and discuss the newly acquired data and evidence on the clinical, pathological, molecular features and on the prognosis of new RCC entities, which will hopefully increase the awareness and the acceptance of these entities among clinicians and improve prognostication for individual patients.     

肾细胞癌患者血清中血管内皮生长因子的表达

目的　据认为血管内皮生长因子是实体肿瘤血管生成和生长的重要成分。本实验通过研究VEGF在肾细胞癌的表达 ,探讨其在肾细胞癌中的作用。方法　肾细胞癌患者血清标本 2 4例 ,健康对照 2 0例 ,定量SABC ELISA法行血清中VEGF测定。结果　肾细胞癌患者血清VEGF中值 ( 4 76pg/ml)较对照组( 312pg/ml)明显增高 (P <0 0 1)。结论　血清VEGF值于肾细胞癌相关 ,可作为肾细胞癌的监控指标。     

Metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted therapies: A Renal Cross Channel Group study

BackgroundTreatment of non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains controversial despite several recent prospective studies of targeted therapies (TT). Often Vascular Endothelial growth Factor (VEGF) and Mammalian Target of Rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are used, extrapolating the data from use of these agents in clear cell RCC.MethodsWe performed a retrospective data analysis within the Renal Cross Channel Group to determine metastatic chromophobe RCC (mChRCC) outcomes in the TT era. The end-points were overall response, overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF). The two latter were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method.Results91 mChRCC patients from 26 centres were included. Median follow-up from the date of first metastasis was 6.1 years (range: 0–13.9). Median OS was 37.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.4–46.8) from the diagnosis of metastatic disease. Among the 61 patients who received TT, 50 (82%) were treated with anti-angiogenic (AA) and 11 with mTOR inhibitors. Median TTF and OS in patients receiving a first line of AA was 8.7 months (95% CI: 5.2–10.9) and 22.9 months (95% CI: 17.8–49.2) versus 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.0–6.0) and 3.2 months (95% CI: 2.3–not evaluable) with mTOR inhibitors, respectively. A stratified log-rank test was used to compare AA and mTOR inhibitors TT, while controlling the effect of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk group and no significant difference between AA and mTOR inhibitors was observed for TTF (p = 0.26) or for OS (p = 0.55).ConclusionWe report the largest retrospective cohort of patients with mChRCC treated with TT and no significant difference between AA and mTOR inhibitors was observed for TTF and OS.     

Sunitinib malate for the treatment of solid tumours: a review of current clinical data

Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) play important roles in the regulation of cellular growth, and mutated or overexpressed RTKs have been implicated in various human cancers. Sunitinib malate is an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor with antitumour and antiangiogenic activity that recently received approval from the FDA for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and of gastrointestinal stromal tumours after disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib mesilate therapy. Sunitinib has also demonstrated promising clinical activity in the treatment of other advanced solid tumours. The present review provides an updated summary of emerging clinical experience with this promising new anticancer agent.