Rarely Described Renal Malignancies Associated With Venous Tumor Thrombus.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Collecting duct carcinoma, epithelioid angiosarcoma and neuroendocrine/carcinoid tumor are uncommon renal malignancies, and their association with tumor thrombus extending into the inferior vena cava is extremely rare. Owing to the rarity of the above-mentioned malignancies and short follow-up of the cases published in the literature, the prognosis and clinical behavior of these tumors remains unclear. Up to date, the culprit of treatment is surgical management with radical nephrectomy, lymph node dissection, thrombectomy and vascular reconstruction if necessary. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We herein describe in detail the first cases published of the above-mentioned renal malignancies associated with extensive inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombus, in which complex vascular reconstruction was performed. RESULTS: Three male patients were identified as having collecting duct carcinoma, epithelioid angiosarcoma and neuroendocrine/carcinoid tumor with IVC involvement. Tumor thrombus levels were II, I and IIIc respectively. Patient ages were 42, 60 and 47 years and tumor sizes were 9.2, 10.9 and 3.7 cm correspondingly. Patient 2 underwent cavectomy, IVC replacement using polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex®) vascular graft and IVC filter deployment inside the graft. None of the patients developed any pulmonary emboli postoperatively. At the last follow-up, IVC graft for patient 2 remained patent. CONCLUSION: Owing to the rarity of the aforementioned malignancies and short follow-up of cases published in the literature, the prognosis and clinical behavior of these tumors remains unclear. Up to date, the culprit of treatment is surgical management with radical nephrectomy, lymph node dissection, thrombectomy and vascular reconstruction if necessary. Polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) vascular grafts are an excellent and safe option for complex vascular reconstructions in patients with evidence of IVC invasion.

Time trends for drug specific adverse events in patients on sunitinib; implications for remote monitoring.

INTRODUCTION: Sunitinib is a multi-targeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor used to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients on sunitinib do require regular in-person appointments to monitor for adverse events (AEs). Given the Covid-19 pandemic, regular in-person visits expose patients to an increased risk of infection in addition to potentially preventable travel costs. This study investigated the feasibility of implementing a remote monitoring strategy for patients being treated with sunitinib for mRCC by examining the time trends of AEs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective chart review of patients with a diagnosis of mRCC, 167 patients received sunitinib during their treatment. The time between initiation of treatment and the first AE was recorded. The AEs were categorized according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5. Survival analysis was used to calculate the time-to-AE. RESULTS: Of the 167 patients identified, 145 experienced an AE (86.8%). Hypertension was the most common AE with 80% of AEs were ≤ Grade 2. Incidence of AE dropped by 91% after 3 months follow up and a further 36% after 6 months. The cumulative incidence of AEs were 87.8%, 94.6% and 98.0%, at 3, 6 and 9 months respectively. The severity of AEs observed were 39.3%, 38.6%, 20.7%, 1.4%,0% of Grade 1-5 events respectively. A trend of grade migration to less severe grades was also shown over time, with percentage of Grade ≥ 3 toxicity dropping from 22% between 0-3 months to 14% beyond 6 months follow up. CONCLUSIONS: The role of remote monitoring for mRCC patients on sunitinib remains relevant now with new waves of the Covid-19 pandemic, triggered by novel variants. The majority of AEs observed were of low severity ≤ Grade 2, with a trend of reduced AE frequency and severity most prevalent beyond 3 months of follow up. This data appears to support the implementation of a remote monitoring strategy 3 months after initiation of treatment.

Impact of Body Mass Index on Perioperative Complications and Oncologic Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Thermal Ablation for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To determine effect of body mass index (BMI) on safety and cancer-related outcomes of thermal ablation for renal cell carcinoma (RRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated 427 patients (287 men and 140 women; mean [SD] age, 72 [12] y) who were treated with thermal ablation for RCC between October 2006 and December 2017. Patients were stratified by BMI into 3 categories: normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), and obese (≥ 30 kg/m2). Of 427 patients, 71 (16%) were normal weight, 157 (37%) were overweight, and 199 (47%) were obese. Complication rates, local recurrence, and residual disease were compared in the 3 cohorts. RESULTS: No differences in technical success between normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients were identified (P = .72). Primary technique efficacy rates for normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients were 91%, 94%, and 93% (P = .71). There was no significant difference in RCC specific-free survival, disease-free survival, and metastasis-free survival between obese, overweight, and normal-weight groups (P = .72, P = .43, P = .99). Complication rates between the 3 cohorts were similar (normal weight 4%, overweight 2%, obese 3%; P = .71). CONCLUSIONS: CT-guided renal ablation is safe, feasible, and effective regardless of BMI.

Delayed surgery for localised and metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the cancellation or deferment of many elective cancer surgeries. We performed a systematic review on the oncological effects of delayed surgery for patients with localised or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the targeted therapy (TT) era. METHOD: The protocol of this review is registered on PROSPERO(CRD42020190882). A comprehensive literature search was performed on Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL using MeSH terms and keywords for randomised controlled trials and observational studies on the topic. Risks of biases were assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For localised RCC, immediate surgery [including partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN)] and delayed surgery [including active surveillance (AS) and delayed intervention (DI)] were compared. For metastatic RCC, upfront versus deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) were compared. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included for quantitative analysis. Delayed surgery was significantly associated with worse cancer-specific survival (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.23-2.27, p < 0.01) in T1a RCC, but no significant difference was noted for overall survival. For localised ≥ T1b RCC, there were insufficient data for meta-analysis and the results from the individual reports were contradictory. For metastatic RCC, upfront TT followed by deferred CN was associated with better overall survival when compared to upfront CN followed by deferred TT (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.86, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Noting potential selection bias, there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that delayed surgery is safe in localised RCC. For metastatic RCC, upfront TT followed by deferred CN should be considered.

Impact of the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic on a tertiary referral centre for kidney cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a centralized specialist kidney cancer care pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient and pathway characteristics including prioritization strategies at the Specialist Centre for Kidney Cancer located at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (RFH) before and during the surge of COVID-19. RESULTS: On 18 March 2020 all elective surgery was halted at RFH to redeploy resources and staff for the COVID-19 surge. Prioritizing of patients according to European Association of Urology guidance was introduced. Clinics and the specialist multidisciplinary team (SMDT) meetings were maintained with physical distancing, kidney surgery was moved to a COVID-protected site, and infection prevention measurements were enforced. During the 7 weeks of lockdown (23 March to 10 May 2020), 234 cases were discussed at the SMDT meetings, 53% compared to the 446 cases discussed in the 7 weeks pre-lockdown. The reduction in referrals was more pronounced for small and asymptomatic renal masses. Of 62 low-priority cancer patients, 27 (43.5%) were deferred. Only one (4%) COVID-19 infection occurred postoperatively, and the patient made a full recovery. No increase in clinical or pathological upstaging could be detected in patients who underwent deferred surgery compared to pre-COVID practice. CONCLUSION: The first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted diagnosis, referral and treatment of kidney cancer at a tertiary referral centre. With a policy of prioritization and COVID-protected pathways, capacity for time-sensitive oncological interventions was maintained and no immediate clinical harm was observed.

COVID-19 and financial toxicity in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To ascertain renal cell carcinoma (RCC) financial toxicity on COVID-19 during the COVID-19 crisis as patients are struggling with therapeutic and financial implications. METHODS: An online survey was conducted from March 22 to March 25, 2020. It included baseline demographic, clinicopathologic, treatment-related information, anxiety levels related to COVID-19, questions related to financial concerns about COVID-19 as well as the validated 11-item COST measure. RESULTS: Five-hundred-and-thirty-nine patients (39%:58% male:female) from 14 countries responded. 23% of the patients did not feel in control of their financial situation but 8% reported being very satisfied with their finances. The median COST score was 21.5 (range 1-44). Metastatic patients who have not started systemic therapy had a COST score (19.8 range 2-41) versus patients on oral systemic therapy had a COST score (23.9 range 4-44). Patients in follow-up after surgery had a median COST score at 20.8 (range 1-40). A low COST scores correlated (p < 0.001) were female gender (r = 0.108), younger age (r = 0.210), urban living situation (r = 0.68), a lower educational level (r = 0.155), lower income (r = 0.165), higher anxiety about acquiring COVID-19 (r = 0.198), having metastatic disease (r = 0.073) and a higher distress score about cancer progression (r = 0.224). CONCLUSION: Our data highlight severe financial impact of COVID-19. Acknowledging financial hardship and thorough counseling of cancer patients should be part of the conversation during the pandemic. Treatment and surveillance of RCC patients might have to be adjusted to contemplate financial and medical needs.

Delaying surgery for clinical T1b-T2bN0M0 renal cell carcinoma: Oncologic implications in the COVID-19 era and beyond.

PURPOSE: During COVID-19, many operating rooms were reserved exclusively for emergent cases. As a result, many elective surgeries for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were deferred, with an unknown impact on outcomes. Since surveillance is commonplace for small renal masses, we focused on larger, organ-confined RCCs. Our primary endpoint was pT3a upstaging and our secondary endpoint was overall survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively abstracted cT1b-T2bN0M0 RCC patients from the National Cancer Database, stratifying them by clinical stage and time from diagnosis to surgery. We selected only those patients who underwent surgery. Patients were grouped by having surgery within 1 month, 1-3 months, or >3 months after diagnosis. Logistic regression models measured pT3a upstaging risk. Kaplan Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models assessed overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 29,746 patients underwent partial or radical nephrectomy. Delaying surgery >3 months after diagnosis did not confer pT3a upstaging risk among cT1b (OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.77-1.05, P = 0.170), cT2a (OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.69-1.19, P = 0.454), or cT2b (OR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.62-1.51, P = 0.873). In all clinical stage strata, nonclear cell RCCs were significantly less likely to be upstaged (P <0.001). A sensitivity analysis, performed for delays of <1, 1-3, 3-6, and >6 months, also showed no increase in upstaging risk. CONCLUSION: Delaying surgery up to, and even beyond, 3 months does not significantly increase risk of tumor progression in clinically localized RCC. However, if deciding to delay surgery due to COVID-19, tumor histology, growth kinetics, patient comorbidities, and hospital capacity/resources, should be considered.

Association of Surgical Delay and Overall Survival in Patients With T2 Renal Masses: Implications for Critical Clinical Decision-making During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To test for an association between surgical delay and overall survival (OS) for patients with T2 renal masses. Many health care systems are balancing resources to manage the current COVID-19 pandemic, which may result in surgical delay for patients with large renal masses. METHODS: Using Cox proportional hazard models, we analyzed data from the National Cancer Database for patients undergoing extirpative surgery for clinical T2N0M0 renal masses between 2004 and 2015. Study outcomes were to assess for an association between surgical delay with OS and pathologic stage. RESULTS: We identified 11,848 patients who underwent extirpative surgery for clinical T2 renal masses. Compared with patients undergoing surgery within 2 months of diagnosis, we found worse OS for patients with a surgical delay of 3-4 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.25) or 5-6 months (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.19-1.91). Considering only healthy patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index = 0, worse OS was associated with surgical delay of 5-6 months (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.21-2.34, P= .002) but not 3-4 months (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93-1.26, P = 309). Pathologic stage (pT or pN) was not associated with surgical delay. CONCLUSION: Prolonged surgical delay (5-6 months) for patients with T2 renal tumors appears to have a negative impact on OS while shorter surgical delay (3-4 months) was not associated with worse OS in healthy patients. The data presented in this study may help patients and providers to weigh the risk of surgical delay versus the risk of iatrogenic SARS-CoV-2 exposure during resurgent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on treatment patterns in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus pandemic has provoked discussions among healthcare providers how to manage cancer patients when faced with the threat of severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) containing regimens are standard of care in the majority of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) patients. It remains unclear whether therapies should be modified in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed an online survey among physicians involved in the treatment of mccRCC, and 41 experts responded. Questions focused on criteria relevant for treatment decision outside the pandemic and the modifications of systemic therapy during COVID-19. FINDINGS: For the majority of experts (73%), the combination of International metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category and patient fitness are two important factors for decision-making. The main treatment choice in fit, favourable risk patients outside the pandemic is pembrolizumab/axitinib for 53%, avelumab/axitinib, sunitinib or pazopanib for 13% of experts each. During the pandemic, ICI-containing regimens are chosen less often in favour of a tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) monotherapy, mainly sunitinib or pazopanib (35%).In fit, intermediate/poor-risk patients outside the pandemic, over 80% of experts choose ipilimumab/nivolumab, in contrast to only 41% of physicians during COVID-19, instead more TKI monotherapies are given. In patients responding to established therapies with ICI/ICI or ICI/TKI combinations, most participants modify treatment regimen by extending cycle length, holding one ICI or even both. CONCLUSION: mccRCC treatment modifications in light of the coronavirus pandemic are variable, with a shift from ICI/ICI to ICI/TKI or TKI monotherapy.