Cytoreductive nephrectomy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: outcome of patients treated with a multidisciplinary, algorithm-driven approach.

PURPOSE: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) represents a significant and rising burden of disease, with rapidly evolving treatment modalities. The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) is controversial in this setting. As such, London Cancer has pursued a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach when assessing suitability for surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of treatment-naive synchronous mRCC patients, managed via a renal-specialist MDT, was conducted between January 2015 and December 2018. An MDT selection algorithm for CN-using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium score (IMDC), performance status and metastatic disease burden-was developed. RESULTS: 87 treatment-naive synchronous mRCC patients received either CN (n = 18), Systemic therapy (ST) alone (n = 43) or Best supportive care (BSC) (n = 26). Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. 51% and 39% were IMDC intermediate and poor risk. Median PFS was 28.6 months and 4.5 months in the CN group and ST alone group, respectively, Hazard Ratio for death was 3.63 [(95% CI 1.68-7.83) p < 0.05]. OS remains immature for the CN group, but a median OS of 12.8 months was observed in the ST group and 5.0 months for BSC. 1-year OS rate for CN, ST and BSC groups was 77.8%, 55.8% and 23.10%, respectively. CONCLUSION: These findings describe outcomes of an unselected series of patients treated via an MDT-driven, protocolised treatment pathway. MDT pathway-based decision making may improve patient selection for CN. Further research is needed to evaluate the role of CN amongst a growing landscape of treatment strategies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination therapies. Multi-disciplinary team, pathway-based treatment strategy may improve patient selection for cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Pre-existing diabetes is a risk factor for increased rates of cellular rejection after kidney transplantation: an observational cohort study.

AIM: To investigate whether people with diabetes have an elevated risk of kidney allograft rejection in a well characterized clinical cohort in the setting of contemporary immunosuppression. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including all kidney allograft recipients at a single centre between 2007 and 2015, linking clinical, biochemical and histopathological data from electronic patient records. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 1140 kidney transplant recipients. The median follow-up was 4.4 years post-transplantation, and 117 of the kidney transplant recipients (10.2%) had diabetes at time of transplantation. Kidney allograft recipients with vs without diabetes were older (53 vs 45 years; P<0.001) and more likely to be non-white (41.0% vs 26.4%; P=0.001). Kidney allograft recipients with vs without diabetes had a higher risk of cellular rejection (19.7% vs 12.4%; P=0.024), but not of antibody-mediated rejection (3.4% vs 3.7%; P=0.564). Graft function and risk of death-censored graft loss were similar in the two groups, but kidney allograft recipients with diabetes had a higher risk of death and overall graft loss than those without diabetes. In a Cox regression model of non-modifiable risk factors at time of transplantation, diabetes was found to be an independent risk factor for cellular rejection (hazard ratio 1.445, 95% CI 1.023-1.945; P=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Kidney allograft recipients with diabetes at transplantation should be counselled regarding their increased risk of cellular rejection but reassured regarding the lack of any adverse impact on short-to-medium term allograft function or survival.