Non-clear cell renal carcinomas: Review of new molecular insights and recent clinical data.

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (nccRCC) represent a highly heterogeneous group of kidney tumors, consisting of the following subtypes: papillary carcinomas, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, so-called unclassified carcinomas or aggressive uncommon carcinomas such as Bellini carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with ALK rearrangement or fumarate hydratase-deficient RCC. Although non-clear cell cancers account for only 15 to 30% of renal tumors, they are often misclassified and accurate diagnosis continues to be an issue in clinical practice. Current therapeutic strategy of metastatic nccRCC is based primarily on guidelines established for clear cell tumors, the most common subtype, however this approach remains poorly defined. To date, published clinical trials for all histological nccRCC subtypes have been collectively characterized into one group, in contrast to clear cell RCC, and given the small numbers of cases, the interpretation of study results continues to be challenging. This review summarizes the available literature for each nccRCC subtype and highlights the lack of supportive evidence from prospective clinical trials and retrospective studies. Future trials should evaluate treatment approaches which focus on a specific histological subtype and progress in treating nccRCC will be contingent on understanding the unique biology of their individual histologies.

Targeted and immune therapies among patients with metastatic renal carcinoma undergoing hemodialysis: A systemic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe renal impairment or undergoing hemodialysis are usually excluded from clinical trials. Available data regarding safety and activity of systemic therapies (ST) in hemodialyzed patients are scarce. METHODS: Clinical data were searched through PubMed database until April 2020 according to PRISMA criteria. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) assessment of ST were reported. RESULTS: Among 270 references, 56 reports were evaluated in full text: 41 were included for efficacy and 42 for safety analysis (sunitinib n = 68, bevacizumab n = 6, everolimus n = 28, temsirolimus n = 17, sorafenib n = 55, axitinib n = 13, pazopanib n = 13, nivolumab n = 18, cabozantinib n = 0, lenvatinib n = 0, and ipilimumab n = 0). Twelve of the reports included PK assessment among dialyzed patients. Hemodialysis did not seem to modify the expected efficacy and safety of each compound among patients undergoing hemodialysis. PK assessments were not modified in comparison with a population not undergoing dialysis. CONCLUSION: Targeted and Immune therapies seem to be effective and can be used among patients undergoing hemodialysis. Due to frailty and comorbidities associated to chronic hemodialysis enhanced vigilance for these therapies within this specific population is recommended. Dedicated prospective clinical trials would definitely help to obtain data with a higher level of evidence.

Loco-regional treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer: Is there any rationale? A critical review from the AFU-GETUG.

Emerging evidence from population-based and retrospective series suggests a potential improvement of clinical outcomes in metastatic prostate cancer. Moreover, metastasis-directed treatment has shown encouraging results in this setting. There is an increasing interest in exploring the potential of local therapies in advanced prostate cancer, but this has rarely been specifically addressed in the castration-resistant state, whether non-metastatic or metastatic. A review of relevant articles was performed on the oncologic benefit of local treatment of the primary tumor or metastasis-targeted treatment in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. The main goal of this strategy is to delay introduction of a new systemic agent to maintain quality of life and potentially to limit resistance. Further investigation is required to provide high-level evidence for the oncologic benefit of this treatment modality.