Patients' Perceptions Regarding the Relevance of Items Contained in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal method of assessing health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This study explored the perceived relevance of items that make up the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19), as judged by patients with mRCC. METHODS: This was a multinational cross-sectional survey. Eligible patients responded to a questionnaire composed of 18 items that assessed the perceived relevance of each item in the FKSI-19 questionnaire. Open-ended questions assessed additional issues deemed relevant by patients. Responses were grouped as relevant (scores 2-5) or nonrelevant (score 1). Descriptive statistics were collated, and open-ended questions were analyzed and categorized into descriptive categories. Spearman correlation statistics were used to test the association between relevance and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients were included (gender: 78.1 M, 21.9F; median age: 64; treatment: 38.4 immunotherapy, 29.8 targeted therapy, 13.9 immuno-TKI combination therapy) in the study. The most relevant questions evaluated fatigue (77.5), lack of energy (72.2), and worry that their condition will get worse (71.5). Most patients rated blood in urine (15.2), fevers (16.6), and lack of appetite (23.2) as least relevant. Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions revealed several themes, including emotional and physical symptoms, ability to live independently, effectiveness of treatment, family, spirituality, and financial toxicity. CONCLUSION: There is a need to refine widely used HR-QOL measures that are employed among patients diagnosed with mRCC treated with contemporary therapies. Guidance was provided for the inclusion of more relevant items to patients' cancer journey.

Robotic partial nephrectomy after pazopanib treatment in a solitary kidney with segmental vein thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate our surgical technique of robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) in a patient with a solitary kidney who received neoadjuvant Pazopanib, highlighting the multidisciplinary approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In our video, we present the case of 77-year-old male, Caucasian with 6.6cm left renal neoplasm in a solitary kidney. An initial percutaneous biopsy from the mass revealed clear cell RCC ISUP 2. After multidisciplinary tumor board meeting, Pazopanib (800mg once daily) was administered for 8 weeks with repeat imaging at completion of therapy. Post-TKI image study was compared with the pre-TKI CT using the Morphology, Attenuation, Size, and Structure criteria showing a favorable response to the treatment. Thereafter, a RPN was planned3. Perioperative surgical outcomes are presented. RESULTS: Operative time was 224 minutes with a cold ischemia time of 53 minutes. Estimated blood loss was 800ml and the length of hospital stay was 4 days. Pathology demonstrated a specimen of 7.6cm with a tumor size of 6.5cm consistent with clear cell renal carcinoma ISUP 3 with a TNM staging pT1b Nx. Postoperative GFR was maintained at 24 ml / min compared to the preoperative value of 33ml / min. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary approach is effective for patients in whom nephron preservation is critical, providing na opportunity to select those that may benefi t from TKI therapy. Pazopanib may allow for PN in a highly selective subgroup of patients who would otherwise require radical nephrectomy. Prospective data will be necessary before this strategy can be disseminated into clinical practice. Available at: http://www.intbrazjurol.com.br/video-section/20180240_Garisto_et_al.

First-line sunitinib versus pazopanib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib (SU) and pazopanib (PZ) are standards of care for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, how the efficacy of these drugs translates into effectiveness on a population-based level is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) and performed proportional hazard regression adjusting for IMDC prognostic groups. Second-line OS (OS2) and second-line PFS (PFS2) were also evaluated. RESULTS: We obtained data from 7438 patients with mRCC treated with either first-line SU (n = 6519) or PZ (n = 919) with an overall median follow-up of 40.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.2-42.1). There were no significant differences in IMDC prognostic groups (p = 0.36). There was no OS difference between SU and PZ (22.3 versus 22.6 months, respectively, p = 0.65). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the hazard ratio (HR) of death for PZ versus SU was 1.03 (95% CI 0.92-1.17, p = 0.58). There was no PFS difference between SU and PZ (8.4 versus 8.3 months, respectively, p = 0.17). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the HR for PFS for PZ versus SU was 1.08 (95% CI 0.981-1.19, p = 0.12). There was no difference in RR between SU and PZ (30% versus 28%, respectively, p = 0.15). We also found no difference in any second-line treatment between either post-SU or post-PZ groups for OS2 (13.1 versus 11 months, p = 0.27) and PFS2 (3.7 versus 5.0 months, p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed in real-world practice that SU and PZ have similar efficacy in the first-line setting for mRCC and do not affect outcomes with subsequent second-line treatment.