scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Systemic Treatment Options for Advanced Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Kidney Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-27
Author(s):  
Chelsea K. Osterman ◽  
Tracy L. Rose
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Systemic Treatment ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Response to systemic therapy in non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 425-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Emilio Vera-Badillo ◽  
Arnoud Templeton ◽  
Alberto Ocana ◽  
Paulo deGouveia ◽  
Priya Aneja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

425 Background: Clinical data supporting the efficacy of systemic therapy in non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC) are limited and based on retrospective analyses, expanded access programs and single arm phase II trials. Therefore the optimal treatment for this subgroup remains uncertain. Methods: A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted to identify publications evaluating the outcomes of patients with non-ccRCC (excluding those with sarcomatoid tumors) treated with different systemic approaches (immunotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted agents, small molecules). The primary endpoint was response rate and secondary endpoints were median progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Where possible, data were pooled in a meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effect modeling. For studies comprising of unselected patients, outcomes of those with non-ccRCC were compared with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Results: Forty-nine studies comprising 7,799 patients were included: 471 patients were enrolled on studies conducted exclusively in non-ccRCC and 7,328 patients on studies of unselected renal cell carcinoma. Among these, 903 (12%) had non-ccRCC and 6,425 (88%) had ccRCC. For non-ccRCC, overall response rate, median PFS and median OS were 9%, 7.9 and 13.4 months, respectively. By comparison, the overall response rate for ccRCC was 15% (Risk Ratio for response [RR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.52-0.86, p=0.002). This association was independent of type of treatment administered. Among the different novel agents (bevacizumab, lenalidomide, linefanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, everolimus and temsirolimus), sunitinib was significantly less efficacious in non-ccRCC than ccRCC (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.72), but there was no significant difference in response rates for sorafenib (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31-1.35) or other agents (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.50-2.44), However, confidence intervals were wide. Results of further analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Patients with non-ccRCC have lower response rates than those with ccRCC, but the absolute difference between them is modest. Further study of targeted therapy in non-ccRCC is warranted.

The Role of Pazopanib in Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 419-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory T. Sneed ◽  
Sukdong Lee ◽  
Jamie N. Brown ◽  
Julia M. Hammond
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma - Pathology and Treatment Options

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 128-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marit Ahrens ◽  
Sebastian Scheich ◽  
Arndt Hartmann ◽  
Lothar Bergmann ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Systemic Therapy for Non–Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

2017 ◽  
pp. 337-342
Author(s):  
Tian Zhang ◽  
Jun Gong ◽  
Manuel Caitano Maia ◽  
Sumanta K. Pal
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Biologically Relevant ◽  
Vegf Inhibitor ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Made In

Treatment options for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) have evolved markedly over the past decade, with multiple targeted therapies approved for the disease. In contrast, little improvement has been made in the management of metastatic non–clear cell RCC (nccRCC). Non–clear cell disease is an umbrella term that encompasses multiple biologically distinct entities, including but not limited to papillary, chromophobe, and sarcomatoid RCC. To date, prospective studies have largely explored treatments for ccRCC (e.g., VEGF- and mTOR-directed therapies) in trials that aggregate non–clear cell histologies. However, the studies do not acknowledge the varying biology of each non–clear cell subtype. Emerging studies in nccRCC should examine individual histologies and apply biologically relevant therapies. An example of this is SWOG 1500, a randomized phase II study that will compare a VEGF-inhibitor to one of three MET-directed therapies in patients with metastatic papillary RCC. Until the biologic diversity of nccRCC is appreciated, outcomes are likely to remain dismal.

scholarly journals Consensus paper: current state of first- and second-line therapy in advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (29) ◽  
pp. 2307-2328
Author(s):  
Peter J Goebell ◽  
Philipp Ivanyi ◽  
Jens Bedke ◽  
Lothar Bergmann ◽  
Dominik Berthold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
New Treatments

The therapy of advanced (clear-cell) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has recently experienced tremendous changes. Several new treatments have been developed, with PD-1 immune-checkpoint inhibition being the backbone of therapy. Diverse immunotherapy combinations change current first-line standards. These changes also require new approaches in subsequent lines of therapy. In an expert panel, we discussed the new treatment options and how they change clinical practice. While first-line immunotherapies introduce a new level of response rates, data on second-line therapies remains poor. This scenario poses a challenge for clinicians as guideline recommendations are based on historical patient cohorts and agents may lack the appropriate label for their in guidelines recommended use. Here, we summarize relevant clinical data and consider appropriate treatment strategies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document