• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

The impact of cytoreductive nephrectomy on survival outcomes in patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a real-world cohort

F. Janisch, T. Hillemacher, C. Fuehner, D. D'Andrea, CP. Meyer, T. Klotzbücher, C. Kienapfel, MW. Vetterlein, S. Kimura, M. Abufaraj, R. Dahlem, SF. Shariat, M. Fisch, M. Rink

. 2020 ; 38 (9) : 739.e9-739.e15. [pub] 20200621

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21026609

BACKGROUND: Tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy (TKI) has changed the treatment paradigm of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The recent CARMENA and SURTIME trials challenged the role of the cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN). OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of CN prior to TKI therapy in patients with mRCC in a real-world setting. METHODS: Overall, 262 consecutive patients with mRCC were treated with CN plus TKI or TKI only at our institution between 2000 and 2016. Patients with prior immunotherapy or metastasectomy were excluded. Multiple imputation and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed to account for missing values and imbalances between the treatment groups, respectively. Unadjusted and adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine differences in progression-free (PFS), overall (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). RESULTS: Overall, 104 (40%) patients received CN before TKI treatment. Most frequent first line therapy was Sunitinib (66%), followed by Sorafenib (20%) and Pazopanib (10%). After adjustment with IPTW, there was no difference in PFS, CSS, and OS (all P > 0.05) between the treatment groups. In subgroup analyses, CSS was improved when CN was performed in patients with sarcomatoid features and clear cell histology (P = 0.04 and P = 0.03) and PFS was improved in patients with clear cell histology when CN was performed [0.04]). CN did not improve OS in any subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: The role of CN remains controversial. We found no difference in survival outcomes between patients treated with and without CN before TKI therapy. However, CN was associated with improved survival in specific patient subgroups. Tailored, individualized treatment is key to further improve oncological outcomes for mRCC.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21026609
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20211026132750.0
007      
ta
008      
211013s2020 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.04.033 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)32576526
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Janisch, Florian $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
245    14
$a The impact of cytoreductive nephrectomy on survival outcomes in patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a real-world cohort / $c F. Janisch, T. Hillemacher, C. Fuehner, D. D'Andrea, CP. Meyer, T. Klotzbücher, C. Kienapfel, MW. Vetterlein, S. Kimura, M. Abufaraj, R. Dahlem, SF. Shariat, M. Fisch, M. Rink
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy (TKI) has changed the treatment paradigm of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The recent CARMENA and SURTIME trials challenged the role of the cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN). OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of CN prior to TKI therapy in patients with mRCC in a real-world setting. METHODS: Overall, 262 consecutive patients with mRCC were treated with CN plus TKI or TKI only at our institution between 2000 and 2016. Patients with prior immunotherapy or metastasectomy were excluded. Multiple imputation and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed to account for missing values and imbalances between the treatment groups, respectively. Unadjusted and adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine differences in progression-free (PFS), overall (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). RESULTS: Overall, 104 (40%) patients received CN before TKI treatment. Most frequent first line therapy was Sunitinib (66%), followed by Sorafenib (20%) and Pazopanib (10%). After adjustment with IPTW, there was no difference in PFS, CSS, and OS (all P > 0.05) between the treatment groups. In subgroup analyses, CSS was improved when CN was performed in patients with sarcomatoid features and clear cell histology (P = 0.04 and P = 0.03) and PFS was improved in patients with clear cell histology when CN was performed [0.04]). CN did not improve OS in any subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: The role of CN remains controversial. We found no difference in survival outcomes between patients treated with and without CN before TKI therapy. However, CN was associated with improved survival in specific patient subgroups. Tailored, individualized treatment is key to further improve oncological outcomes for mRCC.
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a karcinom z renálních buněk $x mortalita $x sekundární $x terapie $7 D002292
650    _2
$a kohortové studie $7 D015331
650    _2
$a kombinovaná terapie $7 D003131
650    12
$a cytoredukční chirurgie $7 D065426
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a nádory ledvin $x mortalita $x patologie $x terapie $7 D007680
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a nefrektomie $x metody $7 D009392
650    _2
$a inhibitory proteinkinas $x terapeutické užití $7 D047428
650    _2
$a tyrosinkinasy $x antagonisté a inhibitory $7 D011505
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    _2
$a sorafenib $x terapeutické užití $7 D000077157
650    _2
$a sunitinib $x terapeutické užití $7 D000077210
650    _2
$a míra přežití $7 D015996
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Hillemacher, Tobias $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Fuehner, Constantin $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a D'Andrea, David $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Meyer, Christian P $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Klotzbücher, Thomas $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Kienapfel, Christina $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Vetterlein, Malte W $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Kimura, Shoji $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Abufaraj, Mohammad $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
700    1_
$a Dahlem, Roland $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical School, New York, NY; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Fisch, Margit $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Rink, Michael $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: m.rink@uke.de
773    0_
$w MED00008671 $t Urologic oncology $x 1873-2496 $g Roč. 38, č. 9 (2020), s. 739.e9-739.e15
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32576526 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20211013 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20211026132756 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1715365 $s 1147116
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 38 $c 9 $d 739.e9-739.e15 $e 20200621 $i 1873-2496 $m Urologic oncology $n Urol Oncol $x MED00008671
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20211013

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace