Renal cell carcinoma:An update for the practicing urologist

Sumanta K.Pal＊,Paulo Bergerot,Roert A.Figlin

aDepartment of Medical Oncology&Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center,Duarte,CA,USA

bHealth Department of Federal District(SES)—HRAN,Brasilia,Brazil

cDepartment of Medicine,Cedars-Sinai Medical Center,Los Angeles,CA,USA

REVIEW

Renal cell carcinoma:An update for the practicing urologist

Sumanta K.Pala,＊,Paulo Bergerotb,Robert A.Figlinc

aDepartment of Medical Oncology&Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center,Duarte,CA,USA

bHealth Department of Federal District(SES)—HRAN,Brasilia,Brazil

cDepartment of Medicine,Cedars-Sinai Medical Center,Los Angeles,CA,USA

Renal cell carcinoma;

Sdjuvant therapy;

Cytoreductive

nephrectomy;

Vaccines;

Immunotherapy;

PD-1;

Cabozantinib

Systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma(mRCC)has evolved drastically,with agents targeting vascular endothelial growth factor(VEGF)and the mammalian target of rapamycin(mTOR)now representing a standard of care.The present paper is to review the current status of relevant clinical trials that were either recently completed or ongoing.(1)Though observation remains a standard of care following resection of localized disease,multiple trials are underway to assess VEGF-and mTOR-directed therapies in this setting.(2)While the preponderance of retrospective data favors cytoreductive nephrectomy in the context of targeted agents,prospective data to support this approach is still forthcoming.(3)The first-line management of mRCC may change substantially with multiple studies exploring vaccines,immune checkpoint inhibitors,and novel targeted agents currently underway.In general,prospective studies that will report within the next several years will be critical in defining the role of adjuvant therapy and cytoreductive nephrectomy.Over the same span of time,the current treatment paradigm for first-line therapy may evolve.

?2015 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology.Production and hosting by Elsevier (Singapore)Pte Ltd.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1.Introduction

Systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)has evolved markedly in recent years,due in large part to a better understanding of RCC biology.In 50%—75% of patients,aberrations in the von Hippel Lindau(VHL)gene leads to increased expression of hypoxia inducible factor-α (HIF-α)[1].HIF-α expression in turn drives an increase in vascular endothelial growth factor(VEGF).Through downstream signaling via the mammalian target of rapamycin(mTOR),VEGF drives tumor growth and angiogenesis. Translating these findings from bench to bedside,there are multiple inhibitors of VEGF and mTOR that are now clinically utilized.Small molecule VEGF-tyrosine kinase inhibitors(VEGF-TKIs)that have shown clinical benefit in phase III trials include sunitinib,sorafenib,pazopanib and axitinib,and the monoclonal antibody bevacizumab(in combination with interferon-α[IFN-α])has similarly shown benefit in a phase III trial in the front-line setting[2—5]. Two mTOR inhibitors(temsirolimus and everolimus)have also garnered FDA approval on the basis of positive phase III data[6,7].

The utilization of these agents brings up several key issues in multidisciplinary management.For instance,in other disease states(e.g.,breast cancer and colorectal cancer),systemic therapies frequently transition from the metastatic to adjuvant setting.Multiple studies to evaluate VEGF-TKIs and mTOR inhibitors as adjuvant treatment are underway,but at the present time,the standard of care following nephrectomy remains observation[8].A second multidisciplinary issue is the use of cytoreductive nephrectomyinpatientswithsynchronousmetastases. Although prospective trials have firmly established the role of this procedure in the context of immune-based therapies (e.g.,IFN-α and interleukin-2[IL-2]),it is unclear whether cytoreductive nephrectomy is essential in patients with synchronous metastases receiving targeted therapies[9]. Finally,although implementation of systemic therapy for metastatic disease typically takes place in the medical oncology clinic,the evolving healthcare landscape in multiple countries may frequently necessitate involvement of the urologist.

Thecurrentreviewprovidesaframeworkfor approaching these multidisciplinary issues in RCC management.The status of adjuvant therapy trials is discussed, along with trials and retrospective data addressing the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy.Finally,recent innovations in therapy for mRCC are discussed—given the scope and intent of this review,discussion is largely focused on frontline management.

2.Evidence acquisition

A Medline database search was conducted from the years 2000—2014 using the following search terms:“adjuvant therapy(of)renal cell carcinoma”,“cytoreductive nephrectomy”,and“systemic therapy(for)metastatic renal cell carcinoma”.An identical search was performed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Abstract database.Search results were filtered to exclude review articles,editorials and letters.Prospective and retrospective studies were retained.Trials in progress or recently completed that were relevant to the current manuscript were identified through a search of Clinicaltrials.gov.

3.Evidence synthesis

3.1.Current status of adjuvant therapy for RCC

The concept of exploring systemic treatments for RCC in the adjuvant setting is not new—multiple prospective studies were completed in the immunotherapy era.Several notable examples include a study by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group(ECOG),in which 283 patients with pT3-4aN0M0 or pTxN1-3M0 RCC were randomized to receive IFN-α for a period of 6 months or observation[10].Interestingly,this study showed a higher 5-year overall survival (OS)with observation as compared to IFN-α(62%vs.51%,p=0.09).An Italian study employed a similar randomization in patients with high-risk localized RCC and similarly showed no significant improvement in clinical outcome with adjuvant IFN-α[11].IL-2 has also been assessed as an adjuvant.The Cytokine Working Group(CWG)conducted a study in which patients received 1 cycle of high-dose IL-2 or observation[12].Afutilityanalysisconductedafter enrollment of 69 patients led to early closure after it was determined the study would not be able to achieve its primary endpoint of improving 2-year disease-free survival (DFS).

Failed attempts at proving clinical benefit with adjuvant immunotherapy have not stifled efforts to explore targeted therapies in the same setting(Table 1).The largest study to date exploring adjuvant targeted therapy is the ASSURE trial(ECOG 2805),which has completed accrual of 1943 patients[13].Patients were randomized to receive either sunitinib,sorafenib or placebo for a duration of 1 year,with stratification by histology and ECOG performance status. Although efficacy data from this study is still forthcoming,a cardiac substudy from ASSURE has been reported[14].Serial assessments of ejection fraction(EF)suggested no significant decline with sunitinib or sorafenib as compared to placebo.Notably,concerns for cardiac toxicity with these agents have emerged in the metastatic setting[15].

Several other studies are exploring the role of sunitinib and sorafenib in the adjuvant setting.The SORCE trial accrued a total of 1711 patients across western Europe and Australia,and randomized patients with an intermediate or high Leibovich score to either sorafenib for 3 years,sorafenib for 1 year followed by placebo for 2 years,or placebo for 3 years[16].Although efficacy data is still forthcoming,the SORCE investigators have reported key demographic and clinicopathologic data from their trial [17].Notably,182 patients(10.6%)had pT1b disease,and 21%of patients had pT2 disease.Thus,although the study was intended to encompass a group of at-risk patients,asubstantial proportion had relatively low-risk disease.The low frequency of anticipated events in this subset could have implications in terms of the likelihood of SORCE meetingitsprimaryendpoint(improvementinDFS). Approximately 42%of patients had an open nephrectomy, while the remainder had a laparoscopic procedure.With this roughly even divide,SORCE may also provide key insights into the impact of surgical technique on the efficacy of adjuvant therapy.

Table 1 Completed and ongoing adjuvant trials of VEGFTKIs and mTOR inhibitors in RCC.

In contrast to SORCE,the S-TRAC study will randomize 720 patients with high-risk disease using the UCLA Integrated Staging System to either sunitinib or placebo for 1 year[18].Outside of sunitinib and sorafenib,there are two studies investigating distinct VEGF-TKIs.In the PROTECT trial,a total of 1500 patients with pT2N0M0(Fuhrman grade 3—4),pT3-4N0M0,or pTxN1M0 received either pazopanib or placebo for a total of 1 year.The ATLAS trial is an ongoing effort in which 592 patients with pT2-4N0M0 or pTxN1M0 RCC will receive axitinib or placebo over the span of 3 years.

A common thread amongst most of the adjuvant trials of VEGF-TKIs is difficulties in dosing.In the ASSURE trial,the starting doses of sunitinib and sorafenib had to be reduced from conventional doses used in the metastatic setting.If patients tolerated a lowered dose during the first two cycles of therapy,the dose was subsequently escalated.The SORCE and PROTECT studies also similarly required a reduction in the starting dose of sorafenib and pazopanib, respectively.To explain the difference in tolerability of adjuvant treatment,one might posit that patients with localized disease may have a different biology as compared to patients with metastatic disease.However,a more likely explanation is that patients receiving adjuvant therapy may have a lower threshold for accepting toxicity for the end result of lowering the rate of disease recurrence.In contrast,patients with metastatic disease may be willing to tolerate a higher level of toxicity to combat further disease progression.

Two other trials of targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting deserve mention.In the EVEREST trial,a total of 1218 patients with pT1bN0M0(Fuhrman grade 3—4)or pT2-4N1-3M0 disease will be randomized to either everolimus or placebo for 1 year[19].The study has completed roughly half of its anticipated accrual.A second study evaluating the carbonic anhydrase IX(CAIX)-directed antibody girentuximab has recently been reported.CAIX has been related to RCC pathogenesis and may be a biomarker of response to VEGF-directed agents[20,21].In a phase III trial,864 patients with pT2NxM0(Fuhrman grade 3—4), pT3-4NxM0 or PTxN1M0 disease were randomized to receive loading with girentuximab followed by 23 weekly intravenous doses or placebo for the same duration of time[22]. Ultimately,the study failed to achieve its primary endpoint of demonstrating an improvement in DFS.Notably,the study did identify that patients with high levels of CAIX in nephrectomy tissue derived clinical benefit with girentuximab.These findings suggest a potential path for further development of adjuvant girentuximab in a population of patients selected by high CAIX expression.

Finally,a discussion of adjuvant therapy is not complete without noting the highest-risk group of patients—those individuals that have had metastasectomy for limited sites of metastatic disease[23].Across multiple series,5-year survival rates in this population vary from 13%to 50% [24].Although the standard of care following metastasectomy remains vigilant imaging,one study(ECOG 2810)aims to assess the role of targeted therapy in this setting.Speci fically,this phase III trial will randomize a total of 180 patients with complete resection of metastatic disease to 1 year of either pazopanib or placebo,with the primary endpoint of DFS.

3.2.Current status of cytoreductive nephrectomy for mRCC

In the era of immunotherapy,the role of cytoreductive was well established.In two identical protocols,331 patients were randomized to receive IFN-α alone or with cytoreductive nephrectomy[25].Median OS was 13.6 months in patientsreceivingcytoreductivenephrectomy,as comparedto7.8monthsintheIFN-αalonegroup (p=0.0002).Correlative studies examining patients who have received cytoreductive nephrectomy show fluxes in certain immune subpopulations following the procedure, such as an increase in natural killer(NK)cells[26].These changes provide a plausible mechanism for synergy between immunotherapy and surgery.

In the setting of targeted therapies,the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy remains unclear.At present,the practicing urologist must rely largely on retrospective data. An analysis of the Surveillance,Epidemiology and End Results(SEER)database suggested that median OS amongst patients receiving cytoreductive nephrectomy improved from 13 months to 19 months between the time periods of 1993—2004 and 2005—2010,respectively[27].In patients who did not receive cytoreductive nephrectomy,no signi ficant difference in OS was noted between the two time periods.Notably,the latter period was thought to re flect the targeted therapy era,given that FDA approvals of VEGF-and mTOR-directed agents occurred over this period. A similar interpretation of the SEER data suggesting improvedsurvivalwithcytoreductivenephrectomyin recent years has been con firmed by other groups[28,29]. Strengths of the SEER database include its size,encompassing nearly 28%of the US population.However,a major limitation is that the database does not provide treatmentrelated information—thus,the nature of therapy rendered during the two time periods assessed(e.g.,targeted therapyvs.immunotherapy)is merely an assumption.

A more recent retrospective study reported by the International mRCC Database Consortium provides more granular,patient-level data in a cohort of individuals who had received targeted therapy for mRCC[30].This database houses records for a total of 1658 patients with synchronousmetastaticdisease,ofwhom982had cytoreductive nephrectomy.The survival bene fit associated with the procedure was profound(20.6 monthsvs.9.5 months;p＜0.0001).A challenge in interpreting this data is an inherent selection bias,as patients may have not receivedcytoreductivenephrectomyonaccountof comorbidities or poor performance status.However,even after adjustment for standard prognostic criteria,the hazard ratio for death with cytoreductive nephrectomy was0.60(95%CI,0.52—0.69;p＜0.0001).A key finding from the study was that patients with a poor prognosis(speci fically, those patients with a projected OS of＜12 months) appearedtoderivenobene fitfromtheprocedure. Although these findings require further validation,they provide perhaps the most robust justi fication to date for continued use of cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients receiving targeted therapy,perhaps with the exception of patients with poor prognostic criteria.

Two prospective trials are currently underway to assess the utility and timing of cytoreductive nephrectomy, respectively.In the French-led CARMENA trial,a total of 576 patients will be randomized to receive either sunitinib alone or cytoreductive nephrectomy[31].The primary endpoint of the trial is OS,with secondary endpoints including post-operative morbidity and non-compliance with sunitinib therapy.In EORTC 30073,patients will be randomized to receive either sunitinib followed by cytoreductive nephrectomy,or cytoreductive nephrectomy followed by sunitinib[32].The study will enroll a total of 458 patients,and will examine the primary endpoint of PFS. Although both CARMENA and EORTC 30073 will provide valuable insights,the studies do suffer from some inherent limitations.Perhaps most importantly,both studies are based on sunitinib.In the current landscape,it is unclear whether the results will be applicable to other potential first-line agents,such as bevacizumab,pazopanib or temsirolimus.Furthermore,with multiple other relevant agents evolving(as discussed in the next section),it is possible that the study results will be antiquated by the time they are available.

3.3.Current status of first-line therapy for mRCC

National Comprehensive Cancer Network(NCCN)guidelines offer several category 1(i.e.,unanimous)recommendations for first-line systemic therapy for mRCC.These include sunitinib,pazopanib and bevacizumab with IFN-α, or temsirolimus in the setting of poor-risk features[33]. Each of these agents is supported by phase III data which has been reviewed extensively in the existing literature.In the clinic,the practicing physician is faced with the challenge of deciding amongst these agents.Comparative data have emerged in recent years which compare two frequently utilized front-line options,sunitinib and pazopanib.In the COMPARZ trial,1110 patients with mRCC and no prior treatment were randomized to receive either sunitinib or pazopanib at standard doses[34].The primary endpoint of the trial was PFS,with secondary endpoints including OS,quality of life(QoL)and safety.

Ultimately,pazopanib was determined to be noninferior to sunitinib with respect to PFS(HR 1.05,95%CI 0.90—1.22)[34].No significant difference in OS was observed across treatment arms.The COMPARZ trial offers a unique opportunity to compare the side effect profile of two distinct VEGF-TKIs.Sunitinib was found to be associated with a greater incidence of fatigue,hand-foot syndrome and thrombocytopenia,while pazopanib was found to have a great incidence of transaminitis.QoL assessments performed during the first 6 months of therapy generally favored pazopanib.Of note,however,these assessments were performed at day 28 of each 42-day cycle.In the context of sunitinib therapy,which is dosed on a 4 week on/ 2 week off schedule,day 28 would presumably be when toxicity peaks.In contrast,treatment with pazopanib remains consistent across the entire 42-day cycle—thus,QoL metric may be somewhat biased in this report.

COMPARZ provides an important benchmark for OS estimates in mRCC.Whereas a median OS of approximately 13 months was quoted in the cytokine era,median OS was 28.3 months and 29.1 months in the pazopanib and sunitinib arms,respectively[35,36].In the subset of patients with good-risk disease by MSKCC risk criteria,median OS was 42.5 months with pazopanib and 43.6 months with sunitinib.These impressive statistics are critical to factor into forthcoming clinical trials,particularly studies of immunotherapy which hope to demonstrate OS improvement as a primary endpoint.

The practicing urologist should be aware of several studies that may substantially alter the current approach to first-line management(Table 2).Two phase III trials are exploring VEGF-TKI therapy in combination with cancer vaccines.The first explores IMA901,a vaccine comprised of tumor associated peptides(TUMAPs)identified througha screen comparing normal tissue and tumor tissue derived from 32 patients with RCC[37].In a phase I clinical trial,IMA901 was administered to 15 patients with no prior treatment and 13 patients with multiple prior therapies.At a 3-month benchmark,one partial response (PR)was recorded along with 11 patients with stable disease(SD).Limited toxicities were observed in this initial experience,and correlative studies identified a greater clinical benefit rate amongst patients that elicited a more potent immune response to TUMAPs.A phase II experienceofIMA901wassubsequentlyconducted, exploring IMA901 monotherapy or IMA901 preceded by a single dose of cyclophosphamide.The latter arm explores the hypothesis that“immune priming”with cyclophosphamide may reduce regulatory T-cell(Treg)populations. Ultimately,it was found that cyclophosphamide priming significantly improved survival.

Table 2 Planned,ongoing and recently completed trials exploring novel therapies for mRCC in the front-line setting.

These studies have culminated in a phase III study comparing sunitinib monotherapy to sunitinib with IMA901, the latter arm including a single priming dose of cyclophosphamide[38].The study enrolled 320 treatment-na?¨ve patients with mRCC who demonstrated favorable-or intermediate-risk disease by Heng criteria.Patients in this experience were randomized to the experimental and control arm in a 3:2 fashion.While the study explored the primary endpoint of OS,several secondary endpoints will focus on correlative aims including characterization of immune response.

A second vaccine therapy currently in late stage development for mRCC is AGS-003,an autologous dendritic cell vaccine.Generation of the vaccine involves harvesting autologous tumor tissue,isolation of RNA and subsequent electroporation of this RNA into dendritic cells[39].The resulting product is reinfused in the patient at several timepoints.AGS-003 has been explored as both monotherapy and in combination with sunitinib.The latter study included 22 patients with synchronous metastatic disease who had received cytoreductive nephrectomy.All patients in this experience had either intermediate-risk disease (71%)or poor-risk disease(29%)by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center(MSKCC)criteria.Patients received one cycle of sunitinib followed by 5 doses of AGS-003 every 3 weeks.The observed OS in the overall study population was 30.1 months,well in excess of the projected survival of 15 months estimated by existing nomograms.In particular, those patients with an increase in memory T-cells were noted to have prolonged survival[40].

The phase III ADAPT trial will compare sunitinib monotherapy to sunitinib with AGS-003 in a total of 450 patients with synchronous mRCC[41].The study aims to achieve a roughly 30%improvement in survival with the addition of AGS-003 as compared to sunitinib monotherapy.Patients will be stratified by the number of adverse risk factors they possess according to the Heng prognostic criteria[42].It is estimated that the study will complete accrual in 2015.

Outsideofvaccines,otherimmunotherapeuticapproaches may potentially alter current first-line treatment algorithms for mRCC.Increasing attention has been focused on the programmed death-1(PD-1)signaling pathway.PD-1, expressed on the surface of the activated T-cell,may bind to one of two ligands,PD-L1 or PD-L2,on the surface of the antigen presenting cell[43].Association of these receptors leads to T-cell anergy and diminution of the antitumor immune response—a so-called“immune checkpoint”.As monotherapy,thePD-1inhibitornivolumabisbeing explored in a phase III registration trial comparing the agent to everolimus in patients that have received 1—2 prioranti-angiogenictherapies[44].Thestudyhas completed accrual,and results are anticipated in 2015. Although phase II studies of nivolumab suggest modest response rates(roughly 20%across recently reported studies),higher activity has been seen with nivolumab in combination with a distinct checkpoint inhibitor,ipilimumab[45,46].A phase I study combining two dosing regimens of nivolumab with ipilimumab in 44 patients showed response rates of 29%—39%[47].Notably,77%of patients in this experience had received prior treatment.These impressive data prompted announcement of a phase III study exploring the combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab in the front-line setting.

Several other checkpoint inhibitors under development also show promise in mRCC.In a phase I expansion study, MPDL3280A(a PD-L1-directed monoclonal antibody)was administered in 53 patients with mRCC[48].Of these patients,83%had received prior therapy.Amongst 47 evaluable patients,a response rate of 13%was observed with a 24-week PFS of 53%.Based on the encouraging efficacy and limited toxicity associated with the agent,a randomized phase II study has emerged including three treatment arms: (1)MPDL3280A monotherapy,(2)sunitinib monotherapy, and(3)MPDL3280A with bevacizumab[49].The study will include a total of 150 patients with treatment-na?¨ve mRCC, and will explore the primary endpoint of PFS.Crossover onto the combination therapy arm is allowed for patients receiving monotherapy with either MPDL3280A or sunitinib. If data from this study is encouraging,a phase III study exploring this combination is foreseeable.

While there is no doubt that a resurgence of immunotherapy has occurred in recent years,there is still substantial interest in targeted therapies acting upon other axes.The dual VEGFR2/MET inhibitor cabozantinib has shown substantial activity in a phase I trial including heavily pre-treated patients with mRCC[50].Amongst 25 patients with a median of 2 prior lines of therapy,a median PFS of 12.9 months was observed.A registration trial is currently underway comparing cabozantinib to everolimus in patients with prior VEGF-directed therapy[51].In the first-line setting,an Alliance-led phase II trial will compare sunitinib and cabozantinib.The study will accrue a total of 150 patients and explore the primary endpoint of PFS[52].A positive outcome could warrant further exploration of cabozantinib as initial therapy for mRCC.

4.Conclusion

With the rapid evolution of targeted therapies and other novel compounds for RCC,the practicing urologist faces a number of important challenges.In the coming years,it will be critical to follow the adjuvant literature carefully.With multiple trials either recently completed or still underway, there is substantial potential for VEGF-TKIs and mTOR inhibitors to migrate from the setting of metastatic disease to the adjuvant space.Similar attention should be given to theliteraturepertainingtocytoreductivenephrectomy. Although the preponderance of studies seem to indicate that the benefit of cytoreductive nephrectomy is maintained in the targeted therapy era,prospective studies such as the CARMENA trial will more firmly establish the role of this modality.Finally,the urologist should be intimately aware of emerging systemic treatments for mRCC,many of which have a foreseeable path into the front-line setting. Some of these therapies(e.g.,AGS-003,a vaccine derived from surgically excised tumor tissue)may require a multidisciplinary approach for administration.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

[1]Kim WY,Kaelin WG.Role of VHL gene mutation in human cancer.J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4991—5004.

[2]Sternberg CN,Davis ID,Mardiak J,Szczylik C,Lee E, Wagstaff J,et al.Pazopanib in locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma:results of a randomized phase III trial.J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1061—8.

[3]MotzerRJ,HutsonTE,TomczakP,MichaelsonMD, Bukowski RM,Oudard S,et al.Overall survival and updated results for sunitinib compared with interferon alfa in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.J Clin Oncol 2009;27: 3584—90.

[4]Escudier B,Bellmunt J,Ne′grier S,Bajetta E,Melichar B, Bracarda S,et al.Phase III trial of bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma(AVOREN):final analysis of overall survival.J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2144—50.

[5]Rini BI,Escudier B,Tomczak P,Kaprin A,Szczylik C, Hutson TE,et al.Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma(AXIS):a randomised phase 3 trial.Lancet 2011;378:1931—9.

[6]Motzer RJ,Escudier B,Oudard S,Hutson TE,Porta C, Bracarda S,et al.Efficacy of everolimus in advanced renal cellcarcinoma:adouble-blind,randomised,placebocontrolled phase III trial.Lancet 2008;372:449—56.

[7]Hudes G,Carducci M,Tomczak P,Dutcher J,Figlin R, Kapoor A,et al.Temsirolimus,interferon alfa,or both for advanced renal-cell carcinoma.N Engl J Med 2007;356: 2271—81.

[8]Pal SK,Haas NB.Adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma: past,present,and future.Oncologist 2014;19:851—9.

[9]Flanigan RC,Salmon SE,Blumenstein BA,Bearman SI,Roy V, McGrath PC,et al.Nephrectomy followed by interferon alfa-2b compared with interferon alfa-2b alone for metastatic renal-cell cancer.N Engl J Med 2001;345:1655—9.

[10]Messing EM,Manola J,Wilding G,Propert K,Fleischmann J, Crawford ED,et al.Phase III study of interferon alfa-NL as adjuvant treatment for resectable renal cell carcinoma:an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/Intergroup trial.J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1214—22.

[11]Pizzocaro G,Piva L,Colavita M,Ferri S,Artusi R,Boracchi P, et al.Interferon adjuvant to radical nephrectomy in Robson stages II and III renal cell carcinoma:a multicentric randomized study.J Clin Oncol 2001;19:425—31.

[12]Clark JI,Atkins MB,Urba WJ,Creech S,Figlin RA,Dutcher JP, et al.Adjuvant high-dose bolus interleukin-2 for patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma:a cytokine working group randomized trial.J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3133—40.

[13]NCT00326898.Sunitinib malate or sorafenib tosylate in treating patients with kidney cancer that was removed by surgery.Available at:http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.[last accessed 09.12.13].

[14]Haas NB,Manola J,Ky B,Flaherty KT,Uzzo RG,Wood CG, et al.Cardiac safety analysis for a phase III trial of sunitinib (SU)or sorafenib(SO)or placebo(PLC)in patients(pts)with resected renal cell carcinoma(RCC).ASCO Meet Abstr 2012; 30:4500.

[15]Hall PS,Harshman LC,Srinivas S,Witteles RM.The frequency and severity of cardiovascular toxicity from targeted therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients.JACC Heart Fail 2013;1:72—8.

[16]NCT00492258.Sorafenib in treating patients at risk of relapse after undergoing surgery to remove kidney cancer.Available at:http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.[last accessed 09.12.13].

[17]Ritchie AWS,Meade AM,Choo L,Smith B,Welland A, Gregory A,et al.MRC SORCE trial:analysis of patients’presentingcharacteristics,tumorstaging,andsurgical approach.ASCO Meet Abstr 2014;32:496.

[18]NCT00375674.A clinical trial comparing efficacy and safety of sunitinib versus placebo for the treatment of patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell cancer.Available at:http:// www.clinicaltrials.gov.[last accessed 09.12.13].

[19]NCT01120249.Everolimus in treating patients with kidney cancer who have undergone surgery.Available at:http:// www.clinicaltrials.gov.[last accessed 09.12.13].

[20]Choueiri TK,Regan MM,Rosenberg JE,Oh WK,Clement J, Amato AM,et al.Carbonic anhydrase IX and pathological features as predictors of outcome in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma receiving vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy.BJU Int 2010;106:772—8.

[21]Choueiri TK,Cheng S,Qu AQ,Pastorek J,Atkins MB, Signoretti S.Carbonic anhydrase IX as a potential biomarker of efficacy in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma patients receiving sorafenib or placebo:analysis from the treatment approaches in renal cancer global evaluation trial (TARGET).Urol Oncol 2013;31:1788—93.

[22]Belldegrun AS,Chamie K,Kloepfer P,Fall B,Bevan P, Storkel S,et al.ARISER:a randomized double blind phase III study to evaluate adjuvant cG250 treatment versus placebo in patients with high-risk ccRCC—results and implications for adjuvant clinical trials.ASCO Meet Abstr 2013;31:4507.

[23]Torrey R,Spiess PE,Pal SK,Josephson D.Role of surgery for locally advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma.J Natl Comp Canc Netw 2011;9:985—93.

[24]Kim D,Karam J,Wood C.Role of metastasectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the era of targeted therapy. World J Urol 2014;32:631—42.

[25]Flanigan RC,Mickisch G,Sylvester R,Tangen C,Van Poppel H,Crawford ED.Cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cancer:a combined analysis.J Urol 2004;171:1071—6.

[26]Fujikawa K,Matsui Y,Miura K,Kobayashi T,Oka H, Fukuzawa S,et al.Serum immunosuppressive acidic protein and natural killer cell activity in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma before and after nephrectomy.J Urol 2000;164:673—5.

[27]Conti SL,Thomas IC,Hagedorn JC,Chung BI,Chertow GM, Wagner TH,et al.Utilization of cytoreductive nephrectomy and patient survival in the targeted therapy era.Int J Cancer 2014;134:2245—52.

[28]Abern MR,Scosyrev E,Tsivian M,Messing EM,Polascik TJ, Dudek AZ.Survival of patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the targetedtherapy era.Anticancer Res 2014;34:2405—11.

[29]Nelson RA,Vogelzang NJ,Pal SK.Impact of cytoreductive nephrectomyondisease-specificsurvival(DSS)inthecytokine and targeted therapy eras:age-and TNM-stage matched analysis of SEER data.ASCO Meet Abstr 2013;31: 4579.

[30]Heng DY,Wells JC,Rini BI,Beuselinck B,Lee JL,Knox JJ, et al.Cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with synchronous metastases from renal cell carcinoma:results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.Eur Urol 2014;66:704—10.

[31]NCT00930033.Randomized phase III trial evaluating the importance of nephrectomy in patients presenting with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. Available at:http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.[last accessed 14.08.14].

[32]NCT01099423.Randomized phase III trial comparing immediate versus deferred nephrectomy in patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma.Available at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.[last accessed 08.08.14].

[33]National comprehensive cancer network clinical practice guidelines:renal cell carcinoma.Available at:http://www. nccn.org.[last accessed 29.03.14].

[34]Motzer RJ,Hutson TE,Cella D,Reeves J,Hawkins R,Guo J, et al.Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma.N Engl J Med 2013;369:722—31.

[35]Motzer RJ,Bacik J,Murphy BA,Russo P,Mazumdar M. Interferon-alfa as a comparative treatment for clinical trials of new therapies against advanced renal cell carcinoma.J Clin Oncol 2002;20:289—96.

[36]Motzer RJ,Hutson TE,McCann L,Deen K,Choueiri TK. Overall survival in renal-cell carcinoma with pazopanib versus sunitinib.N Engl J Med 2014;370:1769—70.

[37]Walter S,Weinschenk T,Stenzl A,Zdrojowy R,Pluzanska A, Szczylik C,et al.Multipeptide immune response to cancer vaccine IMA901 after single-dose cyclophosphamide associates with longer patient survival.Nat Med 2012;18:1254—61.

[38]NCT01265901.A randomized,controlled phase III study investigating IMA901 multipeptide cancer vaccine in patients receiving sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced/metastaticrenalcellcarcinoma.Availableat:http:// clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01265901?term=IMA-901&rank=2.[last accessed 22.10.12].

[39]FiglinRA,AminA,DudekA,LoganT,LanceRS, Holzbeierlein JM,et al.Phase II study combining personalized dendritic cell(DC)-based therapy,AGS-003,with sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma(mRCC).ASCO Meet Abstr 2012;30:348.

[40]Figlin RA,Nicolette CA,Amin A,Dudek A,Logan T,Lance RS, et al.Monitoring T-cell responses in a phase II study of AGS-003,an autologous dendritic cell-based therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced stage renal cell carcinoma in combination with sunitinib.ASCO Meet Abstr 2011;29:2532.

[41]NCT01582672.Phase 3 trial of autologous dendritic cell immunotherapy(AGS-003)plusstandardtreatmentof advanced renal cell carcinoma(RCC)(ADAPT).Available at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.[last accessed 15.12.13].

[42]Heng DY,Xie W,Regan MM,Warren MA,Golshayan AR,Sahi C, et al.Prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with metastaticrenal cellcarcinoma treatedwith vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agents:results from a large,multicenter study.J Clin Oncol 2009;27:5794—9.

[43]Pal SK,Hu A,Chang M,Figlin RA.Programmed death-1 inhibition in renal cell carcinoma:clinical insights and future directions.Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 2014;12:90—9.

[44]NCT01668784.Study of nivolumab(BMS-936558)vs.everolimus in pre-treated advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma(CheckMate 025).Available at:http://www. clinicaltrials.gov.[last accessed 20.02.14].

[45]Choueiri TK,Fishman MN,Escudier BJ,Kim JJ,Kluger HM, Stadler WM,et al.Immunomodulatory activity of nivolumab in previously treated and untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma(mRCC):biomarker-based results from a randomized clinical trial.ASCO Meet Abstr 2014:32.

[46]Motzer RJ,Rini BI,McDermott DF,Redman BG,Kuzel T, Harrison MR,et al.Nivolumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma(mRCC):results of a randomized,dose-ranging phase II trial.ASCO Meet Abstr 2014;32.

[47]Hammers HJ,Plimack ER,Infante JR,Ernstoff MS,Rini BI, McDermot DF,et al.Phase I study of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).ASCO Meet Abstr 2014;32.

[48]Cho DC,Sosman JA,Sznol M,Gordon MS,Hollebecque A, Hamid O,et al.Clinical activity,safety,and biomarkers of MPDL3280A,an engineered PD-L1 antibody in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma(mRCC).ASCO Meet Abstr 2013;31:4505.

[49]A phase 2 study of MPDL3280A(an Engineered Anti-PDL1 Antibody)as monotherapy or in combination with avastin (bevacizumab)compared to sunitinib in patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma.Available at:http:// clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01984242.[lastaccessed 08.06.14].

[50]Choueiri TK,Pal SK,McDermott DF,Morrissey S,Ferguson KC, Holland J,et al.A phase I study of cabozantinib(XL184) in patients with renal cell cancer.Ann Oncol 2014;25: 1603—8.

[51]NCT01865747.A study of cabozantinib(XL184)vs everolimus in subjects with metastatic renal cell carcinoma(METEOR). Available at:http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.[last accessed on 20.02.14].

[52]NCT01835158.Randomized phase II study comparing cabozantinib(NSC#761968)with commercially supplied sunitinib in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.Available at:http://www. clinicaltrials.gov.[last accessed 14.08.14].

Received 2 August 2014;received in revised form 27 August 2014;accepted 3 September 2014

Available online 16 April 2015

＊Corresponding author.

E-mail address:spal@coh.org(S.K.Pal).

Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Urological Association and SMMU.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2015.04.012

2214-3882/?2015 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology.Production and hosting by Elsevier(Singapore)Pte Ltd.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).