506: A Risk-Adjusted Follow-up for Patients with Stage I and II Renal Cell Carcinoma

2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 169-169
Author(s):  
Quoc-Dien Trinh ◽  
Pierre I. Karakiewicz ◽  
Thierry Lebeau ◽  
Dan Lewinshtein ◽  
Elie Antebi ◽  
...  
2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 162
Author(s):  
P.I. Karakiewicz ◽  
Q.D. Trinh ◽  
G.C. Hutterer ◽  
A. De La Taille ◽  
G. Novara ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3009-3009 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. G. Wood ◽  
P. Srivastava ◽  
L. Lacombe ◽  
A. I. Gorelov ◽  
S. Gorelov ◽  
...  

3009 Background: Vitespen (formerly HSPPC-96) is a novel, autologous, heat shock protein (gp96)-peptide complex vaccine. The survival registry is investigating long-term efficacy of vitespen in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients at high risk for recurrence postnephrectomy. Methods: Eligible patients were enrolled and active in Antigenics’ C-100–12 phase III protocol, with a last survival status of alive at study end. Patients randomized in C-100–12 (1:1, vitespen vs. observation) had AJCC stage I (T1b), II (≥5 cm; Fuhrman grade 3/4), stage III, or stage IV (M0) RCC, ≥25% clear cells, ECOG performance score 0/1 and ≥7 g viable tumor tissue for vaccine production. The registry's primary objective is to assess OS. Registry patients are contacted every 6 (no recurrence) or 3 (upon recurrence) m, for a total of 3 y from final C-100–12 data cutoff. Results: Upon C-100–12 termination, 513 of 728 patients were eligible for follow-up. Currently, 306/513 (60%) patients are in the registry database; 207 patients are being contacted. The cohort of 306 patients is well balanced by C-100–12 randomization arm: (59.8% vitespen, 59.5% observation). Formal statistical analyses are in process. Descriptively, updated OS data show a favorable trend in the vitespen arm vs. observation in all analysis sets, especially among patients with earlier-stage disease (stage I/II high grade; n = 118) or at intermediate risk for recurrence (stage I/II high grade, III T1, T2, T3a, low grade; n = 184 ), with 13/125 (10.4%) vs. 21/115 (18.3%), and 18/184 (9.8%) vs. 33/178 (18.5%) deaths reported in the vitespen and observation arms, respectively. Conclusions: The registry provides an opportunity to confirm whether the emerging survival advantage demonstrated at the data cutoff for the C-100–12 trial improves with prolonged follow-up. Formal statistical analyses are ongoing; data available to date show continuing signals of clinical benefit associated with vitespen treatment in patients with better prognostic factors. [Table: see text]


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 676-676
Author(s):  
Stephen Ryan ◽  
Ahmet Bindayi ◽  
Aaron Bloch ◽  
Ryan Nasseri ◽  
Zachary Hamilton ◽  
...  

676 Background: AUA guidelines recommend consideration of nephron sparing surgery in patients with comorbidities that are likely to impact renal function, such as diabetes mellitus (DM). We compared the impact of partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) on overall survival (OS) in patients with pre-existing DM and Stage I Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC). Methods: Multicenter retrospective analysis of surgically treated Stage I RCC from 2005-16 with or without DM. Primary outcome was OS analyzed by DM+ or DM- and surgical approach (PN or RN) for AJCC Stage I. Logistic (OR) and Cox (HR) regression were utilized for OS. Results: 2173 patients were analyzed (1223 RN, 1819 PN, 555 DM+, 2487 DM-) with mean follow-up of 49.1 months. Increasing Age (OR 1.028, p = .009), RN (OR 2.446, p = .001), and most recent eGFR < 45 (OR 2.306 p = .002) remained significant on multivariate analysis for OS (Table 1). In the PN subgroup, DM+ or DM- was not associated with decreased OS (HR 1.48 p = 0.19). DM+ was associated with decreased OS in the RN subgroup (HR 1.97 p = 0.005). Conclusions: In Stage I RCC, DM and RN negatively impacted OS, while only RN remained significant on MVA. Subgroup analysis of PN showed that OS was similar in DM- and DM+ patients, but diagnosis of DM had a profound impact on OS in the RN group. This supports the guideline statements and offers evidence that urologists should prioritize nephron sparing surgery in patients with DM and Stage I Renal Cell Carcinoma.[Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (15) ◽  
pp. 7913
Author(s):  
Julia Oto ◽  
Raquel Herranz ◽  
Emma Plana ◽  
José Vicente Sánchez-González ◽  
Javier Pérez-Ardavín ◽  
...  

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the third most frequent urinary malignancy and one of the most lethal. Current diagnostic and follow-up techniques are harmful and unspecific in low-grade tumors. Novel minimally invasive markers such as urine microRNAs (miRNAs) are under study. However, discrepancies arise among studies in part due to lack of consent regarding normalization. We aimed to identify the best miRNA normalizer for RCC studies performed in urine samples together with a miRNA profile with diagnostic value and another for follow-up. We evaluated the performance of 120 candidate miRNAs in the urine of 16 RCC patients and 16 healthy controls by RT-qPCR followed by a stability analysis with RefFinder. In this screening stage, miR-20a-5p arose as the most stably expressed miRNA in RCC and controls, with a good expression level. Its stability was validated in an independent cohort of 51 RCC patients and 32 controls. Using miR-20a-5p as normalizer, we adjusted and validated a diagnostic model for RCC with three miRNAs (miR-200a-3p, miR-34a-5p and miR-365a-3p) (AUC = 0.65; Confidence Interval 95% [0.51, 0.79], p = 0.043). let-7d-5p and miR-205-5p were also upregulated in patients compared to controls. Comparing RCC samples before surgery and fourteen weeks after, we identified let-7d-5p, miR-152-3p, miR-30c-5p, miR-362-3p and miR-30e-3p as potential follow-up profile for RCC. We identified validated targets of most miRNAs in the renal cell carcinoma pathway. This is the first study that identifies a robust normalizer for urine RCC miRNA studies, miR-20a-5p, which may allow the comparison of future studies among laboratories. Once confirmed in a larger independent cohort, the miRNAs profiles identified may improve the non-invasive diagnosis and follow-up of RCC.


2012 ◽  
Vol 198 (6) ◽  
pp. 1266-1276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uday Patel ◽  
Heminder Sokhi

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian K Frees ◽  
Mohammed M Kamal ◽  
Sebastian Nestler ◽  
Patrick MF Levien ◽  
Samir Bidnur ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document