scholarly journals Challenges and opportunities for converting renal cell carcinoma into a chronic disease with targeted therapies

2011 ◽  
Vol 104 (3) ◽  
pp. 399-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
M E Gore ◽  
J M G Larkin
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. e227-e234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiphaine Cholley ◽  
Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin ◽  
Samuel Limat ◽  
Marion Hugues ◽  
Fabien Calcagno ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 388-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Alasker ◽  
Malek Meskawi ◽  
Maxine Sun ◽  
Salima Ismail ◽  
Nawar Hanna ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 137 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajen Goyal ◽  
Elizabeth Gersbach ◽  
Ximing J. Yang ◽  
Stephen M. Rohan

Context.—The World Health Organization classification of renal tumors synthesizes morphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular findings to define more than 40 tumor types. Of these, clear cell (conventional) renal cell carcinoma is the most common malignant tumor in adults and—with the exception of some rare tumors—the most deadly. The diagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma on morphologic grounds alone is generally straightforward, but challenging cases are not infrequent. A misdiagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma has clinical consequences, particularly in the current era of targeted therapies. Objective.—To highlight morphologic mimics of clear cell renal cell carcinoma and provide strategies to help differentiate clear cell renal cell carcinoma from other renal tumors and lesions. The role of the pathologist in guiding treatment for renal malignancies will be emphasized to stress the importance of proper tumor classification in patient management. Data Sources.—Published literature and personal experience. Conclusions.—In challenging cases, submission of additional tissue is often an inexpensive and effective way to facilitate a correct diagnosis. If immunohistochemical stains are to be used, it is best to use a panel of markers, as no one marker is specific for a given renal tumor subtype. Selection of limited markers, based on a specific differential diagnosis, can be as useful as a large panel in reaching a definitive diagnosis. For renal tumors, both the presence and absence of immunoreactivity and the pattern of labeling (membranous, cytoplasmic, diffuse, focal) are important when interpreting the results of immunohistochemical stains.


2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc R. Matrana ◽  
Bradley Atkinson ◽  
Eric Jonasch ◽  
Nizar M. Tannir

Author(s):  
David M. Gill ◽  
Neeraj Agarwal ◽  
Ulka Vaishampayan

The treatment paradigm for advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved rapidly since the arrival of targeted therapies and novel immunotherapies. mRCC was previously treated only with cytokines. However, discoveries of mutations affecting the von Hippel–Lindau tumor suppressor gene (leading to increased expression of VEGF and hypoxia inducible factor/HIF-1) and of deregulations in the phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase/AKT/mTOR pathway (resulting in tumor angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and tumor growth) have led to the development of numerous targeted therapies. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has thus approved a total of nine targeted therapies since 2005, including VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors (sunitinib, pazopanib, axitinib, sorafenib, and lenvatinib), a monoclonal antibody targeting VEGF (bevacizumab), mTOR inhibitors (temsirolimus and everolimus), and a multityrosine kinase inhibitor (cabozantinib). Furthermore, the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors has again shifted the mRCC therapeutic landscape with the FDA’s approval of nivolumab. Herein, we discuss the unprecedented changes in the field of clear cell histology mRCC in both the first-line and salvage settings, and we also discuss future therapies and recommend a treatment paradigm on sequencing of these agents.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document