Dataset Information

Characteristics and Treatment Challenges of Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

ABSTRACT: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCC) comprise several rare and poorly described diseases, often characterized by bad prognosis and with no standard treatments available. The gap in their clinical management is linked to the poor molecular characterization in handling the treatment of non clear-cell RCC with untailored therapies. Due to their rarity, non-clear RCC are in fact under-represented in prospective randomized trials. Thus, treatment choices are based on extrapolating results from clear cell RCC trials, retrospective data, or case reports. Over the last two decades, various options have been considered as the mainstay for the treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC), including angiogenesis inhibitors, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors, other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), as well as MET inhibitors and mammalian targeting of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. More recently, the therapeutic armamentarium has been enriched with immunotherapy, alone or in combination with targeted agents that have been shown to significantly improve outcomes of mRCC patients, if compared to TKI single-agent. It has been widely proven that non-clear cell RCC is a morphologically and clinically distinct entity from its clear cell counterpart but more knowledge about its biology is certainly needed. Histology-specific collaborative trials are in fact now emerging to investigate different treatments for non-clear cell RCC. This review summarizes pathogenetic mechanisms of non-clear cell RCC, the evolution of treatment paradigms over the last few decades, with a focus on immunotherapy-based trials, and future potential treatment options.

SUBMITTER: Sepe P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8345088 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivePrevious germline studies on renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have usually pooled clear and non-clear cell RCCs and have not adequately accounted for population stratification, which might have led to an inaccurate estimation of genetic risk. Here, we aim to analyze the major germline drivers of RCC risk and clinically relevant but underexplored germline variant types.MethodsWe first characterized germline pathogenic variants (PVs), cryptic splice variants, and copy number variants (CNVs) in 1436 unselected RCC patients. To evaluate the enrichment of PVs in RCC, we conducted a case-control study of 1356 RCC patients ancestry matched with 16 512 cancer-free controls using approaches accounting for population stratification and histological subtypes, followed by characterization of secondary somatic events.Key findings and limitationsClear cell RCC patients (n = 976) exhibited a significant burden of PVs in VHL compared with controls (odds ratio [OR]: 39.1, p = 4.95e-05). Non-clear cell RCC patients (n = 380) carried enrichment of PVs in FH (OR: 77.9, p = 1.55e-08) and MET (OR: 1.98e11, p = 2.07e-05). In a CHEK2-focused analysis with European participants, clear cell RCC (n = 906) harbored nominal enrichment of low-penetrance CHEK2 variants-p.Ile157Thr (OR: 1.84, p = 0.049) and p.Ser428Phe (OR: 5.20, p = 0.045), while non-clear cell RCC (n = 295) exhibited nominal enrichment of CHEK2 loss of function PVs (OR: 3.51, p = 0.033). Patients with germline PVs in FH, MET, and VHL exhibited significantly earlier age of cancer onset than patients without germline PVs (mean: 46.0 vs 60.2 yr, p < 0.0001), and more than half had secondary somatic events affecting the same gene (n = 10/15, 66.7%). Conversely, CHEK2 PV carriers exhibited a similar age of onset to patients without germline PVs (mean: 60.1 vs 60.2 yr, p = 0.99), and only 30.4% carried somatic events in CHEK2 (n = 7/23). Finally, pathogenic germline cryptic splice variants were identified in SDHA and TSC1, and pathogenic germline CNVs were found in 18 patients, including CNVs in FH, SDHA, and VHL.Conclusions and clinical implicationsThis analysis supports the existing link between several RCC risk genes and RCC risk manifesting in earlier age of onset. It calls for caution when assessing the role of CHEK2 due to the burden of founder variants with varying population frequency. It also broadens the definition of the RCC germline landscape of pathogenicity to incorporate previously understudied types of germline variants.Patient summaryIn this study, we carefully compared the frequency of rare inherited mutations with a focus on patients' genetic ancestry. We discovered that subtle variations in genetic background may confound a case-control analysis, especially in evaluating the cancer risk associated with specific genes, such as CHEK2. We also identified previously less explored forms of rare inherited mutations, which could potentially increase the risk of kidney cancer.

Project description:Nivolumab is approved for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) refractory to prior antiangiogenic therapy. The clinical activity of nivolumab in patients with non-clear cell RCC subtypes remains unknown as these patients were excluded from the original nivolumab trials.Patients from 6 centers in the United States who received at least one dose of nivolumab for non-clear cell mRCC between 12/2015 and 06/2017 were identified. A retrospective analysis including patient characteristics, objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was undertaken.Forty-one patients were identified. Median age was 58 years (33-82), 71% were male, and majority had ECOG PS 0 (40%) or 1 (47%). Histology included 16 papillary, 14 unclassified, 5 chromophobe, 4 collecting duct, 1 Xp11 translocation and 1 MTSCC (mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma). Among 35 patients who were evaluable for best response, 7 (20%) had PR and 10 (29%) had SD. Responses were observed in unclassified, papillary and collecting duct subtypes. In the entire cohort, median follow-up was 8.5 months and median treatment duration was 3.0 months. Median PFS was 3.5 months and median OS was not reached. Among responders, median time to best response was 5.1 months, and median duration of response was not reached as only 2 out of 7 responders had disease progression during follow-up. TRAEs of any grade were noted in 37% and most commonly included fatigue (12%), fever (10%) and rash (10%). Nivolumab treatments were postponed in 34% and discontinued in 15% of patients due to intolerance. No treatment-related deaths were observed.Nivolumab monotherapy demonstrated objective responses and was well tolerated in a heterogeneous population of patients with non-clear cell mRCC. In the absence of other data in this treatment setting, this study lends support to the use of nivolumab for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Dataset Information

Characteristics and Treatment Challenges of Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets