3 148
However, treatment with any of these agents in these trials
necessitated dose reduction and modification in some
patients; thus, the risk versus benefits of treatment must be
communicated clearly to patients
[8 – 10] .Collectively, the efficacy of VEGF inhibitors in the
adjuvant RCC setting has been shown in principle, and
the current data strongly suggest that patient selection is
crucial: patients with high-risk clear cell tumours, who can
tolerate the full effective dose, are more likely to benefit.
Considering the increased risk of recurrence in these high-
risk patients, treatment that provides a meaningful
improvement in DFS is a clear clinical benefit and must
be discussed as an option for patients in this setting.
Conflicts of interest:
Bernard Escudier has received honorarium for
consultancy from P
fi
zer, Novartis, BMS, Ipsen, Roche, and Exilixis.
Michael Staehler has received consulting fees from P
fi
zer, GlaxoSmithK-
line, Novartis, Bayer, Roche, Aveo, EUSAPharm, Astellas, Ipsen, Exelixis,
Pelloton, and EISAI; honoraria from P
fi
zer, GlaxoSmithKline, AVEO,
Novartis, Bayer, EUSAPharm, Astellas, Ipsen, Exelixis, Pelloton, and EISAI;
and research funding from P
fi
zer, GlaxoSmithKline, AVEO, Novartis,
Bayer, Roche/Genentech, Immatics, Wilex, Ipsen, Exelixis, and EISAI.
Funding support:
This work was funded by P
fi
zer.
Acknowledgements:
Medical writing assistance was provided by Syner-
gy Medical Communications Ltd.
References
[1]
Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration. The global burden of cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol 2015;1:505 – 27.
[2]
Lam JS, Shvarts O, Leppert JT, Pantuck AJ, Figlin RA, Belldegrun AS. Postoperative surveillance protocol for patients with localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma based on a validated prog- nostic nomogram and risk group strati fi cation system. J Urol 2005; 174:466 – 72.[3]
Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Weaver AL, Zincke H. An outcome prediction model for patients with renal cell carcinoma of clear cell type treated by radical nephrectomy based on tumor stage, size, grade, and necrosis: the SSIGN score. J Urol 2002;168: 2395 – 400.
[4]
Rini B, Goddard A, Knezevic D, et al. A 16-gene assay to predict recurrence after surgery in localised renal cell carcinoma: develop- ment and validation studies. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:676 – 85.
[5] Lenis A, Donin NM, Johnson DC, et al. Adjuvant therapy for high-risk
localized kidney cancer
–
emerging evidence and future clinical
trials. J Urol. In press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.092.
[6] Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Bensalah K, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell
carcinoma.
http://uroweb.org/guideline/renal-cell-carcinoma.
[7]
Vasudev N, Reynolds AR. Anti-angiogenic therapy for cancer: cur- rent progress, unresolved questions and future directions. Angio- genesis 2014;17:471 – 94.[8]
Ravaud A, Motzer RJ, Pandha HS, et al. Adjuvant sunitinib in high-risk renal-cell carcinoma after nephrectomy. NEJM 2016;375:2246 – 54.
[9]
Haas NB, Manola J, Uzzo RG, et al. Adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib for high-risk, non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (ECOG-ACRIN E2805):a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 tri- al. Lancet 2016;387:2008 – 16.
[10]
Motzer RJ, Haas NB, Donskov F, et al. Randomized phase III trial of adjuvant pazopanib versus placebo after nephrectomy in patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (PROTECT). J Clin Oncol 2017;35(Suppl), abstr 4507.
E U R O P E A N U R O L O GY 7 3 ( 2 0 18 ) 1
–
3
3