EAU 2011 - Nephrectomy improves overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in cases of favourable MSKCC or ECOG prognostic features - Session Highlights

VIENNA, AUSTRIA (UroToday.com) - Cytoreductive nephrectomy should be performed in patients with metastatic kidney cancer who are fit enough for surgery.

The authors analyzed 351 patients with metastatic kidney cancer for a possible impact of cytoreductive nephrectomy. Median overall survival (OS) of all patients was 37.1 months. Patients with nephrectomy had longer OS compared to patients without (38.1 months versus 16.4 months, p<0.001). This benefit was only present in patients with ECOG 0 or 1 (median OS 43.3 months versus 16.7 months, p<0.03) but not in patients with ECOG 2 or 3 (median OS 12.6 months versus 8 months, p=0.8). This observation was also present for MSKCC criteria. Patients with good and intermediate risk had a median OS of 42.4 months following nephrectomy compared to 16.8 months in patients without nephrectomy (p=0.02). Patients with poor risk had similar OS (5.2 months versus 5.2 months (p=0.9). The authors concluded that nephrectomy improves OS in patients with metastatic kidney cancer but only in patients with ECOG 0 or and MSKCC good or intermediate.

In the two SWOG and EOTRC trials demonstrating a survival benefit for patients undergoing nephrectomy plus Interferon compared to Interferon alone only, patients with ECOG 0 or 1 were included. These results are now confirmed by this retrospective study. Unfortunately, patients with poor performance status and/or MSKCC high risk have short OS despite systemic and/or operative therapy.

 

Presented by Maxime Crépel, MD, et al. at the 26th Annual European Association of Urology (EAU) Congress - March 18 - 21, 2011 - Austria Centre Vienna, Vienna, Austria


Reported for UroToday by Christian Doehn, MD, PhD, Department of Urology, University of Lübeck Medical School, Lübeck Germany.


 

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the UroToday.com Contributing Medical Editor and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of the European Association of Urology (EAU)




 



View EAU 2011 Annual Meeting Coverage