Search

The treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cancer is changing rapidly, with the focus switching from vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapies to immune checkpoint inhibitors and novel combinations. Specifically, recent data with programmed death ligand inhibitors is revolutionizing the standard approach to metastatic renal cell carcinoma. However, there is speculation around a number of newer potentially therapeutic targets, such as indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, transforming growth factor-β, interleukin-10, and adenosine. In this article, we review novel treatments, promising combinations, and consideration in both trial design and clinical application of therapeutics that will influence practice in the future.

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of metastatic tumor response evaluation with computed tomography using computer-assisted versus manual methods., Materials and Methods: In this institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study, 11 readers from 10 different institutions independently categorized tumor response according to three different therapeutic response criteria by using paired baseline and initial post-therapy computed tomography studies from 20 randomly selected patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib as part of a completed phase III multi-institutional study. Images were evaluated with a manual tumor response evaluation method (standard of care) and with computer-assisted response evaluation (CARE) that included stepwise guidance, interactive error identification and correction methods, automated tumor metric extraction, calculations, response categorization, and data and image archiving. A crossover design, patient randomization, and 2-week washout period were used to reduce recall bias. Comparative effectiveness metrics included error rate and mean patient evaluation time., Results: The standard-of-care method, on average, was associated with one or more errors in 30.5% (6.1 of 20) of patients, whereas CARE had a 0.0% (0.0 of 20) error rate ( P < .001). The most common errors were related to data transfer and arithmetic calculation. In patients with errors, the median number of error types was 1 (range, 1 to 3). Mean patient evaluation time with CARE was twice as fast as the standard-of-care method (6.4 minutes v 13.1 minutes; P < .001)., Conclusion: CARE reduced errors and time of evaluation, which indicated better overall effectiveness than manual tumor response evaluation methods that are the current standard of care.