We have located links that may give you full text access.
Effect of Switching Systemic Treatment After Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Oligoprogressive, Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.
Clinical Genitourinary Cancer 2018 October
BACKGROUND: We assessed the clinical outcomes of patients with oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), stratified by changing or continuing systemic treatment.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-five consecutive patients with clear cell mRCC who had undergone SRS to the central nervous system (CNS) or spine during systemic treatment were divided into 3 cohorts: those who continued the same systemic therapy (STAY), those who changed systemic treatment after SRS (SWITCH), and patients with progression outside the SRS sites, who also changed systemic treatment (PD-SYS). The primary outcome was treatment duration after SRS, defined as the interval between SRS and discontinuation of the current systemic therapy for the STAY group and discontinuation of the first subsequent therapy in the SWITCH and PD-SYS groups.
RESULTS: Local control with SRS was achieved in 85% of the patients. The most common systemic treatment at SRS included anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (67%), mammalian target of rapamycin (14%), and programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors (9%). The median treatment duration for the STAY group was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-6.9) compared with 5.0 months (95% CI, 4.3-5.7) for the SWITCH group (P = .549) and 3.1 months (95% CI, 1.7-4.5) for the PD-SYS group (P = .07, compared with all other patients). No difference in median overall survival was found for the STAY and SWITCH groups (24.2 vs. 27.1 months; P = .381) but was significantly longer than that for the PD-SYS group (P = .025).
CONCLUSION: The decision to continue the same systemic therapy at SRS to treat CNS or spinal lesions did not compromise the clinical outcomes of patients with oligoprogressive mRCC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-five consecutive patients with clear cell mRCC who had undergone SRS to the central nervous system (CNS) or spine during systemic treatment were divided into 3 cohorts: those who continued the same systemic therapy (STAY), those who changed systemic treatment after SRS (SWITCH), and patients with progression outside the SRS sites, who also changed systemic treatment (PD-SYS). The primary outcome was treatment duration after SRS, defined as the interval between SRS and discontinuation of the current systemic therapy for the STAY group and discontinuation of the first subsequent therapy in the SWITCH and PD-SYS groups.
RESULTS: Local control with SRS was achieved in 85% of the patients. The most common systemic treatment at SRS included anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (67%), mammalian target of rapamycin (14%), and programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors (9%). The median treatment duration for the STAY group was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-6.9) compared with 5.0 months (95% CI, 4.3-5.7) for the SWITCH group (P = .549) and 3.1 months (95% CI, 1.7-4.5) for the PD-SYS group (P = .07, compared with all other patients). No difference in median overall survival was found for the STAY and SWITCH groups (24.2 vs. 27.1 months; P = .381) but was significantly longer than that for the PD-SYS group (P = .025).
CONCLUSION: The decision to continue the same systemic therapy at SRS to treat CNS or spinal lesions did not compromise the clinical outcomes of patients with oligoprogressive mRCC.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app