Maria I. Carlo

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as "Preferred," "Other Recommended Regimens," or "Useful in Certain Circumstances." This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.

PURPOSE: Microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-D) testing has traditionally been performed in patients with colorectal (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC) to screen for Lynch syndrome (LS)-associated cancer predisposition. The recent success of immunotherapy in high-frequency MSI (MSI-H) and/or MMR-D tumors now supports testing for MSI in all advanced solid tumors. The extent to which LS accounts for MSI-H across heterogeneous tumor types is unknown. Here, we establish the prevalence of LS across solid tumors according to MSI status. METHODS: MSI status was determined using targeted next-generation sequencing, with tumors classified as MSI-H, MSI-indeterminate, or microsatellite-stable. Matched germline DNA was analyzed for mutations in LS-associated mismatch repair genes ( MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM). In patients with LS with MSI-H/I tumors, immunohistochemical staining for MMR-D was assessed. RESULTS: Among 15,045 unique patients (more than 50 cancer types), LS was identified in 16.3% (53 of 326), 1.9% (13 of 699), and 0.3% (37 of 14,020) of patients with MSI-H, MSI-indeterminate, and microsatellite-stable tumors, respectively ( P < .001). Among patients with LS with MSI-H/I tumors, 50% (33 of 66) had tumors other than CRC/EC, including urothelial, prostate, pancreas, adrenocortical, small bowel, sarcoma, mesothelioma, melanoma, gastric, and germ cell tumors. In these patients with non-CRC/EC tumors, 45% (15 of 33) did not meet LS genetic testing criteria on the basis of personal/family history. Immunohistochemical staining of LS-positive MSI-H/I tumors demonstrated MMR-D in 98.2% (56 of 57) of available cases. CONCLUSION: MSI-H/MMR-D is predictive of LS across a much broader tumor spectrum than currently appreciated. Given implications for cancer surveillance and prevention measures in affected families, these data support germline genetic assessment for LS for patients with an MSI-H/MMR-D tumor, regardless of cancer type or family cancer history.

Purpose Alterations in DNA damage response and repair (DDR) genes are associated with increased mutation load and improved clinical outcomes in platinum-treated metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We examined the relationship between DDR alterations and response to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. Methods Detailed demographic, treatment response, and long-term outcome data were collected on patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with atezolizumab or nivolumab who had targeted exon sequencing performed on pre-immunotherapy tumor specimens. Presence of DDR alterations was correlated with best objective response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and progression-free and overall survival. Results Sixty patients with urothelial cancer enrolled in prospective trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies met inclusion criteria. Any DDR and known or likely deleterious DDR mutations were identified in 28 (47%) and 15 (25%) patients, respectively. The presence of any DDR alteration was associated with a higher response rate (67.9% v 18.8%; P < .001). A higher response rate was observed in patients whose tumors harbored known or likely deleterious DDR alterations (80%) compared with DDR alterations of unknown significance (54%) and in those whose tumors were wild-type for DDR genes (19%; P < .001). The correlation remained significant in multivariable analysis that included presence of visceral metastases. DDR alterations also were associated with longer progression-free and overall survival. Conclusion DDR alterations are independently associated with response to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. These observations warrant additional study, including prospective validation and exploration of the interaction between tumor DDR alteration and other tumor/host biomarkers of immunotherapy response.

Importance: Guidelines for cancer genetic testing based on family history may miss clinically actionable genetic changes with established implications for cancer screening or prevention. Objective: To determine the proportion and potential clinical implications of inherited variants detected using simultaneous sequencing of the tumor and normal tissue ("tumor-normal sequencing") compared with genetic test results based on current guidelines. Design, Setting, and Participants: From January 2014 until May 2016 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 10 336 patients consented to tumor DNA sequencing. Since May 2015, 1040 of these patients with advanced cancer were referred by their oncologists for germline analysis of 76 cancer predisposition genes. Patients with clinically actionable inherited mutations whose genetic test results would not have been predicted by published decision rules were identified. Follow-up for potential clinical implications of mutation detection was through May 2017. Exposure: Tumor and germline sequencing compared with the predicted yield of targeted germline sequencing based on clinical guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of clinically actionable germline mutations detected by universal tumor-normal sequencing that would not have been detected by guideline-directed testing. Results: Of 1040 patients, the median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 50.5-66 years), 65.3% were male, and 81.3% had stage IV disease at the time of genomic analysis, with prostate, renal, pancreatic, breast, and colon cancer as the most common diagnoses. Of the 1040 patients, 182 (17.5%; 95% CI, 15.3%-19.9%) had clinically actionable mutations conferring cancer susceptibility, including 149 with moderate- to high-penetrance mutations; 101 patients tested (9.7%; 95% CI, 8.1%-11.7%) would not have had these mutations detected using clinical guidelines, including 65 with moderate- to high-penetrance mutations. Frequency of inherited mutations was related to case mix, stage, and founder mutations. Germline findings led to discussion or initiation of change to targeted therapy in 38 patients tested (3.7%) and predictive testing in the families of 13 individuals (1.3%), including 6 for whom genetic evaluation would not have been initiated by guideline-based testing. Conclusions and Relevance: In this referral population with selected advanced cancers, universal sequencing of a broad panel of cancer-related genes in paired germline and tumor DNA samples was associated with increased detection of individuals with potentially clinically significant heritable mutations over the predicted yield of targeted germline testing based on current clinical guidelines. Knowledge of these additional mutations can help guide therapeutic and preventive interventions, but whether all of these interventions would improve outcomes for patients with cancer or their family members requires further study. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01775072.