N

Nathalie Rioux‐Leclercq

Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes

ORCID: 0000-0002-3042-7510

Publishes on Renal cell carcinoma treatment, Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments, Renal and related cancers. 207 papers and 5.6k citations.

207Publications
5.6kTotal Citations

Is this you? Claim your profile.

Add your photo, update your bio, and get notified when your ranking changes.

Top publicationsby citations

Prognostic Value of Histologic Subtypes in Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multicenter Experience
Jean‐Jacques Patard, Emmanuelle Leray, Nathalie Rioux‐Leclercq et al.|Journal of Clinical Oncology|2005
Cited by 753

PURPOSE: To analyze to what extent histologic subtype is of prognostic importance in renal cell carcinoma based on a large, international, multicenter experience. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four thousand sixty-three patients from eight international centers were included in this retrospective study. Histologic subtype (1997 International Union Against Cancer [UICC] criteria of tumor response), age, sex, TNM stage, Fuhrman grade, tumor size, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Goup performance status (ECOG PS), and overall survival were determined in all cases. The prognostic values of clear cell, papillary, and chromophobe histologic features were assessed by uni- and multivariate analysis using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox model, respectively. RESULTS: Clear cell, papillary, and chromophobe carcinomas accounted for 3,564 (87.7%), 396 (9.7%) and 103 (2.5%) cases, respectively. In univariate analysis, a trend toward a better survival was observed when clear cell, papillary, and chromophobe histologies were considered prognostic categories (log-rank P = .0007). However, in multivariate analysis, TNM stage, Fuhrman grade and ECOG PS, but not histology, were retained as independent prognostic variables (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The stratification in three main renal cell carcinoma histologic subtypes as defined by the 1997 UICC-American Joint Committee on Cancer consensus should not be considered a major prognostic variable comparable to TNM stage, Fuhrman grade and ECOG PS.

Molecular Subtypes of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Are Associated with Sunitinib Response in the Metastatic Setting
Benoit Beuselinck, Sylvie Job, Étienne Becht et al.|Clinical Cancer Research|2015
Cited by 300Open Access

PURPOSE: Selecting patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC) who might benefit from treatment with targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) is a challenge. Our aim was to identify molecular markers associated with outcome in patients with m-ccRCC treated with sunitinib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We performed global transcriptome analyses on 53 primary resected ccRCC tumors from patients who developed metastatic disease and were treated with first-line sunitinib. We also determined chromosome copy-number aberrations, methylation status, and gene mutations in von Hippel-Lindau and PBRM1. Molecular data were analyzed in relation with response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Validation was performed in 47 additional ccRCC samples treated in first-line metastatic setting with sunitinib. RESULTS: Unsupervised transcriptome analysis identified 4 robust ccRCC subtypes (ccrcc1 to 4) related to previous molecular classifications that were associated with different responses to sunitinib treatment. ccrcc1/ccrcc4 tumors had a lower RR (P = 0.005) and a shorter PFS and OS than ccrcc2/ccrcc3 tumors (P = 0.001 and 0.0003, respectively). These subtypes were the only significant covariate in the multivariate Cox model for PFS and OS (P = 0.017 and 0.006, respectively). ccrcc1/ccrcc4 tumors were characterized by a stem-cell polycomb signature and CpG hypermethylation, whereas ccrcc3 tumors, sensitive to sunitinib, did not exhibit cellular response to hypoxia. Moreover, ccrcc4 tumors exhibited sarcomatoid differentiation with a strong inflammatory, Th1-oriented but suppressive immune microenvironment, with high expression of PDCD1 (PD-1) and its ligands. CONCLUSIONS: ccRCC molecular subtypes are predictive of sunitinib response in metastatic patients, and could be used for personalized mRCC treatment with TKIs, demethylating or immunomodulatory drugs.

Immunotherapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma: The Future Is Now
Antoine Deleuze, Judikaël Saout, Frédéric Dugay et al.|International Journal of Molecular Sciences|2020
Cited by 223Open Access

Renal cell carcinoma is the third type of urologic cancer and has a poor prognosis with 30% of metastatic patients at diagnosis. The antiangiogenics and targeted immunotherapies led to treatment remodeling emphasizing the role of the tumour microenvironment. However, long-term responses are rare with a high rate of resistance. New strategies are emerging to improve the efficacy and the emerging drugs are under evaluation in ongoing trials. With the different treatment options, there is an urgent need to identify biomarkers in order to predict the efficacy of drugs and to better stratify patients. Owing to the limitations of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), the most studied immunohistochemistry biomarkers, and of the tumor mutational burden, the identification of more reliable markers is an unmet need. New technologies could help in this purpose.

Renal Tumors
Puay Hoon Tan, Liang Cheng, Nathalie Rioux‐Leclercq et al.|The American Journal of Surgical Pathology|2013
Cited by 177

The International Society of Urological Pathology convened a consensus conference on renal cancer, preceded by an online survey, to address issues relating to the diagnosis and reporting of renal neoplasia. In this report, the role of biomarkers in the diagnosis and assessment of prognosis of renal tumors is addressed. In particular we focused upon the use of immunohistochemical markers and the approach to specific differential diagnostic scenarios. We enquired whether cytogenetic and molecular tools were applied in practice and asked for views on the perceived prognostic role of biomarkers. Both the survey and conference voting results demonstrated a high degree of consensus in participants' responses regarding prognostic/predictive markers and molecular techniques, whereas it was apparent that biomarkers for these purposes remained outside the diagnostic realm pending clinical validation. Although no individual antibody or panel of antibodies reached consensus for classifying renal tumors, or for confirming renal metastatic disease, it was noted from the online survey that 87% of respondents used immunohistochemistry to subtype renal tumors sometimes or occasionally, and a majority (87%) used immunohistochemical markers (Pax 2 or Pax 8, renal cell carcinoma [RCC] marker, panel of pan-CK, CK7, vimentin, and CD10) in confirming the diagnosis of metastatic RCC. There was consensus that immunohistochemistry should be used for histologic subtyping and applied before reaching a diagnosis of unclassified RCC. At the conference, there was consensus that TFE3 and TFEB analysis ought to be requested when RCC was diagnosed in a young patient or when histologic appearances were suggestive of the translocation subtype; whereas Pax 2 and/or Pax 8 were considered to be the most useful markers in the diagnosis of a renal primary.