Cargando…

Second-line treatment in renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and decision making

Currently, conventional treatments for metastatic RCC (mRCC) include immune-based combination regimens and/or targeted therapies, the latter mainly acting on angiogenesis, a key element of the process of tumor growth and spread. Although these agents proved able to improve patients’ outcomes, drug r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guadalupi, Valentina, Cartenì, Giacomo, Iacovelli, Roberto, Porta, Camillo, Pappagallo, Giovanni, Ricotta, Riccardo, Procopio, Giuseppe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8216352/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34211586
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17562872211022870
_version_ 1783710400131366912
author Guadalupi, Valentina
Cartenì, Giacomo
Iacovelli, Roberto
Porta, Camillo
Pappagallo, Giovanni
Ricotta, Riccardo
Procopio, Giuseppe
author_facet Guadalupi, Valentina
Cartenì, Giacomo
Iacovelli, Roberto
Porta, Camillo
Pappagallo, Giovanni
Ricotta, Riccardo
Procopio, Giuseppe
author_sort Guadalupi, Valentina
collection PubMed
description Currently, conventional treatments for metastatic RCC (mRCC) include immune-based combination regimens and/or targeted therapies, the latter mainly acting on angiogenesis, a key element of the process of tumor growth and spread. Although these agents proved able to improve patients’ outcomes, drug resistance and disease progression are still experienced by a substantial number of VEGFR-TKIs-treated mRCC patients. Following the inhibition of the VEGF/VEGFRs axis, two strategies have emerged: either specifically targeting resistance pathways, at the same time continuing to inhibit angiogenesis, or using a completely different approach aimed at re-activating the immune system through the use of inhibitors of specific negative immune checkpoints. These two approaches, practically represented by the use of either cabozantinib or nivolumab, seem to remain a rational therapeutic approach also when first-line immune-based combinations are used. The objective of this study is to design a preferential therapeutic pathway for the second-line treatment of mRCC. The procedure applied in this project was a group discussion, based on the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) method in a meeting session, aimed at defining the therapeutic choice for the second-line treatment of mRCC. The NGT process defined the most relevant parameters that, according to the interviewed panelists, clinicians should consider for the selection of the second-line therapy in the context of advanced renal cell carcinoma of mRCC. The algorithm developed for the treatment selection as a result of this process should thus be considered by clinicians as reference for therapy selection. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The result of this paper was the definition of an algorithm intended to suggest a preferential therapeutic pathway considering both the outputs of the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) process and the actual clinical practice and the experience of selected panelists. During the NGT process and the discussion phase, panelists defined the most important parameters to be included in the algorithm that are important for the treatment definition. Cabozantinib and nivolumab are identified as the most reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after first-line treatment and are the medication options included in the algorithm for therapy selection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8216352
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82163522021-06-30 Second-line treatment in renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and decision making Guadalupi, Valentina Cartenì, Giacomo Iacovelli, Roberto Porta, Camillo Pappagallo, Giovanni Ricotta, Riccardo Procopio, Giuseppe Ther Adv Urol Review Article Currently, conventional treatments for metastatic RCC (mRCC) include immune-based combination regimens and/or targeted therapies, the latter mainly acting on angiogenesis, a key element of the process of tumor growth and spread. Although these agents proved able to improve patients’ outcomes, drug resistance and disease progression are still experienced by a substantial number of VEGFR-TKIs-treated mRCC patients. Following the inhibition of the VEGF/VEGFRs axis, two strategies have emerged: either specifically targeting resistance pathways, at the same time continuing to inhibit angiogenesis, or using a completely different approach aimed at re-activating the immune system through the use of inhibitors of specific negative immune checkpoints. These two approaches, practically represented by the use of either cabozantinib or nivolumab, seem to remain a rational therapeutic approach also when first-line immune-based combinations are used. The objective of this study is to design a preferential therapeutic pathway for the second-line treatment of mRCC. The procedure applied in this project was a group discussion, based on the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) method in a meeting session, aimed at defining the therapeutic choice for the second-line treatment of mRCC. The NGT process defined the most relevant parameters that, according to the interviewed panelists, clinicians should consider for the selection of the second-line therapy in the context of advanced renal cell carcinoma of mRCC. The algorithm developed for the treatment selection as a result of this process should thus be considered by clinicians as reference for therapy selection. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The result of this paper was the definition of an algorithm intended to suggest a preferential therapeutic pathway considering both the outputs of the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) process and the actual clinical practice and the experience of selected panelists. During the NGT process and the discussion phase, panelists defined the most important parameters to be included in the algorithm that are important for the treatment definition. Cabozantinib and nivolumab are identified as the most reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after first-line treatment and are the medication options included in the algorithm for therapy selection. SAGE Publications 2021-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8216352/ /pubmed/34211586 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17562872211022870 Text en © The Author(s), 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Review Article
Guadalupi, Valentina
Cartenì, Giacomo
Iacovelli, Roberto
Porta, Camillo
Pappagallo, Giovanni
Ricotta, Riccardo
Procopio, Giuseppe
Second-line treatment in renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and decision making
title Second-line treatment in renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and decision making
title_full Second-line treatment in renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and decision making
title_fullStr Second-line treatment in renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and decision making
title_full_unstemmed Second-line treatment in renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and decision making
title_short Second-line treatment in renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and decision making
title_sort second-line treatment in renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and decision making
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8216352/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34211586
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17562872211022870
work_keys_str_mv AT guadalupivalentina secondlinetreatmentinrenalcellcarcinomaclinicalexperienceanddecisionmaking
AT cartenigiacomo secondlinetreatmentinrenalcellcarcinomaclinicalexperienceanddecisionmaking
AT iacovelliroberto secondlinetreatmentinrenalcellcarcinomaclinicalexperienceanddecisionmaking
AT portacamillo secondlinetreatmentinrenalcellcarcinomaclinicalexperienceanddecisionmaking
AT pappagallogiovanni secondlinetreatmentinrenalcellcarcinomaclinicalexperienceanddecisionmaking
AT ricottariccardo secondlinetreatmentinrenalcellcarcinomaclinicalexperienceanddecisionmaking
AT procopiogiuseppe secondlinetreatmentinrenalcellcarcinomaclinicalexperienceanddecisionmaking