Category Archives: Newly Diagnosed

Clinical Trial for NEWLY DIAGNOSED–Surgery Now or Later with an Immune Therapy Option

Kidney cancer patients are stunned by their diagnosis, anxious to make a treatment decision, and  simply not know what to expect.  If you are struggling with the issue of surgery to remove the tumor/kidney or to start with a med, you need to read this.  Deb Maskens, Kidney Cancer Patient and Patient Advocate, our guest writer is a valued member of our disease community and currently serves on the Renal Task Force for the National Cancer Institute.  A series of links below will also be helpful.  (My extra comments will be in italics, like this. )Welcome aboard, Deb! 

Clinical Trial Opportunity for Newly Diagnosed (Non Metastatic) Kidney Cancer

As a community of kidney cancer patients, we  hear from newly diagnosed patients  looking for treatment options. This is written for those patients, and for patient advocates who help patients navigate through their treatment decisions.

The challenge: this clinical trial is available at many locations across the U.S. and Canada, but patients must ask about it BEFORE they have a nephrectomy. Their own doctors may be unaware of the trial and how to work with the trial centres.  In many places, patients get booked for surgery prior to learning about this option.  That would be too late for a trial like this–it gives a drug therapy before the surgery for a brief period.  (In one of the t wo arms, there is medication before the surgery.)

Why Might Patients Consider this Trial?

For years, the standard of care for early stage kidney cancer has been to remove the tumour surgically, sometimes with the entire kidney–either a partial or full nephrectomy. That was the end of treatment and the beginning of surveillance to watch for any signs of recurrence.  (And early stage tumors can be quite large–up to 7cm or about 2 3/4″.)

Now we hope to prevent a recurrence of disease. Since advanced or metastatic kidney cancer is still incurable for the vast majority of patients, this is a worthy goal. With preventive or ‘adjuvant’ treatments, maybe we can stop the disease before it gets to the lungs, liver, bones — to those places where it begins to threaten our lives.  Other cancers use this approach and offer patients a real chance to avoid recurrence.

Adjuvant – and Perhaps One Step Better to Neo-Adjuvant

We’ve seen trials for “Adjuvant” (or preventative) therapy which hope to prevent recurrence (treatments given immediately after nephrectomy). But one trial goes one step better – it’s for “Neo-Adjuvant” (before nephrectomy) as well as Adjuvant (after).

Patients may want to rush to surgery to “get it out”. In reality, those tumours have generally been  growing slowly, undetected for many years. Kidney cancer surgery is rarely an emergency. There is usually time for a second opinion and to check out any newer approaches.

Here’s the thought: given that the tumour cells have gone undetected and tolerated by the immune system for so long, can put those millions of cells to work and make them “show their calling cards” to our immune system before we take them out?

Combining Neo-Adjuvant and Adjuvant Treatment – PROSPER-RCC

The Phase 3 clinical trial called PROSPER-RCC (NCT03055013) is  for patients whose tumors are 7cm (2 ¾”) and larger in size, but not spread beyond the kidney area.  These patients are at greater risk of spread of the cancer than those with Stage I or with smaller tumors.

Based on earlier studies, nivolumab (Optivo) is now approved for advanced kidney cancer. This is a trial to test whether there is a benefit when nivolumab is given immediately before and after a nephrectomy when tumor cells might have spread outside the kidney but are too small (microscopic) to see on scans.  (Typically a patient without spread of disease would not be treated, but monitored.)

The Rationale for PROSPER-RCC: Why It Might Be Helpful

Here’s what I’ve learned:

  • Checkpoint inhibitor treatments with PD-1 blocking drugs like nivolumab seem to work best when the immune system may be being turned off by this cellular growth pathway. Cancer is deceptively clever and some tumours can express a protein, PD-L1. This protein can turn off our immune cell responses that recognize and fight the cancer.  There was a hint of this  with some positive data that indicates that these drugs work best in patients whose tumors were “PD-L1 positive”.  (PD means Programmed Death and PD-L Programmed Death Ligand or connector.  Death to the cells, and the signalling loop that hinders the immune response.)
  • In theory, when the kidney tumour is in place, there are millions of cancer cells. All of those tumour cells send off multiple negative signals to the immune system to stop it from working. However, if a checkpoint inhibitor was used and stopped those blocking signals, the immune system would have a big wake-up call – e.g., lots of targets with which to build an army of T cells. In theory, these newly educated T cells would later turn into memory cells. (If the body can maintain these memory cells, they would continue to fight any return of disease.)This is much like what happens when we are exposed to certain bacteria or viruses. Once we get exposed to the bug, we don’t usually get it again. Our immune cells have learned (“immunity”) how to kill it more quickly the next time before it turns into a full blown cold. Similarly, if these anti-RCC immune cells ever see one of these tumor cells anywhere in our bodies again, they would know to attack and kill them even if there is no drug in the patient and has not been for some time.
  • Surgery is still the main treatment to control early stage kidney cancer. But it will also remove the majority of targets (PD-L1) that the checkpoint drug uses to rev up the immune system. Giving the checkpoint inhibitor before surgery may maximize/optimize the drug’s ability to wake up the immune system and build that T cell army.
  • So the surgery is important. But let’s assume a few cells might be still circulating and have gone undetected for some time. They could still show up later on a scan as an enlarged lymph node or spot somewhere. A boost of the same checkpoint inhibitor right after the surgery could then be used to remind the immune system to continue to look for those cells and kill/eliminate them when they are small. In theory, the immune system will remember what the past “trouble” was: “Hey, haven’t I seen you before?”

From what I understand, this theory worked well in mice. The checkpoint inhibitors worked better if the primary tumour was there to help provide “a target” to activate the immune system first before the tumor was removed.  While we’re not mice, this  makes sense, no?

Trial Design: What Really Happens to the Patient in the Trial

PROSPER-RCC will place patients randomly into two groups:

  • Group One gets two infusions of nivolumab before surgery (at about 28 days and 14 days before surgery). Following that nephrectomy, the patient will receive more infusions of nivolumab. This is for 9 months post-surgery altogether, with 12 more doses.
  • Group Two gets the usual standard of care: upfront nephrectomy, partial or radical nephrectomy, and will be followed by close observation at an expert centre.
  • Two arms/groups:  BLUE arm with surgery  and monitoring by the trial team, the standard of care; the RED arm with  medication before to surgery, followed by more after the surgery.

It is important to note that no patient on this trial receives any intravenous placebo/inactive treatment. Every patient is treated.  Each patient will have either the experimental treatment or the standard of care.  All are under close observation at the trial centre. This trial has been designed and discussed with patient advocates and is supported by the NCI.

For More Information

Patient-friendly explanation here

For contact information at over 100 trial sites, dig a bit in the site below:

or call the office of the Principal Investigator, Dr. Lauren Harshman, at: 617-632-2429

Deb’s Disclaimer:

As a patient and advocate for kidney cancer patients, I have been delving into the world of clinical trials and trying to understand as much as I can. I’m not a scientist, but I am a patient with this disease, so I bring that lens, along with some abilities to translate science into understandable terms. As a volunteer, I have no financial interest in this trial or any specific medications. @DebMaskensKCC;

1 Comment

Filed under Clinical Trials, FDA Medications, Immune Therapies Old & New, Making a Plan, New Trials, Newly Diagnosed, Patient Resources, Surgery, Therapies, Uncategorized

Genetic Differences in Kidney Cancer? So What or What’s UP?

A few years back, I attended a kidney cancer conference with a highly eminent kidney cancer doctor.  He opened his talk by saying he was no longer treating kidney cancer!  The room was stunned, patients already wondering where to go for the next appointment when he finished his statement. “From now on, I will be treating cancers of the kidney.”

Not a small distinction, and a great way to confuse the patient and the newly diagnosed, but is critical.

Just because some growth lands in the kidney, that growth is not the same person to person, and even not from kidney to kidney in one person. In the link below, CURE magazine, May 5, 2017,  interviews Dr. Marston Linehan who expands upon the history and future of this work, which I have used as the basis for this report.  This research started in the 1980s, when doctors and researchers noted that some families were at greater risk l to develop some growths and tumor, some of which ‘landed’ in the kidney.  The early work defined that disease, Von Hippel Lindau hereditary cancer syndrome as to its genesis–an inherited mutational tendency in the VHL gene.

This research started in the 1980s, when doctors and researchers noted that some families were at greater risk l to develop some growths and tumor, some of which ‘landed’ in the kidney.  The early work defined that disease, Von Hippel Lindau hereditary cancer syndrome as to its genesis–an inherited mutational tendency in the VHL gene.  Given that clue, patients with kidney cancer but from this inherited tendency, most often had mutations in that same gene.  These were ‘sporadic’, out of the blue mutations, but that opened the door to treatment improvements.  About 90% of patients with the more common clear cell kidney cancer have a mutation in the VHL gene–but not due to any inherited tendency.  Much work has been done for these patients and less for those with the rarer cancers of the kidney.

AND…there are more inherited kidney cancers which also enlightened research.  One is PRCC, Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma, defined in the 1990s.  The gene that drove this kidney cancer was MET, wh0se mutations make those patients “highly likely to develop bilateral, multifocal, Type I papillary kidney cancer,” per Dr. Marston Linehan of the National Cancer Institute.

Research is being done for these people, as well as those who are affected by the similar disease which is NOT inherited. There disease also comes from sporadic mutations, these from the same MET gene.  This work is critical, as the generally available treatments are not as effective with the rare RCCs.

Still another and challenging rare kidney cancer is HLRCC, or hereditary leiomyomatosis with renal cell carcinoma. Linehan says it is not uncommon, and can make the patient vulnerable to develop leiomyomas–particular kinds of growths–and an aggressive form of Type 2 papillary kidney cancer.  Quite different genes make this happen, which can be referred to as Krebs cyle enzyme mutation cancers.  Obviously, still quite different that the garden-variety clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and requiring quite a different approach as to treatment.

Though there are currently studies underway to find more appropriate therapies for these rarer forms of RCC, some with combinations of agents that have been developed earlier in the decade, and with agents that were not originally envisioned to be used with kidney cancer–oops, cancers of the kidney.

If you don’t really know the pathology of your tumor and its genetic drive, you don’t have a complete diagnosis.  And if you relatively young for kidney cancer, the 46 and under group, this is time to discuss it with your kidney cancer cancer of the kidney specialist.

PS According to Linehan, there are at least 13 different types of inherited kidney cancers, and at least 16 known genes that can cause cancer in the kidneys…lots to learn and to discuss with your doctors!





Leave a Comment

Filed under genomics, Genomics & Genes, Newly Diagnosed, Rarer RCC Cancers, RCC Basics, Uncategorized

New “NEWS!” for Non-Clear Cell re NIVO or NOT? Limited data or a light along the way?

With the headline, “Nivolumab Shows a Substantial Objective Response Rate in Refractory Non-Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma”, the article should be welcome to all of those in the  in the non clear cell RCC world.  Clear cell  is the most common, the garden variety of renal cell carcinoma.  This is welcome news, as the non clear cell patients get very little attention from the research world. Though the patient with nccRCC might interpret this as, “Good news! Now that they know what to do for me!” , it is just not the case.  Rarely is the news all that good or all that simple.

Let’s back up here and lay the groundwork.  Clear cellRCC, or ccRCC is the most common of about 10 RCCs.  They all land in the kidney, but can vary widely. ccRCC may be about 65% to 85% of the cases of kidney cancer,  with the rarer non-ccRCCs making up the rest.  Maybe 15-35% of the RCCs are considered rare, with the most common Papillary Type I, Papillary Type II, chromophobe, clear cell papillary, collecting duct/Bellini’s, medullary,  translocational (not to be confused with transitional, etc, etc.) and to make it still more confusing, unclassified RCC. But when the most common is described as either 65% of the whole or 85% percent, you have to question if there is clarity in that category!

Clinical trials for RCC have usually only included patients who had clear cell. The reasons are simple; it is the biggest group, the patients can be more readily found, and that is the largest group in need of the medications.  But the patients with nccRCC are really also terribly underserved.    Back in the day, none of us had many options beyond surgery, so little distinction was made.  The prognosis was grim all around, once the cancer had spread.

But the new world of precision medicine, in its name alone, reminds us that the meds need to be developed more precisely, that they be given to the right patients at the right time.  The general crap shoot or “wild-ass guessing”, as a friend says, still remains.  The latest (not necessarily greatest) group of meds are the newish immune therapies.  You have seen their ads, no doubt.

One of those is Opdivo or nivolumab, its research name.  It tries to unblock some of the inhibiting mechanisms that prevent the immune system from doing its job, but it has been tested in trials only with clear cell patients.  BUT,  that does not mean that only clear cell patients are being prescribed the meds–this, thanks to the slightly wild west of the US medical system, that can truly go beyond the FDA approved medication guidelines.

This study, which will be formally presented at ASCO in June, 2017 was announced with the headline above, “Nivolumab Shows a Substantial Objective Response Rate in Refractory Non-Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma”.  The researchers are NOT in charge of the headlines, so we must dig deeper and see what this study really means to the patients with nccRCC

I tried to sort out what it means–or does not mean. My quick review is that it does not give a great deal of clarity to the majority of those nccRCC patients. A more complete report may improve upon this.  Based on this link, I offer the following:

“I am always concerned that these new study reports are characterized carefully. They are always more complex and incomplete than I would like. A patient in a forum says this tells of  ‘good’ responses, and especially so for the non clear cell group, but s does ‘good’ really mean generally a benefit to those rarer nccRCCs? Until a fuller report emerges, I can only note the following:

There were 23 patients, from three centers, with a median age of 59. Surprisingly 30% were African -American. This may tell us that there are more African-Americans with the rarer non-clear cell RCCs, or  could reflect the local population of the three centers.  Only 23 patients and with a mix of diseases will never meet the statistically critical requirements to reach the level of excellent evidence–but it may be all we have at this point.

All 23 had non-clear cell, but nearly half had ‘unclassified’ RCC, quite a high rate.  Usually that is considered to represent between 1 to 4% of renal tumors. Most of the rest were papillary, but they generally make up the largest percentage of nccRCCs. No distinction is made here between Papillary Type I or Type II, which are really quite different diseases. Papillary Type I and II are the most common of the uncommon, non clear cell RCCs, and are readily distinguished from each other.  This would be valuable info, and wonder if this was noted in the fuller report. 

Only 3 of 4 patients had nephrectomies before the trial treatment. Were 1 of 4 patients too sick to be given the standard of care of surgery or were their doctors unaware of that? How does this affect the study, and were the no nephrectomy patients from one center or with one subtype?   We do not know the reason for this high rate of no surgery, and at a time in which it is clear that the removal of the tumor is a great benefit to the patient, metastatic or not.

Two-thirds had metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Of the total 23, 74% had a prior treatment, mostly Sutent or Votrient. Of these patients with prior treatments, 26% had TWO such treatments.  Thus these patients had already received treatments that were not directly approved for their subtypes.  This is not too rare in the US, where we have greater leeway from our prescribing doctor than do patients elsewhere.  But how does this fit in with the relatively low rate of nephrectomies?

This report does not say how quickly they were treated, i.e., how long from initial diagnosis until treatment with Nivolumab?A patient with Papillary Type II found to have no metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis, but who received a nephrectomy, was monitored for a year or so, then went on one or more systemic therapy is quite different from the patient with an unclassified RCC,  metastatic at the time of diagnosis, not given a nephrectomy, though treated quickly with Nivolumab.  What can be learned when there are such wide variations in just 23 patients that would be helpful to the Papillary Type 1 patient?

The follow up period was a median of 6.5 months, which seems very short, especially when the median Progression Free Survival of the responders was 4.2 months. The median OS is not given. That certainly may reflect an ongoing study situation, or a failure to provide a longer period of follow up.

As to objective response, 6 of  the 21 evaluable patients (29%) had a Partial Response, which would likely be a 30% reduction in metastases. Another 4(19%) had Stable Disease. Two of the 23 patients died, but not from the treatment. (Assume that had to be due to the disease, but certainly indicates that for nearly 10% of the patients, this was not at all effective.)

When the final analysis was done, nine patients were still receiving Nivo. Newly recruited patients might still be in treatment at that time, but those recruited earlier may have gone out of the trial at the same time.  It is important to not that Nivolumab treatments were stopped in three patients due to intolerance, and six more had postponed treatment, i.e., 9 of the 23.

Certainly we need to find meds which create responses for nccRCC patients. However,  I am concerned we draw any certain conclusions from this study.  Indeed, it is “good” to know that the treatment was tolerable for the majority of the participants, but not so good to read that 6 of the 21 patients had to postpone treatment, and three were removed from treatment due to intolerable/toxic side effects.  We also do not know which subtypes seem to have shown responses, which would have been qutie easy to report.  Did the group with Papillary Type II do generally better that the majority “unclassified” group?  No answer from this stury report. And in the back of my head, I keep wondering why in the world there were so many unclassified patients in this small study?  Was there a standard pathology review, or could these patients been misdiagnosed by one pathologist. Typically there is a single pathologist which can standardize the reporting.  Were all these patients properly diagnosed?

Just wishing there were greater clarity and hoping to get a fuller report, post ASCO.

Without a doubt, the ‘good’ that comes from this sort of report begins with the recognition that the nccRCC group is underserved by the research community> They probably have the poorest outcomes, rarely have a clear diagnosis, and must wait for the ever popular “further research is warranted.”  But all must be aware that these very small observational studies must be reviewed very carefully for what they show or do not show.  Again, one to watch at ASCO, but not enough to make a major change in treatment for any one with a non clear cell RCC.

PS.  Does your doctor know that there are at least four subtypes of clear cell–the big ‘common’ group–which have clearly different survival patterns?  Thought so.



Filed under Basics, Clinical Trials, Immune Therapies Old & New, Rarer RCC Cancers, Surgery, Therapies, Uncategorized

“Predicting Short Survival” article: A Self-fulfilling Prophecy for the Newly Diagnosed

I thought I had seen enough articles which concentrated on the stats of how poorly kidney cancer patients did, but then, this one came along from Norway.  “A Three-Variable Model Predicts Short Survival in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma”, just published in 2017, it is shocking and may create barriers to proper care for patients.  The title might have been more accurately titled something like, “How We Fail to Find Kidney Cancer, Therefore Dooming Many to an Unnecessarily Efficient Death”.

Maybe it especially bothers me, in that I have come to expect more of the several Scandinavian health system as I understood them. Also, that I am 1/4 Norwegian, it seems a personal affront.  To lay the ground work, I shall remind you that kidney cancer is often found in the ‘6th” decade of life, or in the 50s, 60s and 70s, most often.  (Any earlier, and there might be a genetic problem, by the way.)  But it is also slow-growing, often can do so without many overt symptoms, but there are often hints.  Of course, if you do not look for those symptoms and search out those causes, you get that slow-growing cancer to establish itself quite thoroughly!  You know the rest of the story, no doubt.

The facts are as follows.  Norway is generally sparsely populated, having about 5.2 million people, with an aging populations, with about 11% over age 70 at present.  There were about 814 cases of kidney cancer in 2014, and more to more, per the stats.  The background statement of the above study notes that it is “important to have realistic perspectives, especially if the expected prognosis is very unfavorable”.  Already I am wondering how expectations by the doctors affect the care they are about to give the newly diagnosed.

In one small area of Norway, Norland data was collected about all newly diagnosed patients, with the stated concern that in trying to select the “best treatment option for an individual, the poor prognosis groups is the most challenging one because aggressive approaches may result in serious side effects in these often frail patients.”  Thus, the researchers wanted to find out how those patients treated within the national guidelines failed.

A central measure of their expectations–no doubt built on the previous years’ patient responses–was the definition of “short survival”, i.e., after the initial diagnosis.  Short survival was for 3.5 months or less…yet the concern from above is in regard to the ‘serious side effects’ in these patients.  Dying within 3.5 months of diagnosis in a modern health care system seems a pretty serious side effect as well!  In this small area there were 48 patients identified in this recent study, 10 of whom died within 3,5 months.  Those 38 patients who lived four months or longer were deemed to have had long survival.  Obviously those patient who were doing badly at the time of diagnosis seemed to die  more quickly.  This seems at odds with the American experience, with much long general overall survival, but it is hard to get those stats, as the US measurements are in terms of YEARS of survival.  A metastatic kidney cancer patient is a Stage IV patient, with the 5 YEAR survival at 8%, per the American Cancer Society–whose stats are necessarily behind the times.  They modify that to note that low-risk patients have a 41% survival rate, intermediate risk patients have a 18% survival rate, and the high-risk patients have the 8% survival rate at five years.

Why such a difference?  The disease is similarly divided 2 to 1, male to female, and there is a near-similar mix of subtypes, such as clear cell, papillary and chromophobe.  The median age at time of diagnosis is 68, slightly higher than in the US. However, in the US, only about 30% of patients are found to be metastatic at time of diagnosis, but in this small study, 70% were found to be with metastatic disease upon diagnosis or within 3 month of that time.  Most important is to note that only 65% of patients in this study were given a nephrectomy, either full or partial.  And post diagnosis, only about 56% of those patients received any systemic treatment.

That seems enough to tell me that these patients were treated very differently that most US patients in terms of surgery, but other statistics were striking. Though the 60-69 age group represented 58% of the patients, only 3.3% were found under 60 years of age.  Was nobody looking for cancer in this group? Imaging for other diseases often reveals kidney cancer, so the 3.3% seemed off the statistical mark.

Only 30% were found to be in ECOG Performance status 0-1, with 70% already struggling with the effects of their disease. Another measure indicates that only 18% had good performance status.  This causes me to wonder how long those patients struggled as well to get a necessary imaging study to verify the presence of a kidney tumor.  (Only 65% of those got the darn things removed!)

Over 55% of all these patients had low hemoglobin, one of the simplest measures found in every blood test.  A pretty good clue that something very fundamental was amiss with these patients. In the group who died within the ‘short survival’ period of  three months, 50% of them had SKIN metastases.  Again, a very visible symptom, and hard to ignore when found with the low hemoglobin.

So how did they do in terms of median Overall Survival?  That was only 13.2 months, and with a 2 year survival rate of 40%.

Perhaps late to be diagnosed, with far fewer nephrectomies than in the US, and with far fewer systemic therapies applied post the time of diagnosis–no wonder the outcomes are so poor! Does this influence the doctor as he diagnoses a patient with low hemoglobin and some odd skin manifestations.  Does he recommend a nephrectomy–and how long does it take to get into such a surgery?  Does the likelihood of a poor outcome prevent the doctor from taking a more aggressive approach, not to recommend any systemic treatment for 43% of those patients? Does he just assume the patient will succumb very quickly to the disease!  Does that create the poorer outcomes in these patients?

A self-fulfilling prophecy is oddly reassuring to the party who makes the prediction, as he unwittingly works to make that prophecy come true.  Poor expectations for survival may well lead to that very outcome.  Wish it were otherwise.





Filed under Guidelines, Newly Diagnosed, Surgery

Kidney Tumors & Diagnosis? Size Matters–Big Surprise

Kidney cancer is generally a very silent disease. It is sneaky, hides out for years, and is often assumed to be something else.  In my case, my doctor essentially decided I was just a menopausal women with the ever-popular “stress” as a an extra.  The stress of carrying about a 10 cm tumor and wasting away  was probably part of it.

That slow diagnosis, often delayed for years is far too typical.  Only the greater use of CT scans has been significant in finding kidney cancer at an early stage. And just what is early or small? Looking for a cracked rib, or the dislocated shoulder has often revealed kidney cancer, and in the case of the shoulder, lung mets.  And then the hunt is on!  By the time this diagnosis is made, nearly 30-40% of kidney cancer is already metastatic.

The ‘classic triad’ of symptoms, are 1) blood in the urine, 2) flank pain, and 3) palpable mass in the abdomen. There are doctors who will consider kidney cancer only when the patient has these three symptoms, but that happens in fewer than 10% of patients.  The cancer has to be pretty far along to be found this way.  Meeting a pair of new doctors who were aware of my kidney cancer, they were obviously bewildered to hear that I had had none of the these symptoms.  “But those are the usual symptoms,” one said.  Maybe ‘classical’, but not ‘usual’.  Unfortunately that expectation is a barrier to good diagnosis.

Beyond the diagnosis and the staging of the disease is the pretty obvious question of what to do next. (Staging: another of those words used one way in English, and quite another in medicine No wonder we are confused.)  Getting treatment is derived from that ‘staging’.  To be told your cancer is at Stage I seems the only  bright spot of a cancer diagnosis,  but not so reassuring with kidney cancer.  The  “SMALL” Stage I kidney tumor is one which is confined to the kidney (good news) and is 7 centimeters or less.  Maybe Europeans react with the required, “Yipes!”, but few Americans would until they know that this is almost 3 inches in size!

Ain’t so small in my world, or in my kidney!, or anywhere else. In my previously-naive patient world, I thought a ‘small’ tumor was the size of a pea, or maybe a peanut.  In any case, these so-called small tumor are Stage I, of four Stages.  Don’t even ask about Stage V.  Calling a near-three inch tumor small reflects the history of many very large tumors being found in the early days.  Even in 1997 there was discussion about whether a 5cm (2 inch) tumor should be the ‘small’, and in the 1987 system, it had to be 2.5cm to be small, ie, about one inch a T1 stage.  I do not understand why this basic staging was so dramatically changed, but it may well be that there were so few truly small tumors found in this early CT era.

In any case, we now have a system which lumps all tumors 7 cm or smaller into TI category, re-divided into T1a if under 4cm, and T1b, up to 7cms.  This minimizes the sense of risk that comes with these larger Stage I tumors, despite clear evidence of much greater risk at about as they grow.  That shift to a more aggressive tumor, capable of having metastatic potential, seems to start just over 1 inch, about 2.8cm.  There is a measurable increase in risk of about 62% at this size, so waiting around for a mass to be palpable (ie, it can be felt) puts us all at risk.  And of course, that metastatic potential has likely started even earlier, prepping the body to accept new cancer in new locations.

Thus, the absolute need to monitor patients who have had large ‘small’ tumors far more carefully and for a longer time.  The reality is that even truly small tumors have the ability to start the metastatic process.  Tiny and invisible even to a CT, they can grow unnoticed for several years.  There is no magic ‘five years/safe at home’ for kidney cancer patients, sad to say.

So, if your doctor tells you not to worry, that he got it all, that it was small, that there is no need for further monitoring, you might just find another doctor who keeps up with the kidney cancer literature.  If you got this far with this post, you may be ahead of your doctor.

Re the above risk stats, see


Filed under Guidelines, Newly Diagnosed, Patient Engagement, Patient Resources, RCC Basics, Uncategorized, Your Role

Immune Therapies: Headlines, Hype or Hope?

Recent headlines called a new medication, Nivolumab, both a miracle or breakthrough and more.  Is it hype or hope?Why is it so hard to sort out the reality?

Let’s go through the facts from the New England Journal of Medicine and ignore the headlines. First, its being  in the NEJM is important, as it has passed review by other researchers.  (Sadly missing in too many ‘breakthroughs”).

The new med, Nivolumab was compared against Everolimus, a second-line treatment. Therefore Evero is thought to be of lesser effectiveness than the first line meds.  Second-line meds are generally used when others meds quit helping or their side effects are too hard. Automatically NOT the miracle cure, but another option when first-line treatments fail.

Should Nivo have been compared to the first-line meds?  Being better in the first-line would be bigger deal, but we need more approved meds. Second-line treatments usually are easier to ‘beat’, as the new med must be better or less toxic.  Again, more likely to be approved!


The study had 821 patients 24 countries, half using Nivo and half Evero. Patients were similar, 90% having had a nephrectomy, removing the tumor and some or all the kidney. Then the cancer spread, making metastases, (mets, for short). These patients had 1-3 treatments, first-line drugs like Sutent, a targeted therapy, and a few had used cytokines or even chemotherapy.  Having had an mTOR inhibitor like Everolimus was not acceptable. Most had lung mets (67%), followed by liver(12%) and then bone mets (18%). Most with 2 or more sites of mets.

To enter the trial, the patient had to have had disease progression after their last treatment, within six months of enrolling in the trial. No doubt, some patients had greater disease progression than others, but had relatively good performance status, not completely bed-ridden or unable to function.

The median time from initial diagnosis of kidney cancer at any stage to entering the trial was 31 months;  half had been diagnosed less than 31 months ago, and half more than 31 months before the trial. That range of time from diagnosis to trial was 1 to 392 months. That means that for some patients, they went a long time either fighting the disease since diagnosis, having a later recurrence, being treated, yet having disease progression years after the intial diagnosis.  At least one person was diagnosed 392 months earlier. This is a good reminder to patients who have been told, “I got it all”. This darn stuff can return, so having a plan B is important. Again, the previous treatment failed and these patients got directed into this trial.


Median Overall Survival (OS) is a measured when one-half of the total number in the group dies. Median OS for Nivo was 25 months with some patients still surviving at time of report, beyond the 25 months. For Evero, OS was 19.6 months, some of who were also likely surviving, as well.  The OS of 25 months was clearly better with the Nivo group by this analysis. Nevertheless, half of all the 821 patients total died while on this trial from progressive disease.  Of  183 of the 410 Nivo patients, 183 has died by 25 months, and 215 of the 411 Evero patients had died at 19.6 months. 


There is no report of ongoing response here, but many went on to other meds, as explained below. 

Median Progression Free Survival (PFS), measurable growth of disease,  was 4.6 months for Nivo, 4.4 months for Evero.  The median shows that half of each group, roughly 200 each had return of disease in less than 5 months!  Again, these trial patients were pretty sick or at risk. All had been treated earlier, and had to stop previous treatments due to recurrence of disease. However, this shows a pretty quick return of disease or new growth from the base CT scan for nearly  65-70% of all patients.

One subgroup did a bit better than the 4 1/2 months median PFS.  At six months after the start of treatment, there was a special subgroup was noted,  about 1/3 of those patients–145 pts (35%) with Nivo, and 129 (31%) with Evero. Obviously they did not die or have Progressive Disease until after six months.  The Nivo group had eventually had a median PFS of 15.6months, and the Evero group, 11.7 months.  Their success pushed the median OS higher, especially for the Nivo group.

Obviously, there were some patients with far more aggressive disease in both groups, some dying before six months, and others not progressing to more disease until after six months.  In contrast, nearly 1/3 of all the patients had PFS of 12-15 months, and much longer OS. What is the common characteristic in the most successful two groups in both arms of treatment?  Not answered by this trial report.

The duration of treatment was longer with Nivo, and likely easier to tolerate. Since Nivo was given by IV every two weeks, the doses were most consistently received. Even so, 51% of them had dose delays, but no per dose reductions.  Those people were seen by the medical team every two weeks.

The Evero group took oral meds, and 66% had dose delays or interruptions with 26% with at least one dose reduction. This would indicate that these meds could be hard to take, or perhaps lacking the same interaction with their medical team.  Of course the Evero patients may have underreported how much of the medication they actually took!

However, the reported types of side effects were generally similar, but the more severe grade 3 and 4s effects in the Evero group.There were 2 treatment related deaths in the Ever group, none in the Nivo group.


Even after the disease did progress, about half of  patients in both groups stayed with their meds–despite ‘failing’, the researchers hopes that would continue to benefit, perhaps slowing the disease.  In a local clinic setting or with a less experienced docs, their meds might have been stopped or changed. Afterall, those meds were no longer “working” and  mets are growing. This approach is significant to consider, especially after multiple treatments.  (The decision to keep giving a medication or increasing its dosage where tolerable is causing some changes in treatment in a number of the targeted therapies.)

Perhaps because of being in a trial or getting care than was more expert than most, one-half of  patients chose to keep on the trial meds.  Others crossed over to the med in the other arm or returned to existing non-trial meds. In some countries, there were likely fewer choices than in the US.  There are no real stats as to survival for those on those who stopped taking the meds. It is reported that indicate that 55% of the surviving Nivo group and surviving 63% of the Evero group went on to other agents. About one-quarter of the Nivo group shifted to  the Evero. Of the Nivo group, 36% shifted to axitinib.

Sadly, as per the chart in the New England Journal of Medicine, all these patients had died by 30-33 months post enrollment.  However, it is again not clear what was effect, if any on that period from the non-trial drugs.  Of the 227 who stopped Nivo for any reason, nearly half shifted to Evero. Of those who stopped Evero, 140 went to Axitinib.


The writers of the study say that there was a higher number of objective responses with Nivo vs Everolimus, and that many (of the Nivo group) “were durable”.  There is no definition of ‘durable’.  My question is “What equals durable?”.  We patients really want a cure, but are very grateful for anything that pushes the cancer back, slows it, stops in from growing any further. Nevertheless, we do want those responses to last.  The clearest reference to durable responses is a note that 32 of the Nivo patients and 6 of the Evero patients had a response that lasted more than 12 months.  But in an unexplained statement, the median duration of treatment was just 5.5 months for the Nivo patients, 3.7 for the Evero group.  It seems that there was not an extension available, or that the patients moved on to a different treatment or passed away.


It seems that Nivo is more helpful for some patients than others in this group previously been treated with other TKIs. This is NOT A SILVER BULLET.  There would be greater value to know more about the molecular nature of  the tumors of the responding and the non-responding patients.  We desperately need to know for whom any of these drugs is likely to be more effective.  The headlines that don’t discuss that challenge underserve us, as does the design of the trial that does not elicit the more nuanced, genomic data that could be forthcoming!

We all know that headline claims are more wonderful  than the reality.  The story of RCC medication development is that of more and more help in a difficult disease, making mixed progress, while the other researchers find out that RCC is really many diseases.  Clear cell is probably better defined as being made up of four types, Papillary Type 1 and Type 2 being further divided into three Type 2, then there is chromophobe, clear cell papillary and the really odd versions of RCC.  I known this, and so do you.  But why don’t the researchers incorporate those definitions and monitor the patients with those various subtypes as they go forward?

Good luck to all of us.


1 Comment

Filed under Clinical Trials, genomics, Genomics & Genes, Immune Therapies Old & New, Newly Diagnosed, Patient Activism, Therapies, Uncategorized

Classifying Kidney Cancer by Its Biology; Good Looks Won’t Do It Anymore

Looks don’t matter in kidney cancer as much as they used to, as more information comes to us about the molecular or biological nature of the diseases which fall under the “kidney cancer” umbrella.  Can those important biological differences be seen in the pathology laboratory? Must we rely on next generation sequencing to determine which of the subtypes we might have?

Recent work by Dr. James Brugarolas and colleagues is reassuring.  Even as they found  new subtypes of clear cell renal cell carcinoma, they have also determined that these differences can be seen the pathology lab.

Why is this important?  So-called similar tumors may behave in quite different and more aggressive ways, so this is vital to understand the threat of recurrence from a very small tumor.  The affects monitoring and eventually will be helpful in drug selection.

An interview at the 13th International Kidney Cancer Symposium   October 2014

Cut and paste the above youtube address into your browser to be able to hear the lecture, while following along below.  The questions are in bold face.

Dr. James Brugarolas Discusses Biologically Classifying Kidney Cancer

“What we have learned with the development of next generation sequencing (NGS) is that no two tumors are the same. Every tumor has different mutations. Mutations are the drivers of tumor biology. With the advances of next generation sequencing, we have been able to identify and group different subtypes of kidney cancer, according to their mutation status.

Specifically, my laboratory discovered that the BAP1 gene is inactivated in 15% of clear-cell renal cell carcinomas. We found that BAP1 mutations are associated with high nuclear grade. That let us to hypothesize that patients who had BAP1 deficient tumors are going to have more aggressive tumors.

Furthermore, we found that mutations in BAP1 tended to anti-correlate with mutations in the second gene discovered by the Sanger Institute, by Michael Estrada and Andrew Futreal, the polybromo1 gene, PBRM1.

That led us to a classification that about 50% of the patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma will have PBRM1 deficient tumors and 15% of patients will have BAP1 deficient tumors. A small percentage of patients will have tumors that are deficient for both genes.

In a very productive collaboration we have had with Mayo Clinic, with Rick Joseph and Alex Parker, we’ve been able to determine that these different subtypes are associated with very different outcomes in patients. Patients that have tumors which are competent (not deficient) for both BAP1 and PBRM1 have excellent survival, whereas the cancer specific survival (CSS) is very poor in patients that have tumors that are deficient for both BAP1 and PBRM1. BAP1 deficient tumors have a somewhat intermediate survival phenotype, and the PBRM1 deficient tumors are similar to tumors that are competent for both BAP1 and PBRM1.

So we think for the first time, we’ve able to identify subtypes of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma that are likely to inform therapy in the future.

There is a gap between the discovery of the gene, to the determination of the clinical implications and subsequently to the therapeutic developments. That is because the therapeutic developments are going to emerge from the biologic understanding which we don’t have yet.

   How can improved classification of kidney cancer subtypes improve clinical trial design?

 That’s actually a very good question. So, what has traditionally happened is that a trial may be performed and one may find a group of patients–sometimes small, sometimes larger–that appear to do well with that agent. But if the group of patients is small, the trial is considered to be negative and the drug is abandoned. And I would say the problem is not that the drug did not have activity, it is that we were not able to identify the group of patients who appeared to benefit from that agent.

So the classification that we have developed and the identification of these different subtypes will pave the way to be able to do correlations. So then, when a clinical trial is executed when it is able to characterize better those subsets of patients that may benefit from the agent. For instance, as I was alluding to before, the BAP1 gene is inactivated in 15% of the tumors. It is possible that one of the drugs which has been tried in kidney cancer could have activity against that tumor. But there could never be a trial in that is positive that is being active in a small percentage of the patients, in 15% of the patients.

By identifying meaningful biological subtypes, we hope to deconvolute kidney cancer. It probably makes sense in trials going forward to do prespecified analysis of these genes that we now define as different biological subtypes–to be able to get at the question whether a particular treatment is having greater affect in one biological subtype versus the other. It is possible that it may not be that not all the PBRM1 deficient tumors that benefit, that are inhibited by a particular agent, there are other mutations. But it’s the beginning that which will lead us to identify those biomarkers and patients who are most resistant to a particular treatment.

 What is the significance of improved disease classification for kidney cancer patients?

 That is also an excellent question. These are discoveries that we and others have made over the last two or three years. The implications clinically have begun to be unraveled. It’s going to take significant effort and investment in research for us to go forward. We need to understand how loss of these genes, how mutations in BAP1 and PBRM1, are affecting processes inside the cancer cell, leading to kidney cancer development.

And in particular, we need to understand how BAP1, which is associated with most aggressive type of kidney cancer, is inducing that process. How is it that loss of the BAP1 gene makes the tumor be so aggressive? It’s only once we are able to elucidate the signaling pathways, that we will be able to identify targets for therapeutic invention.

On the other hand, we already know that for patients with localized disease, their prognosis is influenced biology of the tumor. I was alluding to this before, those patients who have removal of a tumor, localized to the kidney who deficient for BAP1 and PBRM1, they have a very high likelihood of recurrence in a short period of time. Those patients whose tumors are wild type for PBRM1 and BAP1 can do very well. (Wild type here means that the two genes are competent, or not deficient.)

Importantly, from the important view of translating these findings to the clinic, we have been able to develop assays, immunohistochemistry assays which are routinely performed in tumor samples at most institutions. (This is done in pathology labs).That allows us to very quickly determine whether we are dealing with the wild type tumor, BAP1 tumor, PBRM1 deficient tumor, or one that is deficient for both.

(Transcribed from the above YouTube video by Peggy Zuckerman. Any mistakes are mine alone, but hope this is helpful in understanding this approach to using gene sequencing in kidney cancer.

May 16, 2015)






1 Comment

Filed under Genomics & Genes, Lectures from Experts, Medical Conferences, Rarer RCC Cancers, RCC Basics

Clear Cell RCC: Not as Clear as It Used to Be!

We struggle to understand what to do about our kidney cancer, but first must  exactly WHICH kidney cancer we have. Frankly, even the doctors are never too sure, and outcomes for patients with the “same” cancer varied widely.  No ready explanation was available, in those bad old days.

Treatment decisions were easy, but not effective for most, when every kidney cancer patient was treated the same.  Patients had surgery and were sent home. Those with smaller tumors, under about 2 inches, had little or no follow up.  Those with larger tumors might be monitored more frequently. Mets might emerge, and maybe more surgery would follow, but no meds were available until 1992 when high dose interleukin was approved.

Patients who presented with metastatic disease were not even offered surgery, being told that there no value to removing the primary!  An ongoing “controversy” was whether there was value in a nephrectomy when mets were found.  Too bad, so sad. (If your doctor is telling you that last bit, you need a new doctor. Now.)

Then came the recognition that there were different kidney cancers, variants and subtypes, all based on the look under the microscope.  Conventional kidney cancer became known at clear cell, and a mix of new subtypes were named.  We now hear of clear cell, papillary type I and type II, chromophobe and more.  Sarcomatoid RCC can arise from any of these types, confusing things and reflecting a more aggressive course for the patient.  Most are sporadic, out of the blue, but others have an inherited component.  Again, making things trickier yet!

Ironically, the trials in the late 80s of high dose interleukin which led to the first FDA-approved treatment, included all the above types. The relatively low response rate in this trial may have been due to the rarer RCC types, unlikely to respond.  This minimized the use of HD IL2, perhaps to the detriment of many patients. The targeted therapy studies often excluded the rarer types, hoping to boost response in a more limited group.  Few trials really test agents appropriate for the non-clear cell types, so the guessing game for them is really the norm.

With that background, there was still wide variation in the outcomes for clear cell RCC patients.  Some patients with small tumors, found at an early stage, can have very poor response to treatment.  Many such patients have long-term survival, easily over 10 years, while others who “seem” similar, succumb to their disease quickly.

Why is this the case?  Short term survival vs long term survival, aggressive appearance of mets vs slow-growing, good response to treatment vs minimal response?  Why would the same disease be so different?

Easy answer.  It is not the same disease.  Clear cell RCC, that so-called conventional type, maybe 75% of all the kidney cancers, is not really one disease. Clear cell may be subdivided into four separate types, each with its own survival pattern–and all due to its early genetic drivers. Researchers have been able to sort out the genes, compare the mutations, deficient or over-expressed, and find them in tumors of patients who were treated and followed over many years.

Just as there is no magic bullet, no one medicine that fixes everything, there also seems to be no one poison bullet.  It is not just one thing that goes wrong, one nasty gene breaking the DNA rules, but a combination.  And there will be more combinations.  This is like the typical disaster stories, where it is not just one thing that goes wrong, but a series of events and changes.  Each one of the series might not create a problem, but in combination and with the right timing, there is a perfect storm–the very aggressive tumor.

Without getting too technical, clear cell RCCs can have a mix of genes that mutate.  Recent studies have shown that two genes in particular, BAP1 and PBRM1 can either be sufficient (or competent or positive) or they can be deficient in their expression.  There are four possible combinations, positive for both genes BAP1 + and PBRM1+, negative for both genes BAP1- and PBRM-, and combinations with the BAP1+ and PBRM-, and the reverse, BAP- and PBRM+.

Why does this matter for the study patients? All of them had localized disease at the time they were diagnosed and all were clear cell patients of similar age.  BAP1 was mutated/inactivated/deficient in about 15% of these patients, and that mutation was associated with high nuclear grade, or a more aggressive type of tumor.

About 50% of clear cell patients had the PBRM1- tumors. Others had a mix of one gene positive and the other negative. Mutations of BAP1- and PBRM1- were rarely found together, but that combination predicted poor survival, in one study of just 2.1 years.   Having just the BAP1- had an overall survival of 4.6 years median, while the deficiency of PBRM1 (-) had an overall survival of 10.6 years.

This shows that clear cell RCC is really not one disease type, but four.  Most importantly for patients is the knowledge that these varying mutations may respond to different medications.  Also, these mutational differences can be seen in immunohistochemical or pathology tests, which can give greater guidance to treating physicians.

Coming soon is another lectures by Dr. Brugarolas, so watch this space.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Genomics & Genes, Lectures from Experts, RCC Basics

Younger Patients & Kidney Cancer: Your Genes or Your Luck?

Once you reach a ‘certain’ age, you are horrified, but not surprised to get a cancer diagnosis, or hear about it in a loved one.  That same cancer in a young person is even more horrifying, we instinctively know.

Most kidney cancers (and there are more types than we previously knew) are found in people in their 60s and 70s.  Bad enough, but a cancer called by the same name and found in a younger person is often a very different cancer, with a very different prognosis.

Some new research recognizes that special attention should be paid to those RCCs found in patients 46 years of age and younger.  Why is this?

The quick answer is that this may represent a more aggressive kidney cancer and/or be of a familial or hereditary nature.  That important distinction has researchers strongly recommending that young patients be referred for genetic testing.  This can explain those special risks and create more appropriate treatment plans, and alert other family members as to special monitoring. Critically it may change the approach to any removal of the kidney and/or tumor.

Typically a small renal mass might be monitored or removed by either surgery or some laser ablation.  If removed, the tumor can be assessed by a pathologist–a look under the microscope.Without a prior biopsy, the ablated tumor will not be examined, and no genetic testing can be done.

BIG HOWEVER HERE: even with a good pathology report, that may tell only what that tumor looks like–not what pushed it to grow, i.e., the genetic drivers. And those genes don’t go away with the tumor, so the risk remains that more tumors will grow, maybe in the second kidney, or in the partially removed kidney.  Plus the rest that can happen with cancer…

An 75 year old whose small renal mass is removed will likely function well with one kidney.  That same tumor  in a 35 year old creates another challenge.  If that tumor is driven by familial genes–not just by sheer bad luck–more tumors on the other kidney may be in the works.  A partial nephrectomy   must be considered. The risk of more tumors emerging in that kidney AND the other kidney is high.  The younger patient needs decades of good kidney functioning, but those decades carry the risk of the emergence of more mets.

What else should trigger a genetic testing?

Quick answer: anything that doesn’t look like the senior  citizen with a single tumor in one kidney.  More officially below:

Early onset of kidney cancer is 46 years or less.

Bilateral (two-sided) or Multifocal (many locations) kidney tumors

Family history of kidney cancer, 1 or more close relative, 2 or more in more distant relatives

Kidney cancer with either a mix of other tumor types roughly related to kidney cancer or with lung cysts or pneumothorax (air leaking out of lung into chest cavity)

Personal or family history of kidney cancer syndromes.

The above list is from Yale  School of Medicine, Professor Brian Shuch, who work includes dealing with heredity forms of kidney cancer.

More small renal masses found at an earlier age in more patients, as our imaging techniques improve and more CTs scans are done. Not all will be hereditary, and many will be sporadic or out-of-the-blue kidney cancers.  Those are likely due to the sheer chance. Things go wrong as trillions of cells divide and make DNA mistakes along the way. Years of environmental damage may overwhelm the body’s ability to correct those DNA mistakes–i.e., the immune system gets overwhelmed, tricked, tired, etc.

Kidney cancer found at an early age or with the bilateral/multifocal tumors simply must be tested as to it genetic origins.  This gives information critical to protect the rest of the kidney(s) and to participate in treatment that is more helpful.  Finding an effective treatment will still be a challenge, but proper treatment requires knowing exactly which kidney cancer you have.  From there, a real plan can be developed.

Just as I remind all readers to work with an experienced RCC oncologist–not just a surgeon and/or urologist (sorry guys, we need a team)–those who fall into this early and hereditary renal cell carcinoma category must also work with super specialists.

The person to contact at NIH is genetic counselor Lindsay Middelton at (301) 402-7911. She is with the National Cancer Institute’s Urologic Oncology Branch.  An introductory link is below to the NCI and two other rare kidney cancer organizations.

Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome:

Other syndromes causing kidney cancer:




Leave a Comment

Filed under Ablation & Radiation, Basics, Genomics & Genes, Making a Plan, Newly Diagnosed, Rarer RCC Cancers, Surgery, Uncategorized

Oligometastases?! Patients Changing the Rules

Kidney cancer is the focus here, but I can’t resist writing about the empowered and determined lung cancer patients who changed the rules–the NCCN guidelines–in treating their  cancer.  With this, there is  support for treatment for their newly established metastases which was previously lacking.  Translation for the patient was, “It’s come back, so just go home. End of story.”

What does this mean for kidney cancer patients, or for others?  For that matter what does “oligometastases” mean anyway?

” Oligometastases are defined as 1–5 distant metastases that can be treated by local therapy to achieve long-term survival or cure.”

Earlier, some doctors felt that there was no reason to treat a patient who was initially diagnosed with metastatic disease.  If the cancer had already metastasized, nothing that could be done, not even the removal of the primary tumor.  Oddly enough, patients often got no treatment and the self-fulfilling prophecy worked again.

We kidney cancer patients know better. (My 10cm tumor and the lungs full of mets would have NOT been treated by many doctors.)  Removal of the primary tumor can have real benefit, even when there is no treatment for the metastases.

Similarly, the emergence of mets post-surgery was also seen as a “game over” by many doctors.  The “got it all” surgery that was welcome news was suddenly a forgotten phrase. How many sad visits a year or two after of misplaced confidence? Kidney cancer will come back far too often, suddenly emerging near the old tumor or in some of the favored spots.  With kidney cancer, that is the lungs, bones, adrenal gland and the brain.

These new mets, generally in the area of the primary, are those oligomets.  Hard enough to say, and harder yet to be told that the docs will do nothing–because the guidelines say it is not worth it.  That was the situation for non-small cell lung cancer patients with new mets.

But these cancer patients were NOT having that kind of non-help!

They gathered all the data, showed the value of going after these mets and convinced the NCCN to make significant changes in their guidelines.  Now doctors and the insurance people cannot deny these treatments on the basis of these guidelines.

Patients helping patients, patients helping doctors, patients helping create better guidelines, patients living longer…might be a trend we can emulate.


Keep in mind that most doctors and insurance companies want to use treatment guidelines based on some acceptable medical standards.  One guideline comes from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.  This establishes the working rules for what kind of treatment or monitoring is thought appropriate for any stage of cancer.  For example, the treatment for a Stage I tumor is quite different from that of a Stage IV tumor.  There are guidelines for shifting to new medications, and for monitoring of primary tumors or mets after surgery.

Since kidney cancer most often metastasizes to the lung, I monitor some of their sites, and was thrilled to see this.  Power to the patients, people!


Filed under Guidelines, Patient Activism, Patient Resources