Your activity: 4 p.v.

The treatment of advanced non-clear cell renal carcinoma

The treatment of advanced non-clear cell renal carcinoma
Authors:
Toni K Choueiri, MD
Sumanta K Pal, MD
Section Editor:
Michael B Atkins, MD
Deputy Editor:
Sonali Shah, MD
Literature review current through: Dec 2022. | This topic last updated: Sep 20, 2022.

INTRODUCTION — Although many advances have been made in the treatment of metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), there are limited high-quality data to help inform management due to the infrequency of these tumors.

Non-clear cell RCCs (or RCCs of variant histology) are characterized by morphology, growth pattern, cell of origin, and where they are known, the histochemical and biologic bases that underlie the different types of tumors.

The most common subtypes of non-clear cell RCC include the following [1]:

Papillary

Chromophobe

Collecting duct (including medullary carcinoma)

Translocation carcinomas

Unclassified RCC

Sarcomatoid RCC is not considered a distinct subtype because sarcomatoid features can be seen in any histologic subtype of RCC.

The kidney can also give rise to other types of malignancies, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, soft tissue sarcomas (eg, leiomyosarcoma, liposarcoma), and carcinoid tumors; their treatment is based on the tumor type rather than their origination from the kidney. The diagnosis and treatment of these cancers are discussed separately. (See "Clinical presentation and initial evaluation of non-Hodgkin lymphoma" and "Clinical features, evaluation, and treatment of retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma" and "Clinical characteristics of well-differentiated neuroendocrine (carcinoid) tumors arising in the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts".)

This topic will discuss the management of non-clear cell RCC. The epidemiology, pathology, and pathogenesis of these tumors are discussed separately, as is the treatment of clear cell and sarcomatoid RCC.

(See "Epidemiology, pathology, and pathogenesis of renal cell carcinoma".)

(See "Overview of the treatment of renal cell carcinoma".)

(See "Systemic therapy of advanced clear cell renal carcinoma" and "Renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features".)

(See "Systemic therapy of advanced clear cell renal carcinoma" and "Renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features".)

GOALS OF THERAPY

Localized disease – The general approach to treatment of localized (stage I to III (table 1)) non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is similar to that of clear cell RCC. Surgical resection offers the best chance of cure, although some small renal masses can be observed or ablated. More extensive discussions on the treatment of localized RCC are covered separately. (See "Overview of the treatment of renal cell carcinoma", section on 'Localized renal cell carcinoma' and "Definitive surgical management of renal cell carcinoma" and "Diagnostic approach, differential diagnosis, and management of a small renal mass".)

Advanced or metastatic disease – Historically, treatment of patients with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic non-clear cell RCC has been palliative; however, prognosis and treatment of these patients are evolving in the era of checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy, and some of these patients may have durable responses. As an example, for patients with certain histologic subtypes (ie, sarcomatoid features), immunotherapy significantly improves survival and complete response rates, suggesting the potential for cure. (See 'Renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features' below.)

AVAILABLE AGENTS — Systemic therapy is usually given either as monotherapy or as combinations of agents from the following classes:

Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab and pembrolizumab)

Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors (atezolizumab)

Anticytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) antibodies (ipilimumab)

Inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway, or antiangiogenic therapy (sunitinib, cabozantinib, axitinib, lenvatinib, bevacizumab)

Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors (everolimus and temsirolimus)

Chemotherapy (platinum-based regimens)

Interleukin-2 (IL-2) does not have an established treatment role in those with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) due to limited efficacy [2-5].

The specific treatment approach for patients with non-clear cell RCC is based on histologic subtype and is discussed in further detail below:

Papillary RCC (see 'Papillary renal cell carcinoma' below)

RCC with sarcomatoid features (see 'Renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features' below and "Renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features")

Chromophobe RCC (see 'Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma' below)

Collecting duct and renal medullary carcinoma (see 'Collecting duct and renal medullary carcinoma' below)

Translocation RCC (see 'Translocation renal cell carcinoma' below)

Unclassified RCC (see 'Unclassified renal cell carcinoma' below)

PAPILLARY RENAL CELL CARCINOMA — Tumors with papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have unique histopathology, molecular alterations, and clinical presentation. These characteristics may influence treatment response to particular systemic agents, such as immunotherapy or other targeted therapies. Historically, patients with papillary RCC have been classified as type I or type II mostly based on cytopathologic findings [6-11]. We also classify papillary RCCs as MET-driven versus independent, based on molecular alterations in the MET gene and inclusion criteria from clinical trials [12,13].

Further details on the pathology of papillary renal cell tumors are discussed separately. (See "Epidemiology, pathology, and pathogenesis of renal cell carcinoma", section on 'Papillary carcinomas' and "Hereditary kidney cancer syndromes".)

Approach to therapy — Our approach to treatment is as follows:

For patients with treatment-naïve advanced or metastatic papillary RCC, we suggest either checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy or a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitor as initial therapy. Both agents are reasonable options as these approaches have not been directly compared in a clinical trial in this population. A choice is based on patient comorbidities, disease risk stratification, and patient preferences. While many patients will be treated with immunotherapy, it is generally not used in patients with a poor performance status, autoimmune disease, or those who prefer oral therapies; such patients may be candidates for a VEGFR inhibitor. Bevacizumab plus erlotinib is preferred therapy for patients with papillary RCC due to hereditary leiomyomatosis eligible for antiangiogenic therapy. (See "Hereditary kidney cancer syndromes", section on 'Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer syndrome'.)

For those who choose immunotherapy, we offer nivolumab plus ipilimumab, extrapolating from the approach used for those with clear cell RCC. Other options include nivolumab plus cabozantinib, single-agent pembrolizumab (table 2), or single-agent nivolumab (table 3). (See 'Nivolumab plus ipilimumab' below and 'Nivolumab plus cabozantinib' below and 'Single-agent immunotherapy' below.)

For those who choose targeted antiangiogenic therapy with VEGFR inhibitors or are ineligible for immunotherapy, we suggest cabozantinib rather than other VEGFR inhibitors. Sunitinib is a reasonable alternative for those who decline cabozantinib, as no overall survival benefit has been demonstrated for cabozantinib over sunitinib. For those with International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) poor-risk disease (table 4), alternative, but less preferred, agents include everolimus or temsirolimus (table 5). (See 'Targeted agents' below and "Systemic therapy of advanced clear cell renal carcinoma", section on 'Risk stratification'.)

A MET-inhibitor based approach to MET-driven papillary tumors is evolving. (See 'Experimental agents (MET inhibitors)' below.)

Our approach to subsequent therapy depends on initial treatment:

For patients who have progressed on initial immunotherapy, we offer targeted antiangiogenic therapy. This approach is similar to those who receive antiangiogenic therapy as initial treatment. (See 'Targeted agents' below.)

For those who have progressed on targeted antiangiogenic therapy without prior exposure to immunotherapy, we offer immunotherapy. The approach is similar to those who receive immunotherapy as initial treatment. (See 'Nivolumab plus ipilimumab' below and 'Single-agent immunotherapy' below.)

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab — For those with papillary renal carcinoma who choose immunotherapy as initial treatment, we offer the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab. This approach is extrapolated from a phase III trial (CheckMate 214) in those with clear cell RCC, where this combination conferred an overall survival benefit, high rates of complete response, and prolonged treatment-free survival [14,15]. Further randomized studies are needed to compare immunotherapy with VEGFR inhibitors in those with non-clear cell RCC to establish the optimal initial treatment approach, and patients should be encouraged to enroll in clinical trials whenever possible. This combination is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as initial therapy for patients with advanced RCC. Further details on the use of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in those with clear cell carcinoma are discussed separately. (See "Systemic therapy of advanced clear cell renal carcinoma", section on 'Nivolumab plus ipilimumab'.)

Data for nivolumab plus ipilimumab in those with papillary RCC are limited to observational studies conducted in heterogeneous populations of non-clear cell RCC [16-18]. In a phase IIIb/IV prospective study (CheckMate 920), among 52 patients with non-clear cell RCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, the objective response rate was approximately 20 percent, with all responses occurring among patients with papillary and unclassified histologies [19].

A phase III randomized trial directly comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in those with non-clear cell carcinomas is ongoing (SUNIFORECAST, NCT03075423).

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib — The combination of nivolumab and cabozantinib is clinically effective in patients with papillary RCC. As an example, a single-arm phase II trial evaluated nivolumab plus cabozantinib in 47 patients with non-clear cell RCC of varying histologies [20]. At median follow-up of 13 months, among the subgroup of 32 patients with papillary RCC, objective responses were observed in 15 patients (47 percent). Additionally, objective responses were seen in all five patients with fumarate hydratase (FH)-deficient RCC.

Single-agent immunotherapy — Single-agent checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy, such as pembrolizumab (table 2) and nivolumab (table 3), is active in papillary RCC, as survival and response rates with this approach are higher than those previously reported with antiangiogenic agents or chemotherapy [21-23].

Pembrolizumab — The efficacy of pembrolizumab (table 2) in papillary RCC was demonstrated in an open-label, nonrandomized phase II trial (KEYNOTE-427, Cohort B) [23]. In this study of 165 patients with non-clear cell histologies, of which 118 tumors (72 percent) were papillary subtype, pembrolizumab was administered at 200 mg intravenous (IV) every three weeks for up to two years, or until disease progression or toxicity. At median follow-up of approximately 11 months, objective response rates were 29 percent for those with papillary RCC, 24 percent for those with intermediate/poor-risk disease of any subtype, and 35 percent for those with a positive combined positive score (CPS) of any subtype. Among responders, the median duration of response was 29 months, and a majority (57 percent) had durable responses at 18-month follow-up. In the entire study population, estimated two-year overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 58 and 19 percent, respectively. Grade ≥3 toxicity occurred in 17 percent of patients.

Nivolumab — Data for single-agent nivolumab (table 3) in papillary RCC mainly come from observational studies [17,21]. As an example, a retrospective study of 41 patients with non-clear cell RCC (16 with papillary RCC) that received at least one dose of nivolumab reported partial response and stable disease rates of 20 and 29 percent, respectively [21]. Similarly, a phase IIIb/IV safety trial (CheckMate 374) reported an overall response rate of 14 percent with nivolumab; median PFS and overall survival were 2 and 16 months, respectively [24].

Targeted agents — Targeted therapies, such as antiangiogenic agents (VEGFR inhibitors) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors have also demonstrated efficacy in papillary RCC. The choice of regimen depends on disease context, as follows:

For most patients who choose VEGFR inhibitors or who are ineligible for immunotherapy, we suggest cabozantinib rather than other VEGFR inhibitors, as this approach improved PFS in a randomized trial (PAPMET). For those who decline cabozantinib, sunitinib is a reasonable alternative, as an overall survival benefit was not demonstrated for cabozantinib over sunitinib in PAPMET. In addition, the efficacy of sunitinib over the mTOR inhibitor everolimus has been established in randomized clinical trials. (See 'Sunitinib' below and 'Cabozantinib' below.)

Alternative, but less preferred, agents for those with poor-risk disease (table 4) include mTOR inhibitors such as everolimus or temsirolimus (table 5). (See 'Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (everolimus and temsirolimus)' below.)

For those with papillary RCC due to hereditary leiomyomatosis eligible for antiangiogenic therapy, we offer bevacizumab plus erlotinib. This preference is based on the results of a nonrandomized trial that demonstrated high response rates in this population. There are limited data regarding other inhibitors of the VEGF pathway in this rare subgroup. (See 'Bevacizumab with or without erlotinib' below.)

Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors

Cabozantinib — In patients with treatment-naïve advanced papillary RCC, cabozantinib improved PFS and objective response rates compared with sunitinib in a randomized trial.

Based on initial observational data that suggested clinical efficacy with cabozantinib [25-27], a randomized, open-label phase II trial (SWOG 1500; PAPMET) was conducted in 152 patients with papillary RCC [28]. A majority of patients had treatment-naïve disease (93 percent), IMDC intermediate- or poor-risk disease (table 4) (75 percent), and either type I and type II histology (approximately 18 and 54 percent, respectively). Patients were randomly assigned to receive either cabozantinib, sunitinib, crizotinib, or savolitinib.

Compared with sunitinib, cabozantinib improved PFS (median nine versus six months, HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.97) and objective response rates (23 versus 4 percent), which included two complete responses (5 percent). Cabozantinib also demonstrated a nonstatistically significant trend towards higher overall survival compared with sunitinib, which would be clinically meaningful if true (median 20 versus 16 months, HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.47-1.51). Clinical PFS benefit for cabozantinib was seen for patients with both type I and type II histologies, regardless of classification based on local or central pathologic assessment. Grade ≥3 treatment-related toxicities were similar between cabozantinib and sunitinib (74 versus 69 percent), and no new toxicity signals were identified.

Of note, neither of the MET inhibitors, crizotinib or savolitinib, improved PFS compared with sunitinib, and the treatment arms for these agents were closed to accrual after a prespecified futility analysis.

The use of cabozantinib in clear cell histologies is discussed separately. (See "Antiangiogenic and molecularly targeted therapy for advanced or metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma", section on 'Cabozantinib'.)

Sunitinib — Sunitinib is an effective initial therapy that improves survival and response rates in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma, based on several phase II randomized trials directly comparing this agent with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus [29-33].

In a phase II trial (ASPEN), 108 previously untreated patients were randomly assigned to either sunitinib or everolimus [30]. Two-thirds of the study population had papillary carcinoma; other patients had chromophobe, translocation, unclassified, and clear cell RCC with sarcomatoid histologies. At a median follow-up of 13 months, relative to everolimus, sunitinib improved PFS in the total study population (median PFS 8.3 versus 5.6 months, two-year PFS 23 versus 9 percent, hazard ratio [HR] 1.41, 80% CI 1.03-1.92) and had higher objective response rates (18 versus 9 percent). While the difference in overall survival was not statistically significant, it would be clinically meaningful if true (median overall survival 32 versus 13 months, HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.7-2.1).

In a separate phase II trial (ESPN), 73 patients with metastatic non-clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to sunitinib or everolimus, with crossover to the alternate agent at disease progression [31]. At a median follow-up of approximately two years, overall survival was similar between the two treatment arms (median overall survival 16.2 versus 14.9 months). Objective responses were seen in 9 percent (3 of 33 patients) initially treated with sunitinib and in 3 percent (1 of 35 patients) initially treated with everolimus. Following crossover, four additional partial responses were observed for each agent.

Bevacizumab with or without erlotinib — There are limited data for the efficacy of bevacizumab alone or in combination with erlotinib in those with sporadic papillary RCC. One study attempted to evaluate bevacizumab in a phase II trial of patients with metastatic papillary RCC, but it was closed due to poor patient accrual [34].

However, the combination of bevacizumab plus erlotinib has substantial efficacy and is the preferred initial systemic therapy in those with papillary RCC due to hereditary leiomyomatosis. These data are discussed separately. (See "Hereditary kidney cancer syndromes", section on 'Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer syndrome'.)

Less preferred agents — Observational studies and early phase II trials have suggested modest efficacy for the VEGFR inhibitors pazopanib and axitinib [35-38]. While some experts may reasonably offer these agents, we do not prefer pazopanib or axitinib as initial therapy in those with papillary RCC, given the stronger evidence for other antiangiogenic agents. (See 'Targeted agents' above.)

Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (everolimus and temsirolimus) — Data suggest that mTOR inhibitors, such as everolimus and temsirolimus, may be effective in patients with poor-risk non-clear cell RCC. However, these agents are becoming less preferred given the demonstrated efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with intermediate- and poor-risk disease. (See "Systemic therapy of advanced clear cell renal carcinoma", section on 'Intermediate- and poor-risk disease'.)

In a single-arm open-label phase II trial (RAPTOR) of 88 patients with treatment-naïve papillary RCC treated with everolimus, the stable disease rate was 65 percent; median PFS and overall survival were approximately 4 and 21 months, respectively [39].

In a phase III trial (ARCC) of 626 patients with advanced RCC randomly assigned to temsirolimus or interferon alfa, temsirolimus improved overall survival (median overall survival 12 versus 4 months) among the subset of 124 patients (20 percent) with predominantly papillary histology [40,41].

Experimental agents (MET inhibitors) — Although agents that inhibit the c-MET pathway have activity against papillary RCC, data are limited, and this approach remains experimental.

CrizotinibCrizotinib was evaluated in 23 patients with type I papillary RCC in a phase II study (CREATE) [42]. In the four patients with a MET alteration, two achieved a partial response, with durations of approximately two and three years, respectively.

Foretinib – In a phase II trial of the investigational MET inhibitor foretinib that included 74 patients with papillary RCC, the objective response rate was 13.5 percent, and the median PFS was nine months [43]. The overall survival rate was 70 percent at one year.

Savolitinib – In a randomized phase III trial (SAVOIR) of 60 patients with MET-driven papillary RCC, compared with sunitinib, the selective MET inhibitor savolitinib improved overall response rates (27 versus 7 percent) and had a better toxicity profile [12]. However, the study, which was prematurely terminated, did not detect a statistical difference in progression-free or overall survival between the two treatment arms.

RENAL CELL CARCINOMA WITH SARCOMATOID FEATURES — Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with sarcomatoid differentiation occurs mainly in clear cell histologies but can also be seen in non-clear cell histologies. Patients with advanced or metastatic sarcomatoid RCC typically demonstrate clinical responses to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy-based regimens. Further details on the epidemiology, clinical presentation and management of RCC with sarcomatoid features are discussed separately. (See "Renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features".)

LESS COMMON SUBTYPES

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma — For those with chromophobe tumors, we offer initial treatment with targeted agents such as mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors (eg, everolimus) or vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors (eg, sunitinib). Limited data also show some efficacy for bevacizumab plus erlotinib in these tumors [44]. Alternatively, some experts offer a combination of lenvatinib and everolimus, either as off-label initial therapy or subsequent therapy after progression on alternative VEGFR inhibitors. Due to the rarity of chromophobe tumors, further studies are needed to determine the appropriate sequencing and combination of therapy in these patients.

Everolimus – Some patients with chromophobe tumors have genetic alterations that lead to upregulation of the mTOR pathway, such as mutations on chromosome 7 leading to loss of the folliculin gene. Inhibition of this pathway with agents such as everolimus represents a logical therapeutic approach in these tumors [45]. Further details on molecular alterations found in chromophobe tumors are discussed separately. (See "Epidemiology, pathology, and pathogenesis of renal cell carcinoma", section on 'Chromophobe carcinomas'.)

The randomized phase II trial (ASPEN) comparing sunitinib with everolimus in 108 patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) included a subset of 16 patients (15 percent) with chromophobe histology [30]. In this subset, everolimus improved overall response rates relative to sunitinib (33 versus 10 percent). Median progression-free survival (PFS) for everolimus was longer relative to sunitinib (12 versus 6 months); this result was not statistically significant, likely due to the small number of patients, but it would be clinically meaningful if true.

The use of everolimus in other RCC subtypes is discussed separately. (See "Antiangiogenic and molecularly targeted therapy for advanced or metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma", section on 'Everolimus'.)

Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors – Limited data suggest that VEGFR inhibitors have activity in patients with chromophobe RCC [30,31,46,47]. A single-arm, open-label, phase II trial evaluated sunitinib in 57 patients with non-clear clear cell histologies [46]. In this subset of five patients (9 percent) with chromophobe histologies, there were two partial responses (40 percent), and the median PFS was approximately 13 months.

Lenvatinib plus everolimusLenvatinib plus everolimus is an option in patients with chromophobe RCC either as initial therapy or subsequent therapy after progression on a VEGFR inhibitor, as this combination inhibits both the VEGF and mTOR pathway [48]. In a single-arm phase II trial of 31 patients with treatment-naïve non-clear cell RCC treated with lenvatinib plus everolimus, objective responses were seen in four out of nine patients with chromophobe RCC [49].

We also offer this approach extrapolating from randomized trials conducted in those with clear cell histologies, which conferred a PFS benefit compared with either sunitinib or everolimus alone. (See "Systemic therapy of advanced clear cell renal carcinoma", section on 'Lenvatinib plus everolimus' and "Antiangiogenic and molecularly targeted therapy for advanced or metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma", section on 'Lenvatinib plus everolimus'.)

Bevacizumab plus everolimus Bevacizumab plus everolimus has also shown efficacy in those with chromophobe tumors. In a phase II trial of 35 patients with non-clear cell carcinoma, five had chromophobe tumors [44]. An objective response rate of 29 percent was seen in the total study population, with responses seen in two of five patients with chromophobe tumors (40 percent). Median PFS and overall survival were 11 and 19 months for the total study population.

Immunotherapy plus VEGFR inhibitors – Dual treatment with immunotherapy and VEGFR inhibitors has limited efficacy in chromophobe RCC. As examples:

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib – In one phase II trial of 47 patients with advanced non-clear cell RCC treated with nivolumab plus cabozantinib, no objective responses were noted among the subset of seven patients with chromophobe RCC [20].

Bevacizumab plus atezolizumab – In another phase II trial of 60 patients with metastatic RCC with variant histology and/or sarcomatoid features treated with bevacizumab plus atezolizumab, objective responses were seen in one of ten patients (10 percent) with chromophobe RCC [50].

Collecting duct and renal medullary carcinoma — For those with collecting duct RCC or renal medullary carcinoma, we suggest cytotoxic chemotherapy as initial therapy rather than VEGFR inhibitors. Options for combinations of platinum-based chemotherapy include cisplatin plus gemcitabine; carboplatin plus gemcitabine; and carboplatin plus paclitaxel. There are limited data regarding immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors, and these agents remain investigational. The initial treatment approach for these histologies is similar to that of metastatic urothelial carcinoma, which is discussed separately. Patients are encouraged to enroll on clinical trials where available. (See "Treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer of the bladder and urinary tract", section on 'First-line therapy'.)

Collecting duct renal cell carcinoma – Collecting duct RCC is an aggressive tumor that has similar biologic features to urothelial carcinoma. Unlike other types of non-clear cell histologies, collecting duct RCCs respond to cytotoxic chemotherapy using platinum-based chemotherapy [51-55]. There are limited clinical trial data evaluating treatment options in this rare tumor, and further studies are needed. (See "Epidemiology, pathology, and pathogenesis of renal cell carcinoma", section on 'Collecting duct tumors'.)

In an open-label phase II trial of 23 patients with collecting duct RCC treated with gemcitabine plus cisplatin, objective responses were seen in six patients (26 percent), and median overall survival was approximately 11 months [51].

Renal medullary carcinoma – Renal medullary carcinoma is an aggressive variant of collecting duct tumors predominantly found in those with sickle cell trait. (See "Epidemiology, pathology, and pathogenesis of renal cell carcinoma", section on 'SMARCB1-deficient renal cell carcinoma and renal medullary carcinoma' and "Sickle cell disease effects on the kidney", section on 'Renal medullary carcinoma' and "Overview of the clinical manifestations of sickle cell disease", section on 'Kidney complications'.)

Data for effective treatment options are limited to observational studies. Platinum-based chemotherapy is typically administered as initial therapy in a majority of patients, with a wide range of reported activity [56-60]. As an example, in one case series of 52 patients with renal medullary carcinoma, 85 percent (45 patients) were treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, with response rates of approximately 30 percent [60]. Two-year overall survival for the entire study population was 13 percent.

Other chemotherapy agents (eg, anthracyclines), immunomodulatory therapy (eg, bortezomib), and VEGFR inhibitors (eg, sunitinib) all have limited activity in this disease [59,61-63].

Translocation renal cell carcinoma — For those with translocation RCC, we offer a VEGFR inhibitor (eg, sunitinib) as initial therapy. Immunotherapy with the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab (table 3) may be offered for those with disease progression on VEGFR inhibitors, although data are limited. Due to the rarity of translocation RCC, clinical trials are encouraged where available.

Translocation RCCs are a rare variant of non-clear cell carcinomas characterized by TFE3 gene fusions, leading to activation of microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF). (See "Epidemiology, pathology, and pathogenesis of renal cell carcinoma", section on 'Translocation renal cell carcinoma (MiT/TFE-related RCC)'.)

Data regarding initial systemic therapy for this subtype are limited to observational studies, with most data supporting the use of sunitinib [64,65]. As an example, in an nonrandomized study of approximately 50 patients less than 45 years old with Xp11.2 translocation carcinomas, partial responses were seen in 3 of 11 patients (27 percent) treated with sunitinib versus one of nine patients (11 percent) treated with cytokine therapy (interferon alfa or interleukin 2) [65]. Additionally, the study demonstrated longer PFS in those treated with sunitinib relative to cytokine therapy (median PFS eight versus two months).

For those who progress on VEGFR inhibitors, data are limited on the efficacy of immunotherapy as subsequent therapy. In one observational study, 24 patients with translocation RCC who progressed on VEGFR inhibitors (mostly sunitinib) were subsequently treated with a variety of immunotherapy agents [66]. A majority of patients were treated with agents targeting either PD-1 (nivolumab), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1; atezolizumab), or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4; ipilimumab). The partial response rate was 17 percent, and median PFS and overall survival were 3 and 24 months.

Unclassified renal cell carcinoma — For patients with unclassified RCC, we offer initial treatment with either immunotherapy (eg, nivolumab plus ipilimumab or pembrolizumab (table 2)) or VEGFR inhibitors. Further randomized studies directly comparing these agents are needed to confirm the appropriate treatment approach in these patients.

Immunotherapy (either as a single agent or in combination) has efficacy in patients with unclassified RCCs. Data are as follows:

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab – Some contributors offer nivolumab plus ipilimumab in those with treatment-naïve unclassified renal cell carcinomas. Observational data suggest activity of nivolumab either with or without ipilimumab in those with unclassified renal cell carcinoma, with reported objective response rates between 20 and 44 percent [17,19].

Additionally, this approach is extrapolated from a phase III trial (CheckMate 214) in those with advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC, where nivolumab plus ipilimumab conferred an overall survival benefit, high rates of complete response, and prolonged treatment-free survival [14,15]. This combination is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as initial therapy for patients with advanced RCC. Further details on the activity of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in those with clear cell carcinoma are discussed separately. (See "Systemic therapy of advanced clear cell renal carcinoma", section on 'Nivolumab plus ipilimumab'.)

Pembrolizumab – Data for immunotherapy are limited in this population, with most evidence supporting pembrolizumab (table 2). In an open-label phase II trial (KEYNOTE-427, Cohort B), 165 patients with non-clear cell RCC were treated with pembrolizumab as initial therapy [23]. In the subset of 26 patients with unclassified RCC, objective responses were seen in eight patients (31 percent), and a majority had durable responses. Median PFS and overall survival were 3 and 18 months, respectively.

Sunitinib and cabozantinib as single agents also have efficacy in patients with treatment-naïve unclassified RCC.

Sunitinib – In two randomized trials, sunitinib improved PFS approximately twofold relative to everolimus [30,31]. In the ASPEN study, which included 22 patients with unclassified RCC, sunitinib had a median PFS of 12 versus 6 months with everolimus [30]. Similarly, in the ESPN study, which included 10 patients with unclassified RCC, sunitinib had a median PFS of nine versus five months with everolimus [31].

Cabozantinib – A retrospective study of cabozantinib in 112 patients with non-clear cell histologies included 15 patients with unclassified RCC [27]. In this subset, objective responses were seen in two patients (13 percent), and 12-month overall survival was 36 percent.

Other regimens – Other combinations containing VEGFR inhibitors and the mTOR inhibitor everolimus have also shown activity in unclassified RCC.

Lenvatinib plus everolimus – In preliminary results from a phase II trial of 31 patients with non-clear cell RCC treated with the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus, partial responses were seen in one of two patients with unclassified RCC [67].

Bevacizumab plus everolimus – The combination of bevacizumab plus everolimus is an option for patients who are unable to receive lenvatinib plus everolimus. This combination was evaluated in a phase II trial that included a subset of 23 patients with unclassified RCC containing papillary features. Among these patients, the objective response rate was 43 percent and median PFS was 14 months [68].

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Cancer of the kidney and ureters".)

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Histologic subtypes of non-clear cell renal carcinoma – The main subtypes of non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) include papillary, chromophobe, collecting duct, unclassified, and translocation carcinomas. Sarcomatoid RCC is not considered a distinct subtype, primarily because sarcomatoid features can be seen in any histologic subtype of RCC. (See 'Introduction' above.)

Treatment approach – The specific treatment approach to patients with advanced-stage non-clear cell RCC is based on histologic subtype. Although many advances have been made in the treatment of non-clear cell RCC, there are limited high-quality data to help inform management due to the infrequency of these tumors. Patients should be enrolled in a clinical trial whenever possible. (See 'Available agents' above.)

Papillary renal cell carcinoma – For patients with advanced papillary RCC, some contributors offer checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy, while others offer a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGFR) inhibitor as initial therapy. Recognizing that there are limited data directly comparing these approaches, we feel either option is appropriate. (See 'Papillary renal cell carcinoma' above and 'Approach to therapy' above.)

While many patients will be treated with immunotherapy, it is generally not used in patients with a poor performance status, autoimmune disease, or those who prefer oral therapies; such patients may be candidates for a VEGFR inhibitor. Bevacizumab plus erlotinib is the preferred therapy for patients with papillary RCC due to hereditary leiomyomatosis eligible for antiangiogenic therapy.

For those who choose immunotherapy, we suggest nivolumab plus ipilimumab rather than other immunotherapies (Grade 2C), extrapolating from the approach used for those with clear cell RCC. Other options include nivolumab plus cabozantinib, single-agent pembrolizumab (table 2), or single-agent nivolumab (table 3). (See 'Nivolumab plus ipilimumab' above and 'Nivolumab plus cabozantinib' above and 'Single-agent immunotherapy' above.)

For those who choose targeted antiangiogenic therapy or are ineligible for immunotherapy, we suggest initial therapy with cabozantinib rather than other VEGFR inhibitors (Grade 2C). (See 'Targeted agents' above and "Systemic therapy of advanced clear cell renal carcinoma", section on 'Risk stratification'.)

Renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features – For patients with treatment-naïve advanced or metastatic RCC with sarcomatoid features, we prefer immunotherapy-based regimens. (See 'Renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features' above and "Renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features".)

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma – For patients with advanced or metastatic chromophobe RCC, available evidence is limited due to the rarity of these tumors. Some contributors offer initial treatment with targeted therapy such as a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor (eg, everolimus) or a VEGFR inhibitor (eg, sunitinib). Alternatively, other contributors offer a combination of lenvatinib and everolimus, either as off-label initial therapy or subsequent therapy after progression on alternative VEGFR inhibitors. (See 'Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma' above.)

Collecting duct and renal medullary carcinoma – For patients with advanced or metastatic collecting duct or renal medullary carcinoma, we suggest cytotoxic chemotherapy as initial therapy rather than VEGFR inhibitors (Grade 2C). Options for combinations of platinum-based chemotherapy include cisplatin plus gemcitabine; carboplatin plus gemcitabine; and carboplatin plus paclitaxel. (See 'Collecting duct and renal medullary carcinoma' above.)

Translocation renal cell carcinoma – For patients with advanced or metastatic translocation RCC, we suggest VEGFR inhibitors with sunitinib as initial therapy rather than immunotherapy or cytokine therapy (Grade 2C). For those who progress on VEGFR inhibitors, we offer immunotherapy with nivolumab (table 3). Due to the rarity of translocation RCC, clinical trials are encouraged where available. (See 'Translocation renal cell carcinoma' above.)

Unclassified renal cell carcinoma – For patients with advanced or metastatic unclassified RCC, some contributors offer initial therapy with immunotherapy (eg, nivolumab plus ipilimumab or pembrolizumab (table 2)), while other contributors offer VEGFR inhibitors either as single agents (eg, sunitinib or cabozantinib), or as combination therapy (eg, lenvatinib plus everolimus); recognizing that there are limited data directly comparing these approaches, we feel either option is appropriate. (See 'Unclassified renal cell carcinoma' above.)

  1. WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs, Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE (Eds), World Health Organization, Lyon 2016.
  2. Vera-Badillo FE, Templeton AJ, Duran I, et al. Systemic therapy for non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 67:740.
  3. Motzer RJ, Bacik J, Mariani T, et al. Treatment outcome and survival associated with metastatic renal cell carcinoma of non-clear-cell histology. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:2376.
  4. Ronnen EA, Kondagunta GV, Ishill N, et al. Treatment outcome for metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma patients. Cancer 2006; 107:2617.
  5. Upton MP, Parker RA, Youmans A, et al. Histologic predictors of renal cell carcinoma response to interleukin-2-based therapy. J Immunother 2005; 28:488.
  6. Pal SK, Choueiri TK. Systemic Therapies for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma of Variant Histology. In: Renal Cell Carcinoma, Tannir NM (Ed), Oxford American Oncology Library, New York 2014.
  7. Klatte T, Pantuck AJ, Said JW, et al. Cytogenetic and molecular tumor profiling for type 1 and type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15:1162.
  8. Stamatakis L, Singer EA, Siddiqui MM, et al. Phase II trial of bevacizumab and erlotinib in patients with advanced hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC) or sporadic papillary renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 2011; abstract 2753.
  9. Srinivasan R, et al. Mechanism based targeted therapy for hereditary leimyomatosis and renal cell cancer and sporadic papillary renal cell carcinoma: interim results from a phase 2 study of bevacizumab and erlotinib (abstract 5). EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics (2014).
  10. Srinivasan R, Gurram S, al Harthy M, et al. Results from a phase II study of bevacizumab and erlotinib in subjects with advanced hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC) or sporadic papillary renal cell cancer. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:5004.
  11. Gleeson JP, Nikolovski I, Dinatale R, et al. Comprehensive Molecular Characterization and Response to Therapy in Fumarate Hydratase-Deficient Renal Cell Carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2021; 27:2910.
  12. Choueiri TK, Heng DYC, Lee JL, et al. Efficacy of Savolitinib vs Sunitinib in Patients With MET-Driven Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma: The SAVOIR Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2020; 6:1247.
  13. Savolitinib Plus Durvalumab Versus Sunitinib and Durvalumab Monotherapy in MET-Driven, Unresectable and Locally Advanced or Metastatic PRCC (SAMETA). ClinicalTrials.gov. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05043090 (Accessed on March 06, 2022).
  14. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al. Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2018; 378:1277.
  15. Motzer RJ, Rini BI, McDermott DF, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20:1370.
  16. McKay RR, Bossé D, Xie W, et al. The Clinical Activity of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. Cancer Immunol Res 2018; 6:758.
  17. Chahoud J, Msaouel P, Campbell MT, et al. Nivolumab for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (nccRCC): A Single-Institutional Experience and Literature Meta-Analysis. Oncologist 2019.
  18. Gupta R, Ornstein MC, Li H, et al. Clinical Activity of Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab in Patients With Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020; 18:429.
  19. Tykodi SS, Gordan LN, Alter RS, et al. Safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: results from the phase 3b/4 CheckMate 920 trial. J Immunother Cancer 2022; 10.
  20. Lee CH, Voss MH, Carlo MI, et al. Phase II Trial of Cabozantinib Plus Nivolumab in Patients With Non-Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and Genomic Correlates. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:2333.
  21. Koshkin VS, Barata PC, Zhang T, et al. Clinical activity of nivolumab in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Immunother Cancer 2018; 6:9.
  22. Geynisman DM. Anti-programmed Cell Death Protein 1 (PD-1) Antibody Nivolumab Leads to a Dramatic and Rapid Response in Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma with Sarcomatoid and Rhabdoid Features. Eur Urol 2015; 68:912.
  23. McDermott DF, Lee JL, Ziobro M, et al. Open-Label, Single-Arm, Phase II Study of Pembrolizumab Monotherapy as First-Line Therapy in Patients With Advanced Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39:1029.
  24. Vogelzang NJ, Olsen MR, McFarlane JJ, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 Study. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020; 18:461.
  25. Ciccarese C, Iacovelli R, Brunelli M, et al. Addressing the best treatment for non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: A meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing VEGFR-TKis versus mTORi-targeted therapies. Eur J Cancer 2017; 83:237.
  26. Campbell MT, Bilen MA, Shah AY, et al. Cabozantinib for the treatment of patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective analysis. Eur J Cancer 2018; 104:188.
  27. Martínez Chanzá N, Xie W, Asim Bilen M, et al. Cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20:581.
  28. Pal SK, Tangen C, Thompson IM Jr, et al. A comparison of sunitinib with cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of advanced papillary renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet 2021; 397:695.
  29. Ravaud A, Oudard S, De Fromont M, et al. First-line treatment with sunitinib for type 1 and type 2 locally advanced or metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma: a phase II study (SUPAP) by the French Genitourinary Group (GETUG)†. Ann Oncol 2015; 26:1123.
  30. Armstrong AJ, Halabi S, Eisen T, et al. Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17:378.
  31. Tannir NM, Jonasch E, Albiges L, et al. Everolimus Versus Sunitinib Prospective Evaluation in Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ESPN): A Randomized Multicenter Phase 2 Trial. Eur Urol 2016; 69:866.
  32. Knox JJ, Barrios CH, Kim TM, et al. Final overall survival analysis for the phase II RECORD-3 study of first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib versus first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus in metastatic RCC. Ann Oncol 2017; 28:1339.
  33. Motzer RJ, Barrios CH, Kim TM, et al. Phase II randomized trial comparing sequential first-line everolimus and second-line sunitinib versus first-line sunitinib and second-line everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:2765.
  34. Irshad T, Olencki T, Zynger L, et al. Bevacizumab in metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). J Clin Oncol 2011; 29 (suppl):abstract e15158.
  35. Jung KS, Lee SJ, Park SH, et al. Pazopanib for the Treatment of Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Single-Arm, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase II Study. Cancer Res Treat 2018; 50:488.
  36. Park I, Lee SH, Lee JL. A Multicenter Phase II Trial of Axitinib in Patients With Recurrent or Metastatic Non-clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Who Had Failed Prior Treatment With Temsirolimus. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2018; 16:e997.
  37. Buti S, Bersanelli M, Maines F, et al. First-Line PAzopanib in NOn-clear-cell Renal cArcinoMA: The Italian Retrospective Multicenter PANORAMA Study. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017; 15:e609.
  38. Negrier S, Rioux-Leclercq N, Ferlay C, et al. Axitinib in first-line for patients with metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma: Results of the multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase II AXIPAP trial. Eur J Cancer 2020; 129:107.
  39. Escudier B, Molinie V, Bracarda S, et al. Open-label phase 2 trial of first-line everolimus monotherapy in patients with papillary metastatic renal cell carcinoma: RAPTOR final analysis. Eur J Cancer 2016; 69:226.
  40. Hudes G, Carducci M, Tomczak P, et al. Temsirolimus, interferon alfa, or both for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:2271.
  41. Dutcher JP, de Souza P, McDermott D, et al. Effect of temsirolimus versus interferon-alpha on outcome of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma of different tumor histologies. Med Oncol 2009; 26:202.
  42. Schöffski P, Wozniak A, Escudier B, et al. Crizotinib achieves long-lasting disease control in advanced papillary renal-cell carcinoma type 1 patients with MET mutations or amplification. EORTC 90101 CREATE trial. Eur J Cancer 2017; 87:147.
  43. Choueiri TK, Vaishampayan U, Rosenberg JE, et al. Phase II and biomarker study of the dual MET/VEGFR2 inhibitor foretinib in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:181.
  44. Voss MH, Molina AM, Chen YB, et al. Phase II Trial and Correlative Genomic Analysis of Everolimus Plus Bevacizumab in Advanced Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:3846.
  45. Davis CF, Ricketts CJ, Wang M, et al. The somatic genomic landscape of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Cell 2014; 26:319.
  46. Tannir NM, Plimack E, Ng C, et al. A phase 2 trial of sunitinib in patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2012; 62:1013.
  47. Choueiri TK, Plantade A, Elson P, et al. Efficacy of sunitinib and sorafenib in metastatic papillary and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:127.
  48. Schwartz C, Pfanzelter N, Kuzel TM. The Efficacy of Lenvatinib and Everolimus in Chromophobe-type Non-Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Case Report and Literature Review. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017; 15:e903.
  49. Hutson TE, Michaelson MD, Kuzel TM, et al. A Single-arm, Multicenter, Phase 2 Study of Lenvatinib Plus Everolimus in Patients with Advanced Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. Eur Urol 2021; 80:162.
  50. McGregor BA, McKay RR, Braun DA, et al. Results of a Multicenter Phase II Study of Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma With Variant Histology and/or Sarcomatoid Features. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:63.
  51. Oudard S, Banu E, Vieillefond A, et al. Prospective multicenter phase II study of gemcitabine plus platinum salt for metastatic collecting duct carcinoma: results of a GETUG (Groupe d'Etudes des Tumeurs Uro-Génitales) study. J Urol 2007; 177:1698.
  52. Pécuchet N, Bigot F, Gachet J, et al. Triple combination of bevacizumab, gemcitabine and platinum salt in metastatic collecting duct carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2013; 24:2963.
  53. Gollob JA, Upton MP, DeWolf WC, Atkins MB. Long-term remission in a patient with metastatic collecting duct carcinoma treated with taxol/carboplatin and surgery. Urology 2001; 58:1058.
  54. Milowsky MI, Rosmarin A, Tickoo SK, et al. Active chemotherapy for collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney: a case report and review of the literature. Cancer 2002; 94:111.
  55. Peyromaure M, Thiounn N, Scotté F, et al. Collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney: a clinicopathological study of 9 cases. J Urol 2003; 170:1138.
  56. Strouse JJ, Spevak M, Mack AK, et al. Significant responses to platinum-based chemotherapy in renal medullary carcinoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2005; 44:407.
  57. Walsh A, Kelly DR, Vaid YN, et al. Complete response to carboplatin, gemcitabine, and paclitaxel in a patient with advanced metastatic renal medullary carcinoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2010; 55:1217.
  58. Hakimi AA, Koi PT, Milhoua PM, et al. Renal medullary carcinoma: the Bronx experience. Urology 2007; 70:878.
  59. Maroja Silvino MC, Venchiarutti Moniz CM, Munhoz Piotto GH, et al. Renal medullary carcinoma response to chemotherapy: a referral center experience in Brazil. Rare Tumors 2013; 5:e44.
  60. Shah AY, Karam JA, Malouf GG, et al. Management and outcomes of patients with renal medullary carcinoma: a multicentre collaborative study. BJU Int 2017; 120:782.
  61. Schaeffer EM, Guzzo TJ, Furge KA, et al. Renal medullary carcinoma: molecular, pathological and clinical evidence for treatment with topoisomerase-inhibiting therapy. BJU Int 2010; 106:62.
  62. Kondagunta GV, Drucker B, Schwartz L, et al. Phase II trial of bortezomib for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:3720.
  63. Ronnen EA, Kondagunta GV, Motzer RJ. Medullary renal cell carcinoma and response to therapy with bortezomib. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:e14.
  64. Choueiri TK, Lim ZD, Hirsch MS, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy for the treatment of adult metastatic Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2010; 116:5219.
  65. Malouf GG, Camparo P, Oudard S, et al. Targeted agents in metastatic Xp11 translocation/TFE3 gene fusion renal cell carcinoma (RCC): a report from the Juvenile RCC Network. Ann Oncol 2010; 21:1834.
  66. Boilève A, Carlo MI, Barthélémy P, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in MITF family translocation renal cell carcinomas and genetic correlates of exceptional responders. J Immunother Cancer 2018; 6:159.
  67. Hutson TE, Michaelson MD, Kuzel TM, et al. A phase II study of lenvatinib plus everolimus in patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). J Clin Oncol 2020; 38;6S:685.
  68. Feldman DR, Ged Y, Lee CH, et al. Everolimus plus bevacizumab is an effective first-line treatment for patients with advanced papillary variant renal cell carcinoma: Final results from a phase II trial. Cancer 2020; 126:5247.
Topic 96030 Version 46.0

References