Active Cancer NIHR-supported project Digestion, Kidneys & Other Organs

Evaluating novel monitoring techniques with circulating tumour DNA and updated quality of life surveys for patients with metastatic renal and urothelial cancers

In plain English

AI plain-English summary

Patients with metastatic kidney cancer often face a difficult choice: start toxic drug therapy immediately or wait until their disease visibly worsens on CT scans. This research tests whether a simple blood test for circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) can detect cancer progression earlier than scans, and whether updated quality-of-life surveys can better capture the real burden of treatment side effects. Current practice for many patients is active surveillance—delaying systemic therapy until CT scans show significant tumour growth. But this approach means patients may endure months of undetected progression while accumulating drug side effects once treatment begins. The problem is that CT scans are blunt instruments; they only catch changes after substantial growth has occurred. ctDNA, by contrast, can reveal molecular evidence of progression weeks or months earlier. If successful, this work could shift monitoring from reactive to proactive. Patients might start or switch therapies at the optimal moment—before symptoms worsen, but not a day sooner than necessary. Better quality-of-life surveys would also give clinicians a clearer picture of which side effects matter most to patients, helping tailor treatment choices. For the roughly 2% of cancer patients with renal cell carcinoma, this could mean more time with good quality of life, not just more time.

View original technical description
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for approximately 2% of all cancer types. (1) Metastatic RCC is generally incurable however with advancements in immunotherapy-based treatments, survival outcomes have been improving. For example, combination treatment with nivolumab ipilimumab in the CheckMate 214 trial has reported a median OS of over five years. (2) The number of therapies for RCC has expanded over the past decade. Immunotherapy agents such as PD1/L1 inhibitors are the current cornerstone of treatment, either in combination with CTLA4 inhibitors (nivolumab ipilimumab) or with various tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) including lenvatinib, axitinib, and cabozantinib (2-5). Treatment options do vary by jurisdiction and reimbursement is often dependent on the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk stratification score; for example, in the United Kingdom, patients with metastatic RCC with a favourable risk score are limited to the single agent TKI sunitinib and are not eligible for combination treatment. All systemic therapies for metastatic RCC have notable side effects including but not limited to fatigue, poor appetite, diarrhoea, and rash. As such, to delay treatment related side effects, active surveillance is a widely used initial management strategy. This involves delaying systemic therapy and instead monitoring disease progression with intermittent CT scans, and only proceeding with systemic therapy after a notable amount of disease progression has occurred. This has been studied in a prospective phase II trial and is an accepted and safe management option for patients. (6)

Researchers

Tom Powles (Principal Investigator)

Related Research

Grants with similar aims, by meaning.

Response and Resistance to Targeted Therapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma
A Phase 1b/2 Study of Immune and Targeted Combination Therapies in Participants With RCC (U03): Substudy 03B
A Phase 1b/2 Study of Immune and Targeted Combination Therapies in Participants with RCC (U03): Substudy 03A
Renal Adjuvant Multiple Arm randomised trial.
BO43936 randomized open label phase II study of immune checkpoint combinations with axitinib in patients with previously untreated locally advanced unresectable or metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Original classification

Precision Cancer Care

Plain English summaries and category classifications on this site are generated by AI and may not perfectly reflect the original research.