In the early 2000s, cytoreductive nephrectomy in addition to systemic cytokines became standard of care for treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Since that time, the development of novel systemic targeted therapies and immuno-oncologic agents have challenged the utility of cytoreductive nephrectomy in clinical practice. In 2019, the controversial CARMENA study was published, providing the first level one evidence suggesting that cytoreductive nephrectomy combined with targeted therapy yielded no survival advantage over targeted therapy alone in intermediate and poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients. Later that year, the SURTIME trial demonstrated that patients undergoing targeted therapy with delayed nephrectomy maintained a survival advantage over those that underwent upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy followed by targeted therapy. Both of these studies underscored the importance of patient selection and timing of cytoreductive nephrectomy and systemic therapy. As new immuno-oncologic agents are trialed, particularly in combination, the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy will continue to be questioned. In this narrative review, we discuss the evolution of the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma through the context of the ever-changing landscape of targeted therapies and immuno-oncologic agents. We assess the evidence for cytoreductive nephrectomy with respect to patient factors, timing of surgery, and combination with other therapies.
Keywords: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); cytoreductive nephrectomy; immuno-oncology; immunotherapy.