Active chemotherapy for collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney

A case report and review of the literature

Authors

  • Matthew I. Milowsky M.D.,

    Corresponding author
    1. Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York
    • Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 1300 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021
    Search for more papers by this author
    • Fax: (212) 746-8941

    • Dr. Matthew I. Milowsky, M.D., is a recipient of an Amgen Fellowship Award in Hematology.

  • Alyssa Rosmarin A.P.N.,

    1. Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Satish K. Tickoo M.D.,

    1. Department of Pathology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Nicholas Papanicolaou M.D.,

    1. Department of Radiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York
    Search for more papers by this author
  • David M. Nanus M.D.

    1. Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Collecting (Bellini) duct carcinoma (CDC) of the kidney is associated with an aggressive course and an extremely poor prognosis. To the authors' knowledge, there are no standard treatment regimens and neither immunotherapy nor chemotherapy have been found to be effective.

METHODS

In the current study, the authors report a 49-year-old man who presented with a 7.0 cm × 6.0 cm renal mass with extensive regional, paraaortic, and left supraclavicular lymphadenopathy. Radical nephrectomy revealed a CDC. The patient was treated with doxorubicin, 50 mg/m2 (Day 1), and gemcitabine, 2000 mg/m2 (Day 1), (AG) every 2 weeks with granulocyte–colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) support.

RESULTS

The left supraclavicular lymphadenopathy significantly decreased in size after the first cycle. Computed tomography (CT) scan after the third cycle revealed a significant (68%) reduction in the tumor volume. Toxicity was comprised of only CTC version 2.0, 1998; Grade 1 nausea and fatigue. After Cycle 6, a repeat CT scan demonstrated minimal disease progression. Based on recent Phase II data of an active regimen comprised of AG alternating with ifosfamide, paclitaxel, and cisplatin (ITP) in patients with transitional cell carcinoma, the patient was treated with ifosfamide, 1500 mg/m2 (Days 1–3); paclitaxel, 175 mg/m2 (Day 1); and cisplatin, 35 mg/m2 (Days 1 and 2), every 4 weeks with GCSF support. After two cycles of ITP, the patient developed disease progression in bone and received palliative radiation therapy. Follow-up CT scan demonstrated new liver metastases. The patient received palliative care without further chemotherapy and died approximately 10 months after the initial diagnosis of CDC.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunohistologic and molecular analyses indicate that CDC more closely resembles transitional cell carcinoma than renal cell carcinoma. Chemotherapy regimens used to treat advanced transitional cell carcinoma such as AG should be evaluated as first-line therapy for CDC. Cancer 2002;94:111–6. © 2002 American Cancer Society.

Ancillary