1
|
Feinberg A, Gessner KH, Deal AM, Heiling HM, Myers S, Raynor MC, Milowsky MI, Wobker SE, Commander CW, Lazard AJ, Bjurlin MA, Smith AB, Johnson DC, Wallen EM, Kim WY, Tan HJ. Decisional Conflict Among Patients Newly Diagnosed With Clinical T1 Renal Masses: A Prospective Study. J Urol 2024; 212:320-330. [PMID: 38717916 PMCID: PMC11233232 DOI: 10.1097/ju.0000000000004023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2023] [Accepted: 04/25/2024] [Indexed: 05/21/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Because multiple management options exist for clinical T1 renal masses, patients may experience a state of uncertainty about the course of action to pursue (ie, decisional conflict). To better support patients, we examined patient, clinical, and decision-making factors associated with decisional conflict among patients newly diagnosed with clinical T1 renal masses suspicious for kidney cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS From a prospective clinical trial, participants completed the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), scored 0 to 100 with < 25 associated with implementing decisions, at 2 time points during the initial decision-making period. The trial further characterized patient demographics, health status, tumor burden, and patient-centered communication, while a subcohort completed additional questionnaires on decision-making. Associations of patient, clinical, and decision-making factors with DCS scores were evaluated using generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures per patient. RESULTS Of 274 enrollees, 250 completed a DCS survey; 74% had masses ≤ 4 cm in size, while 11% had high-complexity tumors. Model-based estimated mean DCS score across both time points was 17.6 (95% CI 16.0-19.3), though 50% reported a DCS score ≥ 25 at least once. On multivariable analysis, DCS scores increased with age (+2.64, 95% CI 1.04-4.23), high- vs low-complexity tumors (+6.50, 95% CI 0.35-12.65), and cystic vs solid masses (+9.78, 95% CI 5.27-14.28). Among decision-making factors, DCS scores decreased with higher self-efficacy (-3.31, 95% CI -5.77 to -0.86]) and information-seeking behavior (-4.44, 95% CI -7.32 to -1.56). DCS scores decreased with higher patient-centered communication scores (-8.89, 95% CI -11.85 to -5.94). CONCLUSIONS In addition to patient and clinical factors, decision-making factors and patient-centered communication relate with decisional conflict, highlighting potential avenues to better support patient decision-making for clinical T1 renal masses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amir Feinberg
- Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Kathryn H Gessner
- Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Allison M Deal
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Hillary M Heiling
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Shannon Myers
- Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Mathew C Raynor
- Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Matthew I Milowsky
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Sara E Wobker
- Department of Pathology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Clayton W Commander
- Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Allison J Lazard
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
- Hussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Marc A Bjurlin
- Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Angela B Smith
- Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - David C Johnson
- Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Eric M Wallen
- Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - William Y Kim
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Hung-Jui Tan
- Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lane BR, Cheaib JG, Boynton D, Pierorazio P, Noyes SL, Peabody H, Singla N, Johnson A, Ghani KR, Krumm A, Singh K. Development and validation of a multicenter Cox regression model to predict all-cause mortality in patients with renal masses suspicious for renal cancer. Urol Oncol 2024; 42:248.e11-248.e18. [PMID: 38704319 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.04.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2023] [Revised: 03/20/2024] [Accepted: 04/07/2024] [Indexed: 05/06/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Life expectancy models are useful tools to support clinical decision-making. Prior models have not been used widely in clinical practice for patients with renal masses. We sought to develop and validate a model to predict life expectancy following the detection of a localized renal mass suspicious for renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS Using retrospective data from 2 large centers, we identified patients diagnosed with clinically localized renal parenchymal masses from 1998 to 2018. After 2:1 random sampling into a derivation and validation cohort stratified by site, we used age, sex, log-transformed tumor size, simplified cardiovascular index and planned treatment to fit a Cox regression model to predict all-cause mortality from the time of diagnosis. The model's discrimination was evaluated using a C-statistic, and calibration was evaluated visually at 1, 5, and 10 years. RESULTS We identified 2,667 patients (1,386 at Corewell Health and 1,281 at Johns Hopkins) with renal masses. Of these, 420 (16%) died with a median follow-up of 5.2 years (interquartile range 2.2-8.3). Statistically significant predictors in the multivariable Cox regression model were age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.05); male sex (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.08-1.81); log-transformed tumor size (HR 1.71; 95% CI 1.30-2.24); cardiovascular index (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.32-1.67), and planned treatment (HR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.06-0.18 for kidney-sparing intervention and HR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.35 for radical nephrectomy vs. no intervention). The model achieved a C-statistic of 0.74 in the derivation cohort and 0.73 in the validation cohort. The model was well-calibrated at 1, 5, and 10 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS For patients with localized renal masses, accurate determination of life expectancy is essential for decision-making regarding intervention vs. active surveillance as a primary treatment modality. We have made available a simple tool for this purpose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian R Lane
- Division of Urology, Corewell Health West, Grand Rapids, MI; Department of Surgery, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI.
| | - Joseph G Cheaib
- Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Dennis Boynton
- Department of Surgery, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI
| | | | | | - Henry Peabody
- Division of Urology, Corewell Health West, Grand Rapids, MI
| | - Nirmish Singla
- Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Anna Johnson
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Khurshid R Ghani
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Andrew Krumm
- Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Karandeep Singh
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Boynton D, Noyes SL, Murali A, Peabody H, Krumm A, Singh K, Lane BR. Simplified cardiovascular index may be the best comorbidity index for clinical use in prediction of mortality for renal cancer patients. Urol Oncol 2024; 42:72.e1-72.e8. [PMID: 38242826 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.01.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2023] [Revised: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 01/05/2024] [Indexed: 01/21/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Understanding the relationship between comorbidities and life expectancy is important in cancer patients who carry risks of cancer and noncancer-related mortality. Comorbidity indices (CI) are tools to provide an objective measure of competing risks of death. We sought to determine which CI might be best incorporated into clinical practice for patients with suspected renal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS 1572 patients diagnosed with renal masses (stage I-IV) between 1998 and 2016 were analyzed for this study. Patient data were gathered from a community-based health center. Comorbidities were evaluated individually, and with 1 of 4 CI: Charlson (CCI), updated CCI (uCCI), age-adjusted CCI (aCCI), and simplified cardiovascular index (CVI). Cox-proportional hazard analysis of all-cause mortality was performed using the four CI, adjusting for the 4 CI, adjusting for age, gender, race, tumor size, and tumor stage. RESULTS Univariable analyses revealed the four CI were significant predictors of mortality (P < 0.05), as were age, gender, tumor size, and stage. Comorbid conditions at diagnosis included hypertension (47.8%), diabetes mellitus (47.2%), coronary artery disease (41.1%), chronic kidney disease (31.8%), peripheral vascular disease (8.0%), congestive heart failure (5.7%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (5.7%), and cerebrovascular disease (2.0%). When analyzing the 4 CI in multivariable survival analyses accounting for factors available at diagnosis, and analyses incorporating pathologic and recurrence data, only CVI score and uCCI remained statistically significant (P < 0.05). Limitations of this work are the retrospective nature of data collection and data from a single institution, limiting the generalizability. CONCLUSION Increasing comorbidity, age, tumor size, and cM stage are predictors of ACM for suspected renal cancer patients. CVI appears to provide comparable information to various iterations of CCI (uCCI, aCCI) while being the simplest to use. Utilization of CVI may assist clinicians and patients when considering between interventional and noninterventional approaches for suspected renal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dennis Boynton
- Department of Surgery, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI
| | | | - Adharsh Murali
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Henry Peabody
- Division of Urology, Corewell Health West, Grand Rapids, MI
| | - Andrew Krumm
- Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Karandeep Singh
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Brian R Lane
- Department of Surgery, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI; Division of Urology, Corewell Health West, Grand Rapids, MI.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lehrer R, Cornelis F, Bernhard JC, Bigot P, Champy C, Bruyère F, Rouprêt M, Doumerc N, Bensalah CK, Olivier J, Audenet F, Tricard T, Parier B, Durand X, Durand M, Charles T, Branger N, Surlemont L, Xylinas E, Beauval JB, Barral M. Minimally invasive nephron-sparing treatments for T1 renal cell cancer in patients over 75 years: a comparison of outcomes after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and percutaneous ablation. Eur Radiol 2023; 33:8426-8435. [PMID: 37466710 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09975-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2022] [Revised: 05/17/2023] [Accepted: 05/28/2023] [Indexed: 07/20/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the oncological and perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) and percutaneous thermal ablation (PTA) for treatment of T1 renal cell cancer (RCC) in patients older than 75 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS Retrospective national multicenter study included all patients older than 75 years treated for a T1 RCC by RPN or PTA between January 2010 and January 2021. Patients' characteristics, tumor data, and perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared. RESULTS A total of 205 patients for 209 procedures (143 RPN and 66 PTA) were included. In the PTA group, patients were older (80.4 ± 3.7 vs. 79 ± 3.7 years (p = 0.01)); frailer (ASA score (2.43 ± 0.6 vs. 2.17 ± 0.6 (p < 0.01)); and more frequently had a history of kidney surgery (16.7% [11/66] vs. 5.6% [8/143] (p = 0.01)) than in the RPN group. Tumors were larger in the RPN group (2.7 ± 0.7 vs. 3.2 ± 0.9 cm (p < 0.01)). Operation time, length of hospital stay, and increase of creatinine serum level were higher in RPN (respectively 92.1 ± 42.7 vs. 150.7 ± 61.3 min (p < 0.01); 1.7 ± 1.4 vs. 4.2 ± 3.4 days (p < 0.01); 1.9 ± 19.3% vs. 10.1 ± 23.7 (p = 0.03)). Disease-free survival and time to progression were similar (respectively, HR 2.2; 95% CI 0.88-5.5; p = 0.09; HR 2.1; 95% CI 0.86-5.2; p = 0.1). Overall survival was shorter for PTA that disappeared after Cox adjusting model (HR 3.3; 95% CI 0.87-12.72; p = 0.08). CONCLUSION Similar oncological outcomes are observed after PTA and RPN for T1 RCC in elderly patients. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and percutaneous thermal ablation have similar oncological outcomes for T1a kidney cancer in patients over 75 years; however, operative time, decrease in renal function, and length of hospital stay were lower with ablation. KEY POINTS • After adjusting model for age and ASA score, similar oncological outcomes are observed after percutaneous thermal ablation and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for T1 renal cell cancer in elderly patients. • Operation time, length of hospital stay, and increase of creatinine serum level were higher in the robot-assisted partial nephrectomy group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raphaël Lehrer
- Department of Radiology, Sorbonne Université, AP-HP, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
| | - Francois Cornelis
- Radiology Department, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
- French Research Network on Kidney Cancer UroCCR, Bordeaux, France
| | - Jean-Christophe Bernhard
- French Research Network on Kidney Cancer UroCCR, Bordeaux, France
- Department of Urology, Hôpital Pellegrin, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France
| | - Pierre Bigot
- French Research Network on Kidney Cancer UroCCR, Bordeaux, France
- Department of Urology, Angers University Hospital, Angers, France
| | - Cécile Champy
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Henri Mondor, AP-HP, Créteil, France
- INSERM, U1430, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, 94000, Creteil, France
| | - Franck Bruyère
- French Research Network on Kidney Cancer UroCCR, Bordeaux, France
- Department of Urology, Tours University Hospital, Tours, France
| | - Morgan Rouprêt
- French Research Network on Kidney Cancer UroCCR, Bordeaux, France
- Department of Urology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne University, AP-HP, Paris, France
| | - Nicolas Doumerc
- French Research Network on Kidney Cancer UroCCR, Bordeaux, France
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Rangueil, Toulouse, France
| | - Charles-Karim Bensalah
- French Research Network on Kidney Cancer UroCCR, Bordeaux, France
- Department of Urology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France
| | | | - François Audenet
- French Research Network on Kidney Cancer UroCCR, Bordeaux, France
- Department of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP, Paris, France
| | | | - Bastien Parier
- Department of Urology, Bicêtre University Hospital, AP-HP, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
| | - Xavier Durand
- Department of Urology, Paris Saint-Joseph Hospital, Paris, France
| | - Matthieu Durand
- Department of Urology, Hôpital Pasteur 2, Nice, France
- INSERM U1081 - CNRS, UMR 7284, Université de Nice Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
| | - Thomas Charles
- French Research Network on Kidney Cancer UroCCR, Bordeaux, France
- Department of Urology, Poitiers University Hospital, Poitiers, France
| | - Nicolas Branger
- Department of Urology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Centre, Marseille, France
| | - Louis Surlemont
- Department of Urology, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France
| | - Evanguelos Xylinas
- French Research Network on Kidney Cancer UroCCR, Bordeaux, France
- Department of Urology, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France
| | - Jean-Baptiste Beauval
- French Research Network on Kidney Cancer UroCCR, Bordeaux, France
- Department of Urology, Grenoble University Hospital, Grenoble, France
| | - Matthias Barral
- Department of Radiology, Sorbonne Université, AP-HP, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France.
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
- Service d'Imagerie Radiologiques et Interventionnelles Spécialisées, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, AP-HP, 4 rue de la chine, 75020, Paris, France.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cardarelli-Leite L, Liu DM. When Ice Hurts. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:1048-1049. [PMID: 37980135 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.08.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2023] [Revised: 08/14/2023] [Accepted: 08/15/2023] [Indexed: 11/20/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | - David M Liu
- Division of Interventional Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Conroy S, Catto JWF, Bex A, Brown JE, Cartledge J, Fielding A, Jones RJ, Khoo V, Nicol D, Stewart GD, Sullivan M, Tran MGB, Woodward R, Cumberbatch MG. Diagnosis, treatment, and survival from kidney cancer: real-world National Health Service England data between 2013 and 2019. BJU Int 2023; 132:541-553. [PMID: 37436368 DOI: 10.1111/bju.16128] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To report the NHS Digital (NHSD) data for patients diagnosed with kidney cancer (KC) in England. We explore the incidence, route to diagnosis (RTD), treatment, and survival patterns from 2013 to 2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data was extracted from the Cancer Data NHSD portal for International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition coded KC; this included Cancer Registry data, Hospital Episode Statistics, and cancer waiting times data. RESULTS Registrations included 66 696 individuals with KC. Incidence of new KC diagnoses increased (8998 in 2013, to 10 232 in 2019), but the age-standardised rates were stable (18.7-19.4/100 000 population). Almost half of patients (30 340 [45.5%]) were aged 0-70 years and the cohort were most frequently diagnosed with Stage 1-2 KC (n = 26 297 [39.4%]). Most patients were diagnosed through non-urgent general practitioner referrals (n = 16 814 [30.4%]), followed by 2-week-wait (n = 15 472 [28.0%]) and emergency routes (n = 11 796 [21.3%]), with older patients (aged ≥70 years), Stage 4 KCs, and patients with non-specified renal cell carcinoma being significantly more likely to present through the emergency route (all P < 0.001). Invasive treatment (surgery or ablation), radiotherapy, or systemic anti-cancer therapy use varied with disease stage, patient factors, and treatment network (Cancer Alliance). Survival outcomes differed by Stage, histological subtype, and social deprivation class (P < 0.001). Age-standardised mortality rates did not change over the study duration, although immunotherapy usage is likely not captured in this study timeline. CONCLUSION The NHSD resource provides useful insight about the incidence, diagnostic pathways, treatment, and survival of patients with KC in England and a useful benchmark for the upcoming commissioned National Kidney Cancer Audit. The RTD data may be limited by incidental diagnoses, which could confound the high proportion of 'emergency' diagnoses. Importantly, survival outcomes remained relatively unchanged.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samantha Conroy
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
- Academic Unit of Urology, Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| | - James W F Catto
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
- Academic Unit of Urology, Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| | - Axel Bex
- Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, Specialist Centre for Kidney Cancer, London, UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Janet E Brown
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
- Academic Unit of Clinical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Alison Fielding
- Bladder and Renal Cancer Clinical Studies Group, National Cancer Research Institute, London, UK
| | - Rob J Jones
- Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Vincent Khoo
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - David Nicol
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Grant D Stewart
- Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Mark Sullivan
- Department of Urology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
- University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Maxine G B Tran
- Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, Specialist Centre for Kidney Cancer, London, UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rose Woodward
- Action Kidney Cancer, Manchester, UK
- International Kidney Cancer Coalition, UK
| | - Marcus G Cumberbatch
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
- Academic Unit of Urology, Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ali SN, Tano Z, Landman J. The Changing Role of Renal Mass Biopsy. Urol Clin North Am 2023; 50:217-225. [PMID: 36948668 DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2023.01.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/22/2023]
Abstract
The incidence and prevalence of small renal masses (SRMs) continues to rise and with increased detection comes increases in surgical management, although the probability of an SRM being benign is upward of 30%. An extirpative treatment first diagnose-later strategy persists and clinical tools for risk stratification such as renal mass biopsy remain severely underutilized. The overtreatment of SRMs has multiple detrimental effects including surgical complications, psychosocial stress, financial loss, and reduced renal function leading to downstream effects such as the need for dialysis and cardiovascular disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Zachary Tano
- Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Jaime Landman
- Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Diagnosis and Treatment of Small Renal Masses: Where Do We Stand? Curr Urol Rep 2022; 23:99-111. [PMID: 35507213 DOI: 10.1007/s11934-022-01093-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/03/2022] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW To present an overview of the current evidence-based studies covering diagnostic and management of SRM. RECENT FINDINGS Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) represents 3% of the cancers. Nowadays, partial nephrectomy (PN) represents gold standard treatment. New nephron-sparing approaches such as active surveillance and ablative therapies have been increasingly used as an alternative to surgical intervention. Due to novel comprehension of RCC and widespread use of imaging techniques, diagnosis at early stage in elderly patients has increased. Treatment decision-making should be based on patient and tumour characteristics. With expanding treatment options, the management of SRMs has become a debate and should be adjusted to patient and tumour characteristics. In a shared decision manner, both active surveillance with possible delayed intervention and focal therapy should be discussed with the patient as an alternative to partial nephrectomy.
Collapse
|
9
|
Michael J, Velazquez N, Renson A, Tan HJ, Rose TL, Osterman CK, Milowsky M, Kang SK, Huang WC, Bjurlin MA. Does histologic subtype impact overall survival in observed T1a kidney cancers compared with competing risks? Implications for biopsy as a risk stratification tool. Int J Urol 2022; 29:845-851. [PMID: 35474518 DOI: 10.1111/iju.14910] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2021] [Accepted: 04/10/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We sought to assess if adding a biopsy proven histologic subtype to a model that predicts overall survival that includes variables representing competing risks in observed, biopsy proven, T1a renal cell carcinomas, enhances the model's performance. METHODS The National Cancer Database was assessed (years 2004-2015) for patients with observed T1a renal cell carcinoma who had undergone renal mass biopsy. Kaplan-Meier curves were utilized to estimate overall survival stratified by histologic subtype. We utilized C-index from a Cox proportional hazards model to evaluate the impact of adding histologic subtypes to a model to predict overall survival for each stage. RESULTS Of 132 958 T1a renal masses identified, 1614 had biopsy proven histology and were managed non-operatively. Of those, 61% were clear cell, 33% papillary, and 6% chromophobe. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated a difference in overall survival between histologic subtypes (P = 0.010) with greater median overall survival for patients with chromophobe (85.1 months, hazard rate 0.45, P = 0.005) compared to clear cell (64.8 months, reference group). Adding histology to a model with competing risks alone did not substantially improve model performance (C-index 0.65 vs 0.64 respectively). CONCLUSIONS Incorporation of histologic subtype into a risk stratification model to determine prognostic overall survival did not improve modeling of overall survival compared with variables representing competing risks in patients with T1a renal cell carcinoma managed with observation. These results suggest that performing renal mass biopsy in order to obtain tumor histology may have limited utility. Future studies should further investigate the overall utility of renal mass biopsy for observed T1a kidney cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Michael
- School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Nermarie Velazquez
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Health, New York City, New York, USA
| | - Audrey Renson
- Department of Clinical Research, NYU Langone Hospital - Brooklyn, Brooklyn, New York, USA
| | - Hung-Jui Tan
- Department of Urology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Tracy L Rose
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Chelsea K Osterman
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Matthew Milowsky
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Stella K Kang
- Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York City, New York, USA.,Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York City, New York, USA
| | - William C Huang
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Health, New York City, New York, USA
| | - Marc A Bjurlin
- Department of Urology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Numakura K, Nakai Y, Kojima T, Osawa T, Narita S, Nakayama M, Kitamura H, Nishiyama H, Shinohara N. Overview of clinical management for older patients with renal cell carcinoma. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2022; 52:665-681. [PMID: 35397166 DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyac047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2021] [Accepted: 03/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
The rapidly increasing pool of older patients being diagnosed with and surviving their cancer is creating many challenges. Regarding localized renal cell carcinoma, surgery is considered as gold standard treatment options even in older men, whereas active surveillance and ablation therapy are alternative options for a proportion of these patients. With regard to advanced disease, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKI) and immune check point inhibitor are standard treatment modalities, although treatment choice from multiple regimens and prevention of adverse events need to be considered. Better assessment techniques, such as comprehensive geriatric assessment to meet the unique needs of older patients, are a central focus in the delivery of high-quality geriatric oncology care. Through this process, shared decision-making should be adopted in clinical care to achieve optimal goals of care that reflect patient and caregiver hopes, needs and preferences. It is necessary to continue investigating oncological outcomes and complications associated with treatment in this population to ensure appropriate cancer care. In this narrative review, we completed a literature review of the various treatments for renal cell carcinoma in older patients that aimed to identify the current evidence related to the full range of the treatments including active surveillance, surgery, ablation therapy and systemic therapy. Prospectively designed studies and studies regarding geriatric assessment were preferentially added as references. Our goals were to summarize the real-world evidence and provide a decision framework that guides better cancer practices for older patients with renal cell carcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Yasutomo Nakai
- Department of Urology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Japan
| | | | - Takahiro Osawa
- Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan
| | | | - Masashi Nakayama
- Department of Urology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Kitamura
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toyama, Toyama, Japan
| | | | - Nobuo Shinohara
- Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Horsbøl TA, Dalton SO, Christensen J, Petersen AC, Azawi N, Donskov F, Holm ML, Nørgaard M, Lund L. Impact of comorbidity on renal cell carcinoma prognosis: a nationwide cohort study. Acta Oncol 2022; 61:58-63. [PMID: 34807805 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2021.2005255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Presence of comorbid diseases at time of cancer diagnosis may affect prognosis. We evaluated the impact of comorbidity on survival of patients diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), overall and among younger (<70 years) and older (≥70 years) patients. METHODS We established a nationwide register-based cohort of 7894 patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with RCC in Denmark between 2006 and 2017. We computed 1- and 5-year overall survival and hazard ratios (HRs) for death according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score. RESULTS Survival decreased with increasing CCI score despite an overall increase in survival over time. The 5-year survival rate of patients with no comorbidity increased from 57% among those diagnosed in 2006-2008 to 69% among those diagnosed in 2012-2014. During the same periods, the survival rate increased from 46% to 62% among patients with a CCI score of 1-2 and from 39% to 44% for those with a CCI score of ≥3. Patients with CCI scores of 1-2 and ≥3 had higher mortality rates than patients with no registered comorbidity (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06-1.24 and HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.40-1.73). Patterns were similar for older and younger patients. Particularly, diagnoses of liver disease (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.53-2.84 and HR 4.01, 95% CI 2.44-6.56) and dementia (HR 2.16, 95% CI 1.34-3.48) increased mortality. CONCLUSION Comorbidity decreased the survival of patients with RCC, irrespective of age, despite an overall increasing survival over time. These results highlight the importance of focusing on comorbidity in this group of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T. A. Horsbøl
- Survivorship & Inequality in Cancer, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark
- National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - S. O. Dalton
- Survivorship & Inequality in Cancer, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Danish Research Center for Equality in Cancer (COMPAS), Department for Clinical Oncology & Palliative Care, Zealand University Hospital, Naestved, Denmark
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - J. Christensen
- Statistics and Data Analysis, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - A. C. Petersen
- Department of Pathology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - N. Azawi
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Urology, Zealand University hospital, Roskilde, Denmark
| | - F. Donskov
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - M. L. Holm
- Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - M. Nørgaard
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - L. Lund
- Department of Urology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Academy of Geriatric Cancer Research (AgeCare), Odense, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Psutka SP, Gulati R, Jewett MAS, Fadaak K, Finelli A, Legere L, Morgan TM, Pierorazio PM, Allaf ME, Herrin J, Lohse CM, Houston Thompson R, Boorjian SA, Atwell TD, Schmit GD, Costello BA, Shah ND, Leibovich BC. A Clinical Decision Aid to Support Personalized Treatment Selection for Patients with Clinical T1 Renal Masses: Results from a Multi-institutional Competing-risks Analysis. Eur Urol 2021; 81:576-585. [PMID: 34862099 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.11.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2021] [Revised: 09/28/2021] [Accepted: 11/01/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Personalized treatment for clinical T1 renal cortical masses (RCMs) should take into account competing risks related to tumor and patient characteristics. OBJECTIVE To develop treatment-specific prediction models for cancer-specific mortality (CSM), other-cause mortality (OCM), and 90-d Clavien grade ≥3 complications across radical nephrectomy (RN), partial nephrectomy (PN), thermal ablation (TA), and active surveillance (AS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Pretreatment clinical and radiological features were collected for consecutive adult patients treated with initial RN, PN, TA, or AS for RCMs at four high-volume referral centers (2000-2019). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Prediction models used competing-risks regression for CSM and OCM and logistic regression for 90-d Clavien grade ≥3 complications. Performance was assessed using bootstrap validation. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The cohort comprised 5300 patients treated with RN (n = 1277), PN (n = 2967), TA (n = 476), or AS (n = 580). Over median follow-up of 5.2 yr (interquartile range 2.5-8.7), there were 117 CSM, 607 OCM, and 198 complication events. The C index for the predictive models was 0.80 for CSM, 0.77 for OCM, and 0.64 for complications. Predictions from the fitted models are provided in an online calculator (https://small-renal-mass-risk-calculator.fredhutch.org). To illustrate, a hypothetical 74-yr-old male with a 4.5-cm RCM, body mass index of 32 kg/m2, estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 ml/min, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 3, and Charlson comorbidity index of 3 has predicted 5-yr CSM of 2.9-5.6% across treatments, but 5-yr OCM of 29% and risk of 90-d Clavien grade 3-5 complications of 1.9% for RN, 5.8% for PN, and 3.6% for TA. Limitations include selection bias, heterogeneity in practice across treatment sites and the study time period, and lack of control for surgeon/hospital volume. CONCLUSIONS We present a risk calculator incorporating pretreatment features to estimate treatment-specific competing risks of mortality and complications for use during shared decision-making and personalized treatment selection for RCMs. PATIENT SUMMARY We present a risk calculator that generates personalized estimates of the risks of death from cancer or other causes and of complications for surgical, ablation, and surveillance treatment options for patients with stage 1 kidney tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah P Psutka
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
| | - Roman Gulati
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Michael A S Jewett
- Departments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center and University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Kamel Fadaak
- Department of Urology, King Fahd Hospital of the University, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
| | - Antonio Finelli
- Departments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center and University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Laura Legere
- Departments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center and University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Todd M Morgan
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Phillip M Pierorazio
- Department of Urology, Brady Urological Institute, Department of Urology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Mohamad E Allaf
- Department of Urology, Brady Urological Institute, Department of Urology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Jeph Herrin
- Division of Cardiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Health Research & Educational Trust, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Christine M Lohse
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | | | | | - Grant D Schmit
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Nilay D Shah
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Violette PD, Jewett MAS, Richard PO. Evidence-based Urology: Trustworthy Guidelines. Eur Urol Focus 2021; 7:1243-1246. [PMID: 34794933 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.10.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2021] [Accepted: 10/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Clinical guidelines for guiding clinical decision-making must be trustworthy, especially when there is controversy or a shifting paradigm. In urology, the management of small renal masses is one area in which there is currently a paradigm shift towards active surveillance. A number of international guidelines address this paradigm shift to some extent, with varying degrees of rigor. To be trustworthy, guidelines should be developed by panels that include content experts - the traditional panel members - as well as methodologists with expertise in evidence interpretation, front-line clinicians who take care of the patients who constitute the target audience, and patient partners. At a minimum, panels should integrate four key concepts: (1) guidelines provide a systematic summary of evidence used to support answerable questions, including assessment of the quality of the evidence; (2) there is a clear and transparent link between the evidence and recommendations; (3) recommendations incorporate patient values and preferences; and (4) conflicts of interest are managed optimally. In this article we address several issues in four international guidelines, with an emphasis on guideline methods and implications for guidance statements. The strengths and limitations of available recommendations are reviewed and summarized with suggestions for improving the next iterations of guidelines on the management of small renal masses. PATIENT SUMMARY: Good clinical decision-making relies on trustworthy guidelines. We assessed four international guidelines on the management of small kidney tumors that illustrate some of the key issues in developing a trustworthy guideline. Patient values and preferences are under-represented in most clinical guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philippe D Violette
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; Department of Surgery, Woodstock General Hospital, Woodstock, Canada.
| | - Michael A S Jewett
- Departments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, University Health Network and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Patrick O Richard
- Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke and Centre de Recherche du CHUS, Sherbrooke, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Disease Progression in Older Patients With Renal Tumor Assigned to an Active Surveillance Protocol. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2021; 20:e53-e60. [PMID: 34815184 DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2021.09.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2021] [Revised: 09/20/2021] [Accepted: 09/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Active surveillance (AS) is a validated option for the treatment of small renal masses (SMRs), especially in older patients. This study investigates the oncologic outcomes and competitive mortality of older patients prospectively assigned to AS. METHODS We conducted a monocentric study on patients ≥75 years treated between 2011 and 2016 for a SMR. Treatment modalities, biopsy data, survivals (overall, specific, cancer progression) and delayed interventions were analyzed. RESULTS Overall, 106 patients (median age 80.5 years) were included, of which 41 were managed by AS during a follow-up of 3.4 years [0-7.1]. Seven patients (17%) had a primary biopsy with 3 confirmed renal cell carcinomas. Fourteen patients (34.1%) presented with progression (29.2% local; 4.9% metastatic), 8 (19.5%) requiring delayed interventions (75% ablative therapy and 25% radical nephrectomy). Overall survival (OS) was 68.3% and cancer specific survival was 95.1% during the study period. Competitive mortality was higher (84.6%) than cancer specific mortality (15.4%), P = .001. CONCLUSION The growth rate of progression including 4.9% metastatic progression underlines the value of AS compared to simple watchful surveillance in the treatment of SMRs in older patients. Of note, the higher competitive mortality confirm that AS should be preferred to active intervention at the beginning of the management.
Collapse
|
15
|
Fragkiadis E, Alamanis C, Constantinides CA, Mitropoulos D. Prediction of post radical nephrectomy complications based on patient comorbidity preoperatively. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2021; 93:251-254. [PMID: 34839625 DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2021.3.251] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2021] [Accepted: 08/22/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Comorbidity along with tumor and patient characteristics is taken into account when deciding for the surgical treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Comorbidity has also been used as an independent predictive factor for postoperative complications of several major urological procedures including radical nephrectomy for RCC. The aim of the present study was to objectively evaluate the association between comorbidity and postoperative complications after radical nephrectomy for RCC, using standardized systems to grade both comorbidity and severity of postoperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS Clinicopathological data of 171 patients undergoing open radical nephrectomy for lesions suspected of RCC were prospectively recorded for a period of 3 years. Comorbidity was scored using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) while postoperative complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo system. RESULTS Patients were predominantly males (59.1%); their age ranged from 35 to 88 years (mean ± SD: 63.6 ± 11.9 yrs) with 50.8% of them being ≤ 65 yrs. CCI ranged from 0 to 8 with the majority (85.3%) scoring ≤ 2. The procedure was uncomplicated in 57.3% cases; 10 patients suffered major (grade III/IV) complications and 4 patients died within the 40 days postoperative period. CCI correlated with the manifestation of any postoperative complication, Clavien ≥ 1, OR (95% CI): 1.47 (1.09-1.96), p = 0.011 and the occurrence of severe complications, Clavien > 2. OR (95% CI): 1.29 (1.01-1.63), p = 0.038. CONCLUSIONS The present prospective study showed that considerable complications occur in patients with major comorbidities. CCI is easily calculated and should be incorporated in preoperative consultation especially in cases of elder patients with severe comorbidity and favorable tumor characteristics where less invasive interventions or even active surveillance could be applied.
Collapse
|
16
|
Yang C, Shuch B, Kluger HM, Serrano M, Kibel AS, Humphrey PA, Adeniran AJ. Adverse Histopathologic Characteristics in Small Papillary Renal Cell Carcinomas Have Minimal Impact on Prognosis. Am J Clin Pathol 2021; 156:550-558. [PMID: 34424955 DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqab015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Tumor size has long been used in the management decision-making of patients with renal masses. Active surveillance had recently gained traction in selected patients with tumor size of 4 cm or less. Adverse histopathologic characteristics in papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) have been shown to correlate with worse prognosis. We aimed to study whether such features in small PRCCs provide additional prognostic information. METHODS Nephrectomies from our institution were collected and reviewed to evaluate for adverse histopathologic features. Clinical follow-up information was collected for all cases. Relationships between the variables were examined by Wilcoxon test and logistic regression. RESULTS We identified 291 consecutive cases of PRCC. Adverse tumor histopathologic characteristics were significantly related to size. In PRCCs with size greater than 4 cm, there were more cases with high World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology grade and necrosis. Adverse histologic features are less commonly seen in small PRCC and are not associated with lower disease-free survival or disease-specific survival. CONCLUSIONS Identification of these features in small PRCCs (≤4 cm) through needle core biopsy examination would not provide additional prognostic information in patients for whom active surveillance is considered. Clinical and radiologic follow-up in patients with small renal masses that have a known histologic diagnosis of PRCC should be sufficient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chen Yang
- Department of Pathology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Brian Shuch
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Harriet M Kluger
- Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Medical Oncology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | | | - Adam S Kibel
- Department of Urology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Peter A Humphrey
- Department of Pathology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Li C, Han D, Huang Q, Xu F, Zheng S, Li X, Zhao F, Feng X, Lyu J. Competing-risks nomogram for predicting cancer-specific death in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a population-based analysis. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e048243. [PMID: 34281927 PMCID: PMC8291317 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048243] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to use a competing-risks model to establish a nomogram to accurately analyse the prognostic factors for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) cancer-specific death (CSD). DESIGN Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING The programme has yielded a database of all patients with cancer in 18 defined geographical regions of the USA. PARTICIPANTS We selected patients with UTUC from the latest edition of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 1975 to 2016. After excluding patients with unknown histological grade, tumour size and lymph node status, 2576 patients were finally selected. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES We used the Fine-Gray proportional subdistribution hazards model for multivariate analysis and compared the results with cause-specific hazards model. We finally constructed a nomogram for 3-year, 5-year and 8-year CSD rates and tested these rates in a validation cohort. RESULTS The proportional subdistribution hazards model showed that sex, tumour size, distant metastasis, surgery status, number of lymph nodes positive (LNP) and lymph nodes ratio (LNR) were independent prognostic factors for CSD. All significant factors associated with CSD were included in the nomogram. The 3-year, 5-year and 8-year concordance indexes were 0.719, 0.702 and 0.692 in the training cohort and 0.701, 0.675 and 0.668 in the validation cohort, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The competing-risks model showed that sex, tumour size, distant metastasis, surgery status, LNP and LNR were associated with CSD. The nomogram predicts the probability of CSD in patients with UTUC at 3, 5 and 8 years, which may help clinicians in predicting survival probabilities in individual patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chengzhuo Li
- Department of Clinical Research, Jinan University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Didi Han
- Department of Clinical Research, Jinan University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Qiao Huang
- Department of Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy, Wuhan University Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan, Hubei, China
| | - Fengshuo Xu
- Department of Clinical Research, Jinan University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Shuai Zheng
- Department of Clinical Research, Jinan University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Xianyang, China
| | - Xiang Li
- Xian Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Fanfan Zhao
- Department of Clinical Research, Jinan University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Xiaojie Feng
- Department of Clinical Research, Jinan University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Jun Lyu
- Department of Clinical Research, Jinan University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Remer EM. Invited Commentary: A Team Approach-Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Renal Cell Carcinoma. Radiographics 2021; 41:E153-E154. [PMID: 34270356 DOI: 10.1148/rg.2021210039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Erick M Remer
- From the Section of Abdominal Imaging, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, A21, Cleveland, OH 44195
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Li C, Xu F, Huang Q, Han D, Zheng S, Wu W, Zhao F, Feng X, Lyu J. Nomograms for Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma Patients Based on the Eighth AJCC Staging and Competing Risks Model. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2021; 5:pkab038. [PMID: 34159295 PMCID: PMC8211639 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkab038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2020] [Revised: 02/01/2021] [Accepted: 04/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) patients have a long survival period and good prognosis, so they are easily affected by competing risk events. The purpose of this study was to use the competing risks model to identify prognostic factors for cause-specific death (CSD) and death due to other causes (DOC) in patients with DTC. Methods Our screening process identified 34 585 DTC patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and randomly divided them into a training cohort and a validation cohort. We used the Fine and Gray subdistribution hazards model to establish the CSD and DOC nomograms. The distinguishing ability and consistency of the nomograms were evaluated using the consistency indexes and calibration plots. Results Our analysis of a competing risks model revealed that pathological grade, tumor size, histological type, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)-8 stage, surgery status, adjuvant radiotherapy status, adjuvant chemotherapy status, and log odds of positive lymph nodes are prognostic factors for CSD, and age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, sex, pathological grade, tumor size, AJCC-8 stage, surgery status, adjuvant radiotherapy status, and lymph node ratio are prognostic factors for DOC. The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year concordance indexes in the validation cohorts were 0.942, 0.931, and 0.913 for the CSD nomogram and 0.813, 0.746, and 0.776 for the DOC nomogram. The calibration plots showed good consistency in both nomograms. Conclusions Our nomograms can be used as a tool to help clinicians individually predict the probability of CSD and DOC in DTC patients at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years, which has certain guiding value in clinical applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chengzhuo Li
- Department of Clinical Research, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangdong Province, China
- School of Public Health, Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Fengshuo Xu
- Department of Clinical Research, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangdong Province, China
- School of Public Health, Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Qiao Huang
- Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Hubei Province, China
| | - Didi Han
- Department of Clinical Research, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangdong Province, China
- School of Public Health, Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Shuai Zheng
- Department of Clinical Research, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangdong Province, China
- School of Public Health, Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Wentao Wu
- School of Public Health, Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Fanfan Zhao
- Department of Clinical Research, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangdong Province, China
- School of Public Health, Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Xiaojie Feng
- Department of Clinical Research, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangdong Province, China
- School of Public Health, Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Jun Lyu
- Department of Clinical Research, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangdong Province, China
- School of Public Health, Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Shaanxi Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Howard JM, Nandy K, Woldu SL, Margulis V. Demographic Factors Associated With Non-Guideline-Based Treatment of Kidney Cancer in the United States. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e2112813. [PMID: 34106265 PMCID: PMC8190623 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.12813] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2020] [Accepted: 04/06/2021] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Importance Significant demographic disparities have been found to exist in the delivery of health care. Demographic factors associated with clinical decision-making in kidney cancer have not been thoroughly studied. Objective To determine whether demographic factors, including sex and race/ethnicity, are associated with receipt of non-guideline-based treatment for kidney cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the National Cancer Database for the years 2010 through 2017. Included patients were individuals aged 30 to 70 years with localized (ie, cT1-2, N0, M0) kidney cancer and no major medical comorbidities (ie, Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index score of 0 or 1) treated at Commission on Cancer-accredited health care institutions in the United States. Data were analyzed from November 2020 through March 2021. Exposures Demographic factors, including sex, race/ethnicity, and insurance status. Main Outcomes and Measures Receipt of non-guideline-based treatment (undertreatment or overtreatment) for kidney cancer, as defined by accepted clinical guidelines, was determined. Results Among 158 445 patients treated for localized kidney cancer, 99 563 (62.8%) were men, 120 001 individuals (75.7%) were White, and 91 218 individuals (57.6%) had private insurance. The median (interquartile range) age was 58 (50-64) years. Of the study population, 48 544 individuals (30.6%) received non-guideline-based treatment. Female sex was associated with lower adjusted odds of undertreatment (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88; P < .001) and higher adjusted odds of overtreatment (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.24-1.30; P < .001) compared with male sex. Compared with White patients, Black and Hispanic patients had higher adjusted odds of undertreatment (Black patients: OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.29-1.55; P < .001; Hispanic patients: OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.36; P = .004) and overtreatment (Black patients: OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.13; P < .001; Hispanic patients: OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11, P = .01). Individuals who were uninsured, compared with those who had insurance, had statistically significantly higher adjusted odds of undertreatment (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 2.29-3.01; P < .001) and lower adjusted odds of overtreatment (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance This study found that there were significant disparities in treatment decision-making for patients with kidney cancer, with increased rates of non-guideline-based treatment for women and Black and Hispanic patients. These findings suggest that further research into the mechanisms underlying these disparities is warranted and that clinical and policy decision-making should take these disparities into account.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey M. Howard
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
| | - Karabi Nandy
- Department of Population and Data Sciences, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
| | - Solomon L. Woldu
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
| | - Vitaly Margulis
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Wang Z, Wang J, Zhu Y, Liu C, Li X, Zeng X. Cause-Specific Mortality Among Survivors From T1N0M0 Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Registry-Based Cohort Study. Front Oncol 2021; 11:604724. [PMID: 33777747 PMCID: PMC7988093 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.604724] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2020] [Accepted: 02/01/2021] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective More T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is detected and the prognosis has improved, but, the current focus on non-RCC-related mortality is superficial. We investigated cause-specific mortality and its temporal patterns after an RCC diagnosis. Methods In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-18 database, patients with T1N0M0 RCC treated with partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) during 2000-15 were identified. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for cause of death were calculated. Risk predictors for each cause-specific mortality were investigated using the Fine and Gray sub-distribution model. Results In all, 68,612 eligible patients were pooled. A total of 14,047 (20.5%) patients had died (cardiovascular disease [CVD], 28.3%; other non-cancer-related diseases, 20.3%; RCC, 18.7%; other cancer types, 16.3%; non-disease events, 16.1%) during follow-up. Heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and cerebrovascular disease were the primary causes of non-RCC-related mortality within 1 year after the diagnosis. The greatest proportion of death (39.0%) occurred within 1-5 years after the diagnosis, mostly due to RCC itself, followed by heart disease. However, >5 years after the diagnosis, heart disease became the leading cause of death. Compared with the general US population, a 21% (SMR, 1.21; 95%CI 1.19-1.23) increased risk of all-mortality was observed; RCC patients had a higher risk of heart disease-related death within 5-10 years (SMR, 1.10; 95%CI 1.04-1.17) and >10 years (1.12; 1.02-1.22) after the diagnosis. Older age and RN increased the death risk of CVD and RCC-specific mortality. Although a larger tumor diameter increased the risk of RCC-specific death, this was not a significant predictor for CVD. Moreover, for T1N0M0 RCC tumors of diameter >4 cm, there was no significant difference in CVD incidence for RN vs. PN. Conclusions RCC-specific mortality is a common challenge for the prognosis. Importantly, a large proportion and higher SMRs of other non-RCC-related diseases (especially CVD) should not be disregarded for the better holistic management of survivors of local RCC. Targeted prevention strategies for non-RCC-related death could lead to significant reductions in mortality for RCC survivors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhixian Wang
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Jing Wang
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Yunpeng Zhu
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Chang Liu
- Department of General Medical, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Xing Li
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Xiaoyong Zeng
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.,Institute of Urology of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
McAlpine K, Finelli A. Natural history of untreated kidney cancer. World J Urol 2021; 39:2825-2829. [PMID: 33591379 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03578-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2020] [Accepted: 12/19/2020] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Kristen McAlpine
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Antonio Finelli
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Chandrasekar T, Boorjian SA, Capitanio U, Gershman B, Mir MC, Kutikov A. Collaborative Review: Factors Influencing Treatment Decisions for Patients with a Localized Solid Renal Mass. Eur Urol 2021; 80:575-588. [PMID: 33558091 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.01.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2020] [Accepted: 01/15/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT With the addition of active surveillance and thermal ablation (TA) to the urologist's established repertoire of partial (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) as first-line management options for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), appropriate treatment decision-making has become increasingly nuanced. OBJECTIVE To critically review the treatment options for localized, nonrecurrent RCC; to highlight the patient, renal function, tumor, and provider factors that influence treatment decisions; and to provide a framework to conceptualize that decision-making process. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A collaborative critical review of the medical literature was conducted. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS We identify three key decision points when managing localized RCC: (1) decision for surveillance versus treatment, (2) decision regarding treatment modality (TA, PN, or RN), and (3) decision on surgical approach (open vs minimally invasive). In evaluating factors that influence these treatment decisions, we elaborate on patient, renal function, tumor, and provider factors that either directly or indirectly impact each decision point. As current nomograms, based on preselected patient datasets, perform poorly in prospective settings, these tools should be used with caution. Patient decision aids are an underutilized tool in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS Localized RCC requires highly nuanced treatment decision-making, balancing patient- and tumor-specific clinical variables against indirect structural influences to provide optimal patient care. PATIENT SUMMARY With expanding treatment options for localized kidney cancer, treatment decision is highly nuanced and requires shared decision-making. Patient decision aids may be helpful in the treatment discussion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thenappan Chandrasekar
- Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | | | - Umberto Capitanio
- Unit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute (URI), IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Boris Gershman
- Division of Urologic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Maria Carmen Mir
- Department of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain
| | - Alexander Kutikov
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Mo X, Zhou M, Yan H, Chen X, Wang Y. Competing risk analysis of cardiovascular/cerebrovascular death in T1/2 kidney cancer: a SEER database analysis. BMC Cancer 2021; 21:13. [PMID: 33402111 PMCID: PMC7786899 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07718-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2020] [Accepted: 12/08/2020] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Kidney cancer (KC) is associated with cardiovascular regulation disorder and easily leads to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular death (CCD), which is one of the major causes of death in patients with KC, especially those with T1/2 status. However, few studies have treated CCD as an independent outcome for analysis. We aimed to identify and evaluate the key factors associated with CCD in patients with T1/2 KC by competing risk analysis and compared these risk factors with those associated with kidney cancer-specific death (KCD) to offer some information for clinical management. Methods A total of 45,117 patients diagnosed with first primary KC in T1/2 status were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. All patients were divided into the CCD group (n = 3087), KCD group (n = 3212), other events group (n = 6312) or alive group (n = 32,506). Patients’ characteristics were estimated for their association with CCD or KCD by a competing risk model. Pearson’s correlation coefficient and variance inflation factor (VIF) were used to detect collinearity between variables. Factors significantly correlated with CCD or KCD were used to create forest plots to compare their differences. Results The competing risk analysis showed that age at diagnosis, race, AJCC T/N status, radiation therapy, chemotherapy and scope of lymph node represented different relationships to CCD than to KCD. In detail, age at diagnosis (over 74/1–50: HR = 9.525, 95% CI: 8.049–11.273), race (white/black: HR = 1.475, 95% CI: 1.334–1.632), AJCC T status (T2/T1: HR = 0.847, 95% CI: 0.758–0.946) and chemotherapy (received/unreceived: HR = 0.574, 95% CI: 0.347–0.949) were correlated significantly with CCD; age at diagnosis (over 74/1–50: HR = 3.205, 95% CI: 2.814–3.650), AJCC T/N status (T2/T1: HR = 2.259, 95% CI: 2.081–2.451 and N1/N0:HR = 3.347, 95% CI: 2.698–4.152), radiation therapy (received/unreceived: HR = 2.552, 95% CI: 1.946–3.346), chemotherapy (received/unreceived: HR = 2.896, 95% CI: 2.342–3.581) and scope of lymph nodes (1–3 regional lymph nodes removed/none: HR = 1.378, 95% CI: 1.206–1.575) were correlated significantly with KCD. Conclusions We found that age at diagnosis, race, AJCC T status and chemotherapy as the independent risk factors associated with CCD were different from those associated with KCD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaofei Mo
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, 213003, Jiangsu, China.,Changzhou Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Changzhou, 213003, Jiangsu, China
| | - Mingge Zhou
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, 213003, Jiangsu, China.,Changzhou Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Changzhou, 213003, Jiangsu, China
| | - Hui Yan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, 213003, Jiangsu, China.,Changzhou Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Changzhou, 213003, Jiangsu, China
| | - Xueqin Chen
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, 213003, Jiangsu, China.,Changzhou Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Changzhou, 213003, Jiangsu, China
| | - Yuetao Wang
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, 213003, Jiangsu, China. .,Changzhou Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Changzhou, 213003, Jiangsu, China.
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Campi R, Sessa F, Corti F, Carrion DM, Mari A, Amparore D, Mir MC, Fiori C, Papalia R, Kutikov A, Volpe A, Capitanio U, Pierorazio PM, Scarpa RM, Porpiglia F, Minervini A, Serni S, Esperto F. Triggers for delayed intervention in patients with small renal masses undergoing active surveillance: a systematic review. MINERVA UROL NEFROL 2021; 72:389-407. [PMID: 32734748 DOI: 10.23736/s0393-2249.20.03870-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Patients with small renal masses (SRM) can be exposed to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. As such, active surveillance (AS) is recommended by all Guidelines for selected patients. However, it remains underutilized. One key reason is the lack of consensus on the factors prompting delayed intervention (DI). Herein we provide an updated overview of the triggers for DI in patients with SRMs initially undergoing AS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic review of the English-language literature was performed according to the PRISMA statement recommendations using the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Overall, 10 prospective studies including 1870 patients were included. Median patient age ranged between 64 and 75 years, while median tumor size between 1.7 cm to 2.3 cm. The proportion of cystic SRMs ranged from 0% to 30%. Baseline renal tumor biopsy was performed in 7-45.2% of patients. Among these, malignant histology was found in 28.5%-83.3% of cases. Overall, the median growth rate of SRMs ranged between 0.10 and 0.27 cm/year. The proportion of patients undergoing DI ranged between 7% and 44%, after a median AS period of 12-27 months. The most commonly performed type of DI was surgery. Of resected SRMs, 0% to 30% were benign. The actual triggers for DI were either tumor-related (renal mass growth, stage progression, development of local complications/symptoms) or patient-related (patient preference, improved medical conditions, or qualification for other surgical procedures). At a median follow-up of 21.7 - 57-6 months, the proportion of patients experiencing metastatic disease, cancer-specific and other-cause mortality was 0-3.1%, 0-4% and 0-45.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The available evidence shows that both tumor-related and patient-related factors are ultimate triggers for DI in patients with SRMs undergoing AS. However, the level of evidence is still low and further research is needed to individualize AS strategies according to both tumor biology and patient-related characteristics and values.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Riccardo Campi
- Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy - .,Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy - .,European Society of Residents in Urology (ESRU), Arnhem, the Netherlands -
| | - Francesco Sessa
- Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.,Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Francesco Corti
- Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Diego M Carrion
- European Society of Residents in Urology (ESRU), Arnhem, the Netherlands.,Department of Urology, La Paz University Hospital, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | - Andrea Mari
- Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.,Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Daniele Amparore
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Maria C Mir
- Department of Urology, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain
| | - Cristian Fiori
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Rocco Papalia
- Department of Urology, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy
| | - Alexander Kutikov
- Division of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Alessandro Volpe
- Department of Urology, University of Eastern Piedmont, Maggiore della Carità Hospital, Novara, Italy
| | - Umberto Capitanio
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Unit of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Phillip M Pierorazio
- Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Roberto M Scarpa
- Department of Urology, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy
| | - Francesco Porpiglia
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Andrea Minervini
- Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.,Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Sergio Serni
- Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.,Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Francesco Esperto
- European Society of Residents in Urology (ESRU), Arnhem, the Netherlands.,Department of Urology, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Nielsen TK, Vedel PF, Borgbjerg J, Andersen G, Borre M. Renal cryoablation: five- and 10-year survival outcomes in patients with biopsy-proven renal cell carcinoma. Scand J Urol 2020; 54:408-412. [PMID: 32700594 DOI: 10.1080/21681805.2020.1794954] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the long-term oncological efficacy of renal cryoablation (CA) of small renal tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS A review of patients treated with CA for a biopsy confirmed renal cell carcinoma less than 4 cm in diameter. All patients were identified from a prospectively maintained clinical database. Treatment efficacy was computed using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival rates (OS). RESULTS A total of 179 patients (116 men and 63 women) with a mean age of 64 years (95% CI = 63 - 66) were included in the analysis. Mean tumor size was 27 mm (95% CI = 25.5-28.0) with a low, moderate and high PADUA complexity score in 30.2%, 44.7% and 16.2% of the cases, respectively. A total of 19 patients (11%) were diagnosed with residual unablated tumor, six patients (3%) were diagnosed with late local recurrence and six patients (3%) were diagnosed with metastatic disease. The estimated 5 years image confirmed the DFS rate was 79% (95% CI = 70-85). The estimated 5- and 10-year OS rates were 82% (95% CI = 75-87) and 61% (95% CI = 48-71), respectively. During the 10-year follow-up period a total of five patients (3%) died due to renal cancer, while 46 patients (26%) died from other causes. CONCLUSIONS CA appears to be an effective treatment modality for patients with small renal tumors. The present study demonstrated low rates of local recurrence and disease progression with excellent long-term cancer-specific survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Jens Borgbjerg
- Department of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Gratien Andersen
- Department of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Michael Borre
- Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Chang EH, Tan HJ, Nielsen M. Management of small renal masses in patients with chronic kidney disease: Perspectives from a nephrologist. Urol Oncol 2019; 38:533-536. [PMID: 31889616 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.11.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2019] [Revised: 11/04/2019] [Accepted: 11/08/2019] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Emily H Chang
- Division of Nephrology, UNC Kidney Center, Chapel Hill, NC.
| | - Hung-Jui Tan
- Department of Urology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Matthew Nielsen
- Department of Urology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Mastroianni R, Brassetti A, Costantini M, Simone G. Predicting biological behaviour of newly diagnosed renal masses: a possible role of cell proliferation biomarkers? ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE 2019; 7:S143. [PMID: 31576350 DOI: 10.21037/atm.2019.06.22] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Aldo Brassetti
- Department of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Manuela Costantini
- Department of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Simone
- Department of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Adverse Histopathologic Characteristics in Small Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinomas Have Negative Impact on Prognosis. Am J Surg Pathol 2019; 43:1413-1420. [DOI: 10.1097/pas.0000000000001333] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
|
30
|
Guo RQ, Li XG. Comparison of survival benefits of nephron-sparing intervention or active surveillance for patients with localized renal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Urol 2019; 19:74. [PMID: 31382939 PMCID: PMC6683559 DOI: 10.1186/s12894-019-0503-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2019] [Accepted: 07/22/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Strong evidence comparing effectiveness between nephron-sparing intervention (NSI) and active surveillance (AS) is lacking. Thus, we aim to compare the outcomes of survival, including cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and cardiovascular-specific survival (CVSS), in patients with renal masses who underwent NSI or AS. Methods A systematic literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE was performed for citations published prior to September 2018 that described NSI, partial nephrectomy and thermal ablation included, and AS for patients with renal masses and a standard meta-analysis on survival outcomes was then conducted. Results The meta-analysis included seven studies containing 5809 patients. The results comparing NSI with AS were as follows: CSS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46–0.89, P < 0.001), OS (HR = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.39–0.53, P < 0.001), and CVSS (HR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.24–0.57, P < 0.001). Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that NSI is associated with better OS, CSS and CVSS when compared with AS for patients with renal masses. Further better prospective cohort studies are needed to make definitive statements about these different treatment methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Run-Qi Guo
- Minimally Invasive Tumor Therapies Center, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, No.1 Dongdan Dahua Street, Beijing, 100370, People's Republic of China
| | - Xiao-Guang Li
- Minimally Invasive Tumor Therapies Center, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, No.1 Dongdan Dahua Street, Beijing, 100370, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Kang SK, Huang WC, Elkin EB, Pandharipande PV, Braithwaite RS. Personalized Treatment for Small Renal Tumors: Decision Analysis of Competing Causes of Mortality. Radiology 2019; 290:732-743. [PMID: 30644815 PMCID: PMC6394736 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018181114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2018] [Revised: 11/21/2018] [Accepted: 11/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Purpose To compare the effectiveness of personalized treatment for small (≤4 cm) renal tumors versus routine partial nephrectomy (PN), accounting for various competing causes of mortality. Materials and Methods A state-transition microsimulation model was constructed to compare life expectancy of management strategies for small renal tumors by using 1 000 000 simulations in the following ways: routine PN or personalized treatment involving percutaneous ablation for risk factors for worsening chronic kidney disease (CKD), and otherwise PN; biopsy, with triage of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to PN or ablation depending on risk factors for worsening CKD; active surveillance for growth; and active surveillance when MRI findings are indicative of papillary RCC. Transition probabilities were incorporated from the literature. Effects of parameter variability were assessed in sensitivity analysis. Results In patients of all ages with normal renal function, routine PN yielded the longest life expectancy (eg, 0.67 years in 65-year-old men with nephrometry score [NS] of 4). Otherwise, personalized strategies extended life expectancy versus routine PN: in CKD stages 2 or 3a, moderate or high NS, and no comorbidities, MRI guidance for active surveillance extended life expectancy (eg, 2.60 years for MRI vs PN in CKD 3a, NS 10); and with Charlson comorbidity index of 1 or more, biopsy or active surveillance for growth extended life expectancy (eg, 2.70 years for surveillance for growth in CKD 3a, NS 10). CKD 3b was most effectively managed by using MRI to help predict papillary RCC for surveillance. Conclusion For patients with chronic kidney disease and small renal tumors, personalized treatment selection likely extends life expectancy. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stella K. Kang
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.K.K.), Population Health (S.K.K., R.S.B.), Urology (W.C.H.), and Medicine (R.S.B.), NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Ave, New York, NY 10016; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (E.B.E.); and Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (P.V.P.)
| | - William C. Huang
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.K.K.), Population Health (S.K.K., R.S.B.), Urology (W.C.H.), and Medicine (R.S.B.), NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Ave, New York, NY 10016; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (E.B.E.); and Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (P.V.P.)
| | - Elena B. Elkin
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.K.K.), Population Health (S.K.K., R.S.B.), Urology (W.C.H.), and Medicine (R.S.B.), NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Ave, New York, NY 10016; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (E.B.E.); and Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (P.V.P.)
| | - Pari V. Pandharipande
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.K.K.), Population Health (S.K.K., R.S.B.), Urology (W.C.H.), and Medicine (R.S.B.), NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Ave, New York, NY 10016; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (E.B.E.); and Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (P.V.P.)
| | - R. Scott Braithwaite
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.K.K.), Population Health (S.K.K., R.S.B.), Urology (W.C.H.), and Medicine (R.S.B.), NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Ave, New York, NY 10016; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (E.B.E.); and Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (P.V.P.)
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Organ-sparing procedures in GU cancer: part 1-organ-sparing procedures in renal and adrenal tumors: a systematic review. Int Urol Nephrol 2019; 51:377-393. [PMID: 30623290 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-018-02070-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2018] [Accepted: 12/27/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Organ-sparing surgery (OSS) for the kidney and adrenals has emerged as the need for preservation of function is paramount in patients with poor functional reserve. As reports increasingly showed that oncological outcomes were equivalent to radical excision, elective OSS became a viable alternative in patients with otherwise normal reserve. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of OSS for adrenal and renal tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library Central Search were searched for recently published articles up to December 2017. The following keywords were used; "partial adrenalectomy", "adrenal sparing", "partial nephrectomy", "nephron sparing", "kidney/renal cancer". RESULTS Partial adrenalectomy became an attractive alternative to total adrenalectomy avoiding adrenal insufficiency. Both minimally invasive surgery and ablative techniques were increasingly reported for adrenal OSS with adequate residual adrenal function and excellent oncological outcome. Radical nephrectomy remained for many years as the gold standard of treatment for organ-confined renal cell carcinoma. As the need to reduce the impact on renal function, more conservative approaches were utilized. Soon, the non-inferiority of nephron-sparing surgery to that of radical excision became evident and elective partial nephrectomy was gaining ground as the standard of care for small renal masses in patients with normal contralateral kidneys. CONCLUSIONS Herein, we present a comprehensive review of the current status of OSS in renal and adrenal tumors.
Collapse
|
33
|
Sanchez A, Feldman AS, Hakimi AA. Current Management of Small Renal Masses, Including Patient Selection, Renal Tumor Biopsy, Active Surveillance, and Thermal Ablation. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36:3591-3600. [PMID: 30372390 PMCID: PMC6804853 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.79.2341] [Citation(s) in RCA: 87] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Renal cancer represents 2% to 3% of all cancers, and its incidence is rising. The increased use of ultrasonography and cross-sectional imaging has resulted in the clinical dilemma of incidentally detected small renal masses (SRMs). SRMs represent a heterogeneous group of tumors that span the full spectrum of metastatic potential, including benign, indolent, and more aggressive tumors. Currently, no composite model or biomarker exists that accurately predicts the diagnosis of kidney cancer before treatment selection, and the use of renal mass biopsy remains controversial. The management of SRMs has changed dramatically over the last two decades as our understanding of tumor biology and competing risks of mortality in this population has improved. In this review, we critically assess published consensus guidelines and recent literature on the diagnosis and management of SRMs, with a focus on patient treatment selection and use of renal mass biopsy, active surveillance, and thermal ablation. Finally, we highlight important opportunities for leveraging recent research discoveries to identify patients with SRMs at high risk for renal cell carcinoma-related mortality and minimize overtreatment and patient morbidity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alejandro Sanchez
- Alejandro Sanchez and A. Ari Hakimi, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and Adam S. Feldman, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Adam S. Feldman
- Alejandro Sanchez and A. Ari Hakimi, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and Adam S. Feldman, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - A. Ari Hakimi
- Alejandro Sanchez and A. Ari Hakimi, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and Adam S. Feldman, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Petros FG, Venkatesan AM, Kaya D, Ng CS, Fellman BM, Karam JA, Wood CG, Matin SF. Conditional survival of patients with small renal masses undergoing active surveillance. BJU Int 2018; 123:447-455. [PMID: 30007044 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14486] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To determine conditional survival for patients with small renal masses (SRMs) undergoing active surveillance (AS). MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients were enrolled in a prospective AS protocol at our institution between May 2005 and January 2016. Patients with SRMs ≤4 cm with serial cross-sectional imaging available in-house for review were included. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and modelled via Cox proportional hazards models. The primary endpoints analysed were the conditional probability of survival and tumour growth over time. Landmark analysis was used to evaluate survival outcomes beyond the 2-year mark after the initial scan. The relative conditional survival of patients on AS was compared to those undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN) using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS A total of 272 patients were included in this analysis. The mean initial SRM size was 1.74 ± 0.77 cm, and the mean mass size closest to the 2-year mark was 1.97 ± 0.83 cm. The likelihood of continued survival to 5 years improved after the 2-year landmark. Patients with masses <3 cm who survived the first 2 years on AS had a 0.84-0.85 chance of surviving to 5 years, and if they survived 3 years, the probability of surviving to 5 years improved to 0.91. A slow tumour growth (β: 0.12; P < 0.001) with parallel growth rates was found for tumours <3 cm. Patients on AS and those who underwent PN had similar OS for ~7 years, beyond which PN demonstrated a trend of lower risk of death compared with AS (hazard ratio 0.57; P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS The conditional survival probability of patients with SRMs <3 cm on AS increased after 2 years. This information may prove useful to urologists and patients who are considering continuing AS vs intervention after the first 2 years on AS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Firas G Petros
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Aradhana M Venkatesan
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Diana Kaya
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Chaan S Ng
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Bryan M Fellman
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jose A Karam
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Christopher G Wood
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Surena F Matin
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Alam R, Patel HD, Osumah T, Srivastava A, Gorin MA, Johnson MH, Trock BJ, Chang P, Wagner AA, McKiernan JM, Allaf ME, Pierorazio PM. Comparative effectiveness of management options for patients with small renal masses: a prospective cohort study. BJU Int 2018; 123:42-50. [PMID: 30019484 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14490] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To explore the comparative effectiveness of partial nephrectomy (PN), radical nephrectomy (RN), ablative therapies (ablation) and active surveillance (AS) for small renal masses (SRMs; tumour diameter ≤4.0 cm) in the domains of survival, renal function and quality of life (QoL) using the prospectively maintained Delayed Intervention and Surveillance for Small Renal Masses (DISSRM) Registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated from creatinine values to determine renal function. QoL was measured using the Short Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression were used for survival analysis. The mixed-effects model was used for renal function and QoL analysis. RESULTS Of 638 patients, 231 (36.2%) chose PN, 41 (6.4%) RN, 27 (4.2%) ablation and 339 (53.1%) AS. Cancer-specific survival at 7 years was 98.8% in PN patients and 100% in all other groups. Overall survival (OS) at 7 years was 87.9%, 90.2%, 83.5% and 66.1% in PN, RN, ablation and AS patients, respectively. The OS rate was significantly worse in the AS group than other groups and likely attributable to older age and increased comorbidities. The eGFR was lowest in RN patients but comparable in all other groups. QoL was lowest in AS patients due to lower physical health scores, but mental health scores were similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS With excellent oncological outcomes in all groups, nephron-sparing approaches, like PN and ablation, are preferred over RN when intervention is indicated for SRMs. AS is a reasonable option for select patients, given the comparable oncological and mental health outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ridwan Alam
- Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Hiten D Patel
- Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Tijani Osumah
- Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Arnav Srivastava
- Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Michael A Gorin
- Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Michael H Johnson
- Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Bruce J Trock
- Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Peter Chang
- Department of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Andrew A Wagner
- Department of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - James M McKiernan
- Department of Urology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, NY, USA
| | - Mohamad E Allaf
- Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Phillip M Pierorazio
- Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Marzouk K, Tin A, Liu N, Sjoberg D, Hakimi AA, Russo P, Coleman J. The natural history of large renal masses followed on observation. Urol Oncol 2018; 36:362.e17-362.e21. [PMID: 29853347 PMCID: PMC6701866 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.05.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2017] [Revised: 04/26/2018] [Accepted: 05/01/2018] [Indexed: 10/14/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The safety and feasibility of active surveillance in comorbid patients with renal masses ≥4.0cm is uncertain. The aim of this study is to describe our institutional experience with the observation of large renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS One hundred patients were identified with renal masses ≥ 4.0cm that were followed on observation for at least 6 months without surgical intervention between 1994 and 2016. Linear regression was conducted to determine predictors for renal mass growth and competing risk methods were used to estimate the probability of progression in the setting of death from other causes. RESULTS Median age at diagnosis was 73 years and 73% of patients had a Charlson Comorbidity index ≥ 4. At presentation, the median mass size was 4.9cm. The median growth rate was 0.4cm/y and there were no significant predictors of growth. Surveillance was discontinued in 34 patients who underwent delayed intervention. Median follow up for metastasis-free survivors was 4 years. In total, 10 patients developed metastatic disease, 3 died from kidney cancer and 30 patients died from other causes. The 5-year probability of other cause mortality was 22% (95% CI: 14%-32%) compared to 6% (95% CI: 2%-13%) for metastatic progression of kidney cancer. CONCLUSION In highly comorbid patients, the observation of large renal masses has low likelihood for metastatic progression relative to the risk of nonkidney cancer related death. This data supports the use of surveillance as an acceptable strategy for highly selected patients with competing risks from other serious illnesses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karim Marzouk
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
| | - Amy Tin
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Nick Liu
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Daniel Sjoberg
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Abraham Ari Hakimi
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Paul Russo
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Jonathan Coleman
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Talenfeld AD, Gennarelli RL, Elkin EB, Atoria CL, Durack JC, Huang WC, Kwan SW. Percutaneous Ablation Versus Partial and Radical Nephrectomy for T1a Renal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169:69-77. [PMID: 29946703 PMCID: PMC8243237 DOI: 10.7326/m17-0585] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Stage T1a renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (tumors <4 cm) is usually curable. Nephron-sparing partial nephrectomy (PN) has replaced radical nephrectomy (RN) as the standard of care for these tumors. Radical nephrectomy remains the first alternative treatment option, whereas percutaneous ablation (PA), a newer, nonsurgical treatment, is recommended less strongly because of the relative paucity of comparative PA data. Objective To compare PA, PN, and RN outcomes. Design Observational cohort analysis using inverse probability of treatment-weighted propensity scores. Setting Population-based SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) cancer registry data linked to Medicare claims. Patients Persons aged 66 years or older who received treatment for T1a RCC between 2006 and 2011. Interventions PA versus PN and RN. Measurements RCC-specific and overall survival, 30- and 365-day postintervention complications. Results 4310 patients were followed for a median of 52 months for overall survival and 42 months for RCC-specific survival. After PA versus PN, the 5-year RCC-specific survival rate was 95% (95% CI, 93% to 98%) versus 98% (CI, 96% to 99%); after PA versus RN, 96% (CI, 94% to 98%) versus 95% (CI, 93% to 96%). After PA versus PN, the 5-year overall survival rate was 77% (CI, 74% to 81%) versus 86% (CI, 84% to 88%); after PA versus RN, 74% (CI, 71% to 78%) versus 75% (CI, 73% to 77%). Cumulative rates of renal insufficiency 31 to 365 days after PA, PN, and RN were 11% (CI, 8% to 14%), 9% (CI, 8% to 10%), and 18% (CI, 17% to 20%), respectively. Rates of nonurologic complications within 30 days after PA, PN, and RN were 6% (CI, 4% to 9%), 29% (CI, 27% to 30%), and 30% (CI, 28% to 32%), respectively. Ten percent of patients in the PN group had intraoperative conversion to RN. Seven percent of patients in the PA group received additional PA within 1 year of treatment. Limitations Analysis of observational data may have been affected by residual confounding by provider or from selection bias toward younger, healthier patients in the PN group. Findings from this older study population are probably less applicable to younger patients. Use of SEER-Medicare linked files prevented analysis of patients who received treatment after 2011, possibly reducing generalizability to the newest PA, PN, and RN techniques. Conclusion For well-selected older adults with T1a RCC, PA may result in oncologic outcomes similar to those of RN, but with less long-term renal insufficiency and markedly fewer periprocedural complications. Compared with PN, PA may be associated with slightly shorter RCC-specific survival but fewer periprocedural complications. Primary Funding Source Association of University Radiologists GE Radiology Research Academic Fellowship and Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Renee L Gennarelli
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York (R.L.G., E.B.E., C.L.A., J.C.D.)
| | - Elena B Elkin
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York (R.L.G., E.B.E., C.L.A., J.C.D.)
| | - Coral L Atoria
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York (R.L.G., E.B.E., C.L.A., J.C.D.)
| | - Jeremy C Durack
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York (R.L.G., E.B.E., C.L.A., J.C.D.)
| | - William C Huang
- New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York (W.C.H.)
| | - Sharon W Kwan
- University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (S.W.K.)
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Shah PH, Alom MA, Leibovich BC, Thompson RH, Uzzo RG, Kavoussi LR, Richstone L, Bhindi B, Habermann EB, Joshi V, Boorjian SA. The Temporal Association of Robotic Surgical Diffusion with Overtreatment of the Small Renal Mass. J Urol 2018; 200:981-988. [PMID: 29792881 DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.081] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/11/2018] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE We evaluated contemporary practice patterns in the management of small renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS We identified 52,804 patients in the NCDB (National Cancer Database) who were diagnosed with a small renal mass (4 cm or less) between 2010 and 2014. Utilization trends of active surveillance, ablation and robotic, laparoscopic and open surgical techniques were compared among all comers, elderly patients 75 years old or older and individuals with competing health risks, defined as a Charlson index of 2 or greater. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with robotic renal surgery and active surveillance. RESULTS Surgery remained the primary treatment modality across all years studied, performed in 75.0% and 74.2% of cases in 2010 and 2014, respectively. Although increases in active surveillance from 4.8% in 2010 to 6.0% in 2014 (p <0.001) and robotic renal surgery (22.1% in 2010 to 39.7% in 2014, p <0.001) were observed, the increase in the proportion of small renal masses treated with robotic partial and radical nephrectomy was greater than that of active surveillance (82.0% and 63.0%, respectively, vs 25.0%). Subgroup analyses in individuals 75 years old or older, or with a Charlson index of 2 or greater likewise revealed preferential increases in robotic surgery vs active surveillance. On multivariable analysis later year of diagnosis was associated with increased performance of robotic renal surgery compared to active surveillance (2014 vs 2010 OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.20-1.72, p <0.001) and nonrobotic procedural interventions (2014 vs 2010 OR 2.59, 95% CI 2.30-2.93, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS Robotic surgical extirpation has outpaced the adoption of active surveillance of small renal masses. This raises concern that the diffusion of robotic technology propagates overtreatment, particularly among elderly and comorbid individuals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paras H Shah
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Manaf A Alom
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | - Robert G Uzzo
- Division of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Louis R Kavoussi
- Department of Urology, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, New York
| | - Lee Richstone
- Department of Urology, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, New York
| | - Bimal Bhindi
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Elizabeth B Habermann
- Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Vidhu Joshi
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Gild P, Rink M, Meyer CP. Online tools for patient counseling in bladder and kidney cancer-ready for prime time? Transl Androl Urol 2018; 6:1123-1131. [PMID: 29354499 PMCID: PMC5760396 DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.11.13] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Gauging prognosis is a key element when facing treatment decisions in cancer care. Several prognostic tools, such as risk tables and nomograms are at hand to aid this process. In the context of patient-centered care, prognostic tools are of great interest to caregivers and -providers alike, as they can convey sizeable amounts of information and provide tailored, accurate estimates of prognosis. Given the rising number of prognostic tools in cancer care over the last two decades, and similarly, ever increasing presence of the Internet, we aimed to assess how this would translate into the availability of online tools for patient counseling. We used a modified systematic review to evaluate the web-based availability, format, and content of prognostic tools for bladder and kidney cancer care. Our search identified a total of twenty-three tools, offered by eight providers, which assessed a total of six (bladder cancer) and five (kidney cancer) different outcomes. Despite the restricted availability of online tools, we observed that the majority showed limited user-friendliness (including, for example, a statement/explanation of intended use, visualization of data, availability as application software for handheld devices). Only one tool included modifiable risk factors such as smoking behavior and body weight. Lastly, none of the tools incorporated genomic or molecular markers or treatment associated quality of life. Taken together, online tools for patient counseling in bladder and kidney cancer care are only beginning to align with the growing need in clinical reality. Further and future avenues include incorporation of health-related quality of life as well as genomic and biomarkers into prediction tools.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philipp Gild
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.,Center for Surgery and Public Health, Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Michael Rink
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Christian P Meyer
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Abstract
With the ubiquitous use of cross-sectional abdominal imaging in recent years, the incidence of small renal masses (SRMs) has increased, and the evaluation and management of SRMs have become important clinical issues. Diagnosing a mass in the early stages theoretically allows for high rates of cure but simultaneously risks overtreatment. In the past 20 years, surgical treatment of SRMs has transitioned from radical nephrectomy for all renal tumors, regardless of size, to elective partial nephrectomy whenever technically feasible. Additionally, newer approaches, including renal mass biopsy, active surveillance for select patients, and renal mass ablation, have been increasingly used. In this chapter, we review the current evidence-based papers covering aspects of the diagnosis and management of SRMs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Avinash Chenam
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology and Urologic Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Rd, MOB L002H, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Clayton Lau
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology and Urologic Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Rd, MOB L002H, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Andrushchuk U, Ostrovsky Y, Krasny S, Polyakov S, Zharkov V, Rolevich A, Kurganovich S, Krutau V, Amelchanka SG. Simultaneous or staged surgery in patients with kidney tumors and concomitant cardiac disease. Cent European J Urol 2017; 70:356-361. [PMID: 29410885 PMCID: PMC5791394 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2017.1337] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2017] [Revised: 07/21/2017] [Accepted: 09/17/2017] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction To evaluate outcomes of simultaneous and staged surgery in patients with kidney tumors and concomitant cardiac disease. Material and methods Between October 2001 and October 2015, fifteen patients (Group 1) underwent simultaneous surgery and fourteen patients (Group 2) underwent staged surgery. 89.7% were males (26/29), and the mean age was 60.8 ±1.16 years. Locally advanced cancers (Stage III) were registered in the two groups in 11 vs. 3 patients (p = 0.016) and localized (Stage I) disease in 2 vs. 10 (p = 0.007), respectively. 18 patients (62%) were operated for coronary heart disease, while 10 patients (35%) underwent surgery for valvular heart disease. Nephrectomy was performed in 14rs 5 patients respectively (p = 0.003) while partial nephrectomy in 1rs 7 patients (p = 0.005). Results In the two groups, the 30-day mortality was 13% (2 cases) and 7% (1 case), p = 1.0, and major hospital complications were observed in 3 (20%) and 2 (14%) cases, respectively, p = 0.53. The median follow-up in Group 1 and Group 2 was 87 months (range, 23.3 to 146.8 months) and 39 months (range, 3.9 to 98 months), respectively, p = 0.001. Three-year overall survival was 73.3 ±11.4% (95% CI 50.5–96.1) and 77.9 ±11.3%, respectively, p = 0.70, and three-year disease-free survival was 83.9 ±10.4% and 75.0 ±21.7%, respectively, p = 0.91. Conclusions Simultaneous and staged surgery for kidney tumors and concomitant cardiac disease are feasible procedures. Patients with advanced tumors and complicated disease course can benefit from early intervention and consequently a simultaneous approach can be a preferred option for them. For localized renal tumors, staged surgery should be used.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Uladzimir Andrushchuk
- Republican Scientific and Practical Centre 'Cardiology', Department of Cardiac Surgery, Minsk, Belarus
| | - Yury Ostrovsky
- Republican Scientific and Practical Centre 'Cardiology', Department of Cardiac Surgery, Minsk, Belarus
| | - Sergey Krasny
- N.N. Alexandrov National Cancer Centre, Department of Urology, Minsk, Belarus
| | - Sergey Polyakov
- N.N. Alexandrov National Cancer Centre, Department of Urology, Minsk, Belarus
| | - Vladimir Zharkov
- N.N. Alexandrov National Cancer Centre, Department of Thoracic Medicine, Minsk, Belarus
| | - Alexander Rolevich
- N.N. Alexandrov National Cancer Centre, Department of Urology, Minsk, Belarus
| | - Svetlana Kurganovich
- Republican Scientific and Practical Centre 'Cardiology', Department of Cardiac Surgery, Minsk, Belarus
| | - Valery Krutau
- Republican Scientific and Practical Centre 'Cardiology', Department of Cardiac Surgery, Minsk, Belarus
| | - Siarhei G Amelchanka
- Republican Scientific and Practical Centre 'Cardiology', Department of Cardiac Surgery, Minsk, Belarus
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Marcelin C, Ambrosetti D, Bernhard J, Roy C, Grenier N, Cornelis F. Percutaneous image-guided biopsies of small renal tumors: Current practice and perspectives. Diagn Interv Imaging 2017; 98:589-599. [DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2017.07.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2017] [Revised: 07/19/2017] [Accepted: 07/24/2017] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
|
43
|
Laguna MP. Re: Management of Small Renal Masses: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Urol 2017; 198:480-482. [DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.06.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/09/2017] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
|
44
|
Derweesh IH, Mir MC, Autorino R. Reply to Lorenzo Marconi, Steven MacLennan, Thomas B.L. Lam, et al's Letter to the Editor re: Maria Carmen Mir, Ithaar Derweesh, Francesco Porpiglia, Homayoun Zargar, Alexandre Mottrie, Riccardo Autorino. Partial Nephrectomy Versus Radical Nephrectomy for Clinical T1b and T2 Renal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies. Eur Urol 2017;71:606-17. Eur Urol 2017. [PMID: 28642021 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ithaar H Derweesh
- Department of Urology, UC San Diego Health System, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Maria C Mir
- Urology Department, Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain
| | - Riccardo Autorino
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health Center, Richmond, VA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Abstract
PURPOSE This AUA Guideline focuses on evaluation/counseling and management of adult patients with clinically localized renal masses suspicious for cancer, including solid-enhancing tumors and Bosniak 3/4 complex-cystic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS Systematic review utilized research from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and additional supplementation by the authors and consultant methodologists. Evidence-based statements were based on body of evidence strength Grade A/B/C (Strong/Moderate/Conditional Recommendations, respectively) with additional statements presented as Clinical Principles or Expert Opinions. RESULTS Great progress has been made since the previous guidelines on management of localized renal masses were released (2009). The current guidelines provide updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding evaluation/counseling of patients with clinically localized renal masses, including the evolving role of renal mass biopsy. Given great variability of clinical, oncologic and functional characteristics, index patients are not utilized and the panel advocates individualized counseling/management. Management options (partial nephrectomy/radical nephrectomy/thermal ablation/active surveillance) are reviewed including recent data about comparative effectiveness and potential morbidities. Oncologic issues are prioritized while recognizing that functional outcomes are of great importance for survivorship for most patients with localized kidney cancer. A more restricted role for radical nephrectomy is recommended following well-defined selection criteria. Priority for partial nephrectomy is recommended for clinical T1a lesions, along with selective use of thermal ablation, particularly for tumors ≤3.0 cm. Important considerations for shared decision-making about active surveillance are explicitly defined. CONCLUSIONS Several factors should be considered during counseling/management of patients with clinically localized renal masses, including general health/comorbidities, oncologic potential of the mass, pertinent functional issues and relative efficacy/potential morbidities of various management strategies.
Collapse
|
46
|
Ristau BT, Kutikov A, Uzzo RG, Smaldone MC. Active Surveillance for Small Renal Masses: When Less is More. Eur Urol Focus 2017; 2:660-668. [PMID: 28723504 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.04.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2017] [Accepted: 04/05/2017] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT A marked increase in incidentally detected small renal masses (SRMs) has occurred over the past decade. Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as an initial management option for these patients. OBJECTIVE (1) To determine selection criteria, assess appropriate imaging modalities and surveillance frequencies, and define triggers for delayed intervention (DI) for patients on AS. (2) To describe oncologic outcomes for patients on AS protocols. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION The PubMed database was queried for English language articles using the keywords "surveillance" and "renal mass" or "renal cell carcinoma" or "kidney cancer." The level of evidence, sample size, study design, and relevance to the review were considered as inclusion criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A total of 69 manuscripts were included in the review. Selection criteria at initial evaluation for patients interested in AS include patient-related factors (eg, age, baseline renal function, other comorbidities), tumor-related factors (size, complexity, history of growth, possible renal mass biopsy), and patient preferences (illness uncertainty, quality of life). Cross-sectional imaging is the preferred initial imaging modality. Surveillance imaging should be performed at frequent intervals (3-4 mo) up front; intervals can be reduced over time if favorable growth kinetics are demonstrated. Delayed intervention (DI) should be considered for rapid tumor growth (eg,>0.5cm/yr), an increase in maximum tumor diameter >3-4cm, malignant renal mass biopsy results, development of symptoms, or patient preferences. Oncologic outcomes in well-controlled studies demonstrate a metastatic rate of 1-2%. Most patients who undergo DI remain eligible for nephron-sparing approaches; oncologic outcomes are not compromised by DI strategies. CONCLUSIONS A period of initial AS is safe for most patients with SRMs. Management decisions should focus on a thorough assessment of risk-benefit trade-offs, judiciously integrating patient-related factors, tumor-related factors, and patient preferences. PATIENT SUMMARY A period of initial active surveillance for kidney masses of ≤4cm in diameter is safe in most patients. Frequent imaging and follow-up are necessary to determine if the tumor grows. If delayed intervention becomes necessary, cancer outcomes are not compromised by the initial choice of active surveillance when patients adhere to close follow-up regimens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin T Ristau
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - Alexander Kutikov
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Robert G Uzzo
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Marc C Smaldone
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Larcher A, Trudeau V, Dell'Oglio P, Tian Z, Boehm K, Fossati N, Capitanio U, Briganti A, Montorsi F, Karakiewicz P. Prediction of Competing Mortality for Decision-making Between Surgery or Observation in Elderly Patients With T1 Kidney Cancer. Urology 2017; 102:130-137. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.08.069] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2016] [Revised: 07/07/2016] [Accepted: 08/02/2016] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
|
48
|
|
49
|
Ristau BT, Smaldone MC. Kidney cancer: Emerging guidelines for managing small renal masses. Nat Rev Urol 2017; 14:329-330. [PMID: 28290457 DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2017.33] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin T Ristau
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, 3401 N. Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111, USA
| | - Marc C Smaldone
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, 3401 N. Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111, USA
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Finelli A, Ismaila N, Bro B, Durack J, Eggener S, Evans A, Gill I, Graham D, Huang W, Jewett MAS, Latcha S, Lowrance W, Rosner M, Shayegan B, Thompson RH, Uzzo R, Russo P. Management of Small Renal Masses: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35:668-680. [PMID: 28095147 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2016.69.9645] [Citation(s) in RCA: 237] [Impact Index Per Article: 33.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose To provide recommendations for the management options for patients with small renal masses (SRMs). Methods By using a literature search and prospectively defined study selection, we sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, prospective comparative observational studies, and retrospective studies published from 2000 through 2015. Outcomes included recurrence-free survival, disease-specific survival, and overall survival. Results Eighty-three studies, including 20 systematic reviews and 63 primary studies, met the eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the guideline recommendations. Recommendations On the basis of tumor-specific findings and competing risks of mortality, all patients with an SRM should be considered for a biopsy when the results may alter management. Active surveillance should be an initial management option for patients who have significant comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Partial nephrectomy (PN) for SRMs is the standard treatment that should be offered to all patients for whom an intervention is indicated and who possess a tumor that is amenable to this approach. Percutaneous thermal ablation should be considered an option if complete ablation can reliably be achieved. Radical nephrectomy for SRMs should only be reserved for patients who possess a tumor of significant complexity that is not amenable to PN or for whom PN may result in unacceptable morbidity even when performed at centers with expertise. Referral to a nephrologist should be considered if chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2) or progressive chronic kidney disease occurs after treatment, especially if associated with proteinuria.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonio Finelli
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Nofisat Ismaila
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Bill Bro
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Jeremy Durack
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Scott Eggener
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Andrew Evans
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Inderbir Gill
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - David Graham
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - William Huang
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Michael A S Jewett
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Sheron Latcha
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - William Lowrance
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Mitchell Rosner
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Bobby Shayegan
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - R Houston Thompson
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Robert Uzzo
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Paul Russo
- Antonio Finelli and Michael A.S. Jewett, Princess Margaret Cancer Center; Andrew Evans, University Health Network, Toronto; Bobby Shayegan, St Joseph Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Nofisat Ismaila, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Mitchell Rosner, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA; Bill Bro, Kidney Cancer Association; Scott Eggener, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Durack, Sheron Latcha, and Paul Russo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; William Huang, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY; Inderbir Gill, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; David Graham, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC; William Lowrance, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; R. Houston Thompson, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| |
Collapse
|