A case for screening for renal cancer

Update on Screening for Urological Malignancies

Urological malignancies are a major source of morbidity and mortality in men over 40. Screening for those malignancies has a potential benefit of reducing both. However, even after more than two decades of screening for prostate cancer, the implications of most resulting information are still a matter of debate. Controversy extends over several aspects of prostate cancer screening programs, including age of onset, defining populations at risk, most appropriate intervals, as well as the optimal methods to be used for screening. The medical community is still divided regarding the effectiveness of prostate cancer-related death prevention and its benefits-to-harms ratio, reflecting an inconsistency regarding screening recommendations. Similarly, benefits of screening for urothelial and kidney tumors are yet lacking high-level evidence, although recent evidence supports screening of populations at risk. Clearly, the current era of evolving molecular and genetic biomarkers harbors the potential to change screening practice. In this paper, we review current guidelines as well as giving an update on new developments which might influence screening strategies in common urological malignancies.

Meta-analysis of the prevalence of renal cancer detected by abdominal ultrasonography

BACKGROUND

The potential for an ultrasound-based screening programme for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to improve survival through early detection has been the subject of much debate. The prevalence of ultrasound-detected asymptomatic RCC is an important first step to establishing whether a screening programme may be feasible.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase was performed up to March 2016 to identify studies reporting the prevalence of renal masses and RCC. Two populations of patients were chosen: asymptomatic individuals undergoing screening ultrasonography and patients undergoing ultrasonography for abdominal symptoms not related to RCC. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Study quality was evaluated using a validated eight-point checklist.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (413 551 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled prevalence of renal mass was 0·36 (95 per cent c.i. 0·23 to 0·52) per cent and the prevalence of histologically proven RCC was 0·10 (0·06 to 0·15) per cent. The prevalence of RCC was more than double in studies from Europe and North America than in those from Asia: 0·17 (0·09 to 0·27) versus 0·06 (0·03 to 0·09) per cent respectively. Data on 205 screen-detected RCCs showed that 84·4 per cent of tumours were stage T1-T2 N0, 13·7 per cent were T3-T4 N0, and only 2·0 per cent had positive nodes or metastases at diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

At least one RCC would be detected per 1000 individuals screened. The majority of tumours identified are early stage (T1-T2).

The diagnostic value of abdominal ultrasound, urine cytology and prostate-specific antigen testing in the lower urinary tract symptoms clinic

INTRODUCTION

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) affect 18-26% of men aged 40-79 years, many of whom present with a fear of having cancer. Current guidelines for the assessment of LUTS focus mainly upon benign prostatic hypertrophy. It has been our practice to perform an abdominal ultrasound scan (USS), a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test and urine cytology during the assessment of males presenting with LUTS to investigate the alternative potentially life-threatening causes for LUTS. We report on the added value of these tests during the assessment of men with LUTS.

RESULTS

A total of 263/3976 (6.6%) patients investigated for LUTS were found to have incidental urological malignancies, urinary tract calculi or abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Abdominal USSs resulted in the incidental diagnosis of four renal carcinomas (0.1%), 45 AAAs (incidence = 1.1%) and 44 urinary tract calculi (1.1%). Urine cytology testing and bladder USSs helped diagnose 17 new bladder cancers (0.4%), five of which did not present with haematuria. Patients found to have an elevated age-specific PSA had a 23.6% chance of being diagnosed with prostate cancer (3.8%).

CONCLUSION

The addition of abdominal ultrasound scanning, urine cytology and PSA testing as part of an LUTS assessment protocol can help to diagnose significant, potentially life-threatening conditions in up to 6.6% of patients. While the pick up rate of each individual condition is not higher in the LUTS patient than in the general population, the combined pick up rate may justify these additional investigations.

The haphazard approach to the early detection of asymptomatic renal cancer: results from a contemporary executive health programme

OBJECTIVE To compare the detection of asymptomatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in an executive health programme (EHP) that uses traditional methods of screening (history, physical examination and urine analysis) to programmes that screen by renal imaging. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed case records from patients undergoing executive health examinations at Mayo Clinic between 1 January 2002 and 30 September 2007. Results Of 32 310 patients, 18 RCCs were detected; of these, 13 (72%) were detected by the EHP and five (28%) were missed by the initial EHP screening process but subsequently discovered within 4-24 months. Of the 13 detected through the EHP, eight were discovered incidentally, two because of symptoms, and three because of asymptomatic microscopic haematuria (AMH). Of the 13, 12 were classified as early-stage cancers (Stage I). By contrast, of the five cancers missed by the EHP screening process, two were diagnosed because of the development of symptoms and only one was classified as Stage I. To date, two of these patients whose cancers were undetected by the EHP developed metastasis and one of them has died. Both had been followed in the EHP for years and neither had MH in multiple specimens. CONCLUSION Our EHP follows standard policy and relies on a history, physical examination and urine analysis to decide who to evaluate for asymptomatic RCC. This practice missed >70% of the potentially diagnosable cancers. The patients with RCCs that were discovered initially by the EHP fared better than those whose diagnosis was delayed. Our detection rate of four per 10 000 was only a fraction of those reported by programmes using imaging as a screening tool. The logic behind our current approach to the early detection of asymptomatic RCC needs to be reassessed. AMH is coincidental in most cases and patients could forego imaging if they are unsuitable candidates for screening. However, AMH will miss most treatable cancers and is not an appropriate screening test for an early detection programme. In the absence of reliable biomarkers, renal imaging should be the primary screening tool for detecting asymptomatic RCC in informed, clinically suitable individuals enrolled in an early detection programme.