Frailty, geriatric assessment and prehabilitation in elderly patients undergoing urological surgery - is there a need for change of the daily clinical practice? Synthesis of the available literature

Utility of the Age Discrepancy between Frailty-Based Biological Age and Expected Life Age in Patients with Urological Cancers

Background: The estimation of biological age is challenging in patients with cancers. We aimed to investigate frailty-based biological ages using frailty-discriminant scores (FDS) and examined the effect of biological-expected life age discrepancy on the prognosis of patients with urological cancers. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated frailty in 1035 patients having urological cancers. Their frailty-based biological age was then defined by the FDS, which is a comprehensive frailty assessment tool, using 1790 noncancer individuals as controls. An expected life age (=chronological age + life expectancy) was subsequently calculated using the 2019 life expectancy table. The primary outcome was the estimation of the biological-expected life age discrepancy between the frailty-based biological age and expected life age in patients with urological cancers. Secondary outcomes were the evaluation of the effect of the biological-expected life age discrepancy on overall survival. Results: We included 405, 466, and 164 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and renal cell carcinoma, respectively. The median chronological age, life expectancy, and estimated frailty-based biological age were 71, 17, and 83 years, respectively. The biological-expected life age discrepancy in any urological cancers, localized diseases, and metastatic diseases was −4.8, −6.3, and +0.15 years, respectively. The biological-expected life age discrepancy of >5 years was significantly associated with poor overall survival. Conclusions: The biological-expected life age discrepancy between frailty-based biological age and expected life age may be helpful in understanding the role of frailty and patient/doctor conversation.

Assessment of the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation as a technique for destroying small renal tumors in patients older than 70

Introduction

During the past few decades, the percentage of older people in the population has been steadily growing due to the tendency of extended life expectancy. The efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and tumor enucleoresection (TE) in the treatment of selected older patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) T1aN0M0 sized ≤4.0 cm has been a popular topic in many recent studies.

The aim of this study was to access the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation in patients older than 70 with T1aN0M0 RCC.

Material and methods

A total of 86 patients aged 70–84 with histologically confirmed solitary kidney tumors T1aN0M0 who underwent RFA (n = 39) and TE (n = 47) were been included in this study. The patients were assigned to groups based on the impact of their comorbidities. Rockwood’s Clinical Frailty Scale Score (FS) and Charlson Comorbidity Index score (CCI) were used to separate fit from unfit older patients. The RFA group was characterized by an FS and CCI of 4–5 while the TE group had scores of ≤3. Five-year disease-specific survival (DSS), 5-yrs overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were considered as criteria of treatment.

Results

The 5-yr DSS in the RFA group was 97.4% vs. 95.7% in the TE group (p >0.05), while 5-yr OS was 74.4% vs. 80.9% (p <0.05) and RFS – 94.9% vs. 93.6% (p >0.05) respectively. Functioning of the operated kidneys did not deteriorate at the 6^th and 12^th month after RFA/TE as assessed by radioisotope renography.

Conclusions

In patients over 70 years of age, percutaneous RFA might be considered as an effective option for the successful treatment of T1aN0M0 RCC, as it preserves the functioning of the treated kidney and has oncological outcomes similar to TE.