The role of preoperative immune cell metrics in renal cell carcinoma with a tumor thrombus

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to stratify preoperative immune cell counts by cancer specific outcomes in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and a tumor thrombus after radical nephrectomy with tumor thrombectomy.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of RCC with tumor thrombus that underwent radical nephrectomy with thrombectomy across an international consortium of seven institutions were included. Patients who were metastatic at diagnosis and those who received preoperative medical treatment were also included. Retrospective chart review was performed to collect demographic information, past medical history, preoperative lab work, surgical pathology, and follow up data. Neutrophil counts, lymphocyte counts, monocyte counts, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratios (NLR), lymphocyte to monocyte ratios (LMR), and neutrophil to monocyte ratios (NMR) were compared against cancer-specific outcomes using independent samples t-test, Pearson's bivariate correlation, and analysis of variance.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-four patients were included in the study, including nine patients who were metastatic at the time of surgery. Absolute lymphocyte count preoperatively was greater in patients who died from RCC compared to those who did not (2 vs 1.4; p < 0.001). Patients with tumor pathology showing perirenal fat invasion had a greater neutrophil count compared to those who did not (7.5 vs 5.5; p = 0.010). Patients with metastatic RCC had a lower LMR compared to those without metastases after surgery (2.5 vs 3.2; p = 0.041). Tumor size, both preoperatively and on gross specimen, had an interaction with multiple immune cell metrics (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative immune metrics have clinical utility in predicting cancer-specific outcomes for patients with RCC and a tumor thrombus. Additional study is needed to determine the added value of preoperative serum immune cell data to established prognostic risk calculators for this patient population.

Comparison of Single-Port Robotic Donor Nephrectomy and Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Purpose: To compare the intra- and postoperative outcomes of single-port robotic donor nephrectomies (SP RDNs) and laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (LDNs). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database for patients who received LDN or SP RDN between September 2020 and December 2022. Donor baseline characteristics, intraoperative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and recipient renal function were extracted and compared between LDN and SP RDN. SP RDN learning curve analysis based on operative time and graft extraction time was performed using cumulative sum analysis. Results: One hundred forty-four patients underwent LDN and 32 patients underwent SP RDN. LDN and SP RDN had similar operative times (LDN: 190.3 ± 28.0 minutes, SP RDN: 194.5 ± 35.1 minutes, p = 0.3253). SP RDN patients had significantly greater extraction times (LDN: 83.2 ± 40.3 seconds, SP RDN: 204.1 ± 52.2 seconds, p < 0.0001) and warm ischemia times (LDN: 145.1 ± 61.7 seconds, SP RDN: 275.4 ± 65.6 seconds, p < 0.0001). There were no differences in patient subjective pain scores, inpatient opioid usage, or Clavien-Dindo II+ complications. Short- and medium-term postoperative donor and recipient renal function were also similar between the groups. SP RDN graft extraction time and total operative time learning curves were achieved at case 27 and 13, respectively. Conclusion: SP RDN is a safe and feasible alternative to LDN that minimizes postoperative abdominal incisional scars and has a short learning curve. Future randomized prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm the findings of this study and to identify other potential benefits and drawbacks of SP RDNs.

The Evolving Clinical Management of Genitourinary Cancers Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a disease caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, has become an unprecedented global health emergency, with fatal outcomes among adults of all ages throughout the world. There is a high incidence of infection and mortality among cancer patients with evidence to support that patients diagnosed with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 have an increased likelihood of a poor outcome. Clinically relevant changes imposed as a result of the pandemic, are either primary, due to changes in timing or therapeutic modality; or secondary, due to altered cooperative effects on disease progression or therapeutic outcomes. However, studies on the clinical management of patients with genitourinary cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic are limited and do little to differentiate primary or secondary impacts of COVID-19. Here, we provide a review of the epidemiology and biological consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection in GU cancer patients as well as the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis and management of these patients, and the use and development of novel and innovative diagnostic tests, therapies, and technology. This article also discusses the biomedical advances to control the virus and evolving challenges in the management of prostate, bladder, kidney, testicular, and penile cancers at all stages of the patient journey during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.