Ahmed Eldefrawy

Careful Selection and Close Monitoring of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance Minimizes the Need for Treatment

BACKGROUND With the advent of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and the increase in the number of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy cores, there has been a dramatic rise in the incidence of low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC). Because > 97% of men with LRPC are likely to die of something other than prostate cancer, it is critical that patients give thought to whether early curative treatment is the only option at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE To identify a group of men with LRPC who may not require initial treatment and monitor them on our active surveillance (AS) protocol, to determine the percentage treated and the outcome and to analyze the quality-of-life data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We defined patients eligible for AS as Gleason ≤ 6, PSA ≤ 10, and two or fewer biopsy cores with ≤ 20% tumor in each core. MEASUREMENTS Kaplan Meier analysis was used to predict the 5-year treatment free survival. Logistic regression determined the predictors of treatment. Data on sexual function, continence, and outcome were obtained and analyzed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The AS cohort consisted of 230 patients with a mean age of 63.4 yr; 86% remained on AS for a mean follow-up of 44 mo. Thirty-two of the 230 patients (14%) were treated for a mean follow-up of 33 mo. Twelve had a total prostatectomy (TP). The pathologic stage of these patients was similar to initially treated TP patients with LRPC. Fourteen underwent radiation therapy, and six underwent androgen-deprivation therapy. Fifty percent of patients had no tumor on the first rebiopsy, and only 5% of these patients were subsequently treated. PSA doubling time and clinical stage were not predictors of treatment. No patient progressed after treatment. Among the AS patients, 30% had incontinence, yet < 15% were bothered by it. As measured by the Sexual Health Inventory for Men, 49% of patients had, at a minimum, moderate (≤ 16) erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS If guidelines for AS are narrowly defined to include only patients with Gleason 6, tumor volume ≤ 20% in one or two biopsy cores, and PSA levels ≤ 10, few patients are likely to require treatment. Progression-free survival of those treated is likely to be equivalent to patients with similar clinical findings treated at diagnosis.

Factors That Influence Patient Enrollment in Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVES To learn from patients their rationale for enrollment in active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer as an alternative to primary treatment. METHODS A rank-order survey was designed to assess the relative influence of factors that contributed to the decision to elect AS. The survey was mailed to 185 patients enrolled in AS at our university-based urologic oncology practice. Participants were also asked whether they had been offered AS as an alternative to primary treatment by the urologist who had initially diagnosed their cancer. RESULTS The survey was returned by 105 (57%) of 185 patients. AS was offered to 38 (36%) of 105 patients by the physician who had made the initial diagnosis. Patients most frequently reported physician influence as the greatest contributor to their decision to elect AS (73%). Patients also cited concerns regarding the potential side effects of incontinence (48%) and erectile dysfunction (44%) associated with therapy as reasons for choosing AS. CONCLUSIONS The results of the present study have shown that patients are heavily influenced by physicians in their decision to elect AS. Notably, the majority of our sampled patients were not offered AS at diagnosis. Evidence has indicated that AS is an appropriate approach for low-risk prostate cancer and should be discussed with patients in this risk category.

Disparities among Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites in time from starting dialysis to kidney transplant waitlisting.

Background Although a longer time on dialysis before kidney transplant waitlisting has been shown for Blacks versus non-Blacks, relatively few studies have compared this outcome between Hispanics and Whites. Methods A multivariable analysis of 1910 (684 Black, 452 Hispanic, and 774 White) consecutive patients waitlisted at our center for a primary kidney transplant between 2005 and mid-2010 was performed for time from starting dialysis to waitlisting (months), the percentage who were preemptively waitlisted (waitlisted before starting dialysis), and time from starting dialysis to waitlisting after excluding the preemptively waitlisted patients. Results The variables associated with significantly longer median times from starting dialysis to waitlisting and less preemptive waitlisting included Medicare insurance for patients ages <65 years (by far, the most significant variable in each analysis), Black race, higher percentage of households in the patient’s zip code living in poverty, being a non-U.S. citizen (for preemptive waitlisting), Medicaid insurance, waitlisted for kidney-alone (vs. kidney-pancreas) transplant, and higher body mass index (longer median times for the latter three variables). Although the effect of Black race was mostly explained by significant associations with lower socioeconomic status (Medicare insurance for patients ages <65 years and greater poverty in the patient’s zip code), an unexplained component still remained. The univariable differences showing poorer outcomes for Hispanics versus Whites were smaller and completely explained in multivariable analysis by significant associations with lower socioeconomic status and non-U.S. citizenship. Conclusion Black and Hispanic patients had significantly longer times from starting dialysis to waitlisting, in large part related to their lower socioeconomic status and less preemptive waitlisting. A greater focus on earlier nephrology care may help to erase much of these disparities.

Comparison of Robot-assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Pyeloplasty for Patients With Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: A Single-center Study

OBJECTIVES To compare conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty (C-LPP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RA-LPP), which are both used for correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Robotic assistance may further expedite dissection and reconstruction; however it is unclear whether this has an impact on results. METHODS Between 1999 and 2009, 172 conventional or robotic-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasties were performed by 2 surgeons. Data were obtained from our prospective database, patient charts, and radiographic reports. Statistical analysis was performed for the groups. RESULTS A total of 98 patients underwent R-LPP, and 74 underwent C-LPP. Mean age, body mass index, and gender distribution were similar for the groups. Of the patients, 22 (12.8%) had secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Operative time in minutes was 189.3 ± 62 for RA-LPP, and 186.6 ± 69 for C-LPP (P = .69) respectively. Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates for RA-LPP and C-LPP were 1%, 5.1% and 0, 2.7% (P = .83 and .85) respectively. There was no significant difference in mean suturing time: 48.3 ± 30 and 60 ± 46 (P = .30) for RA-LPP and C-LPP, respectively. Long-term follow up (minimum 6 months; available for 136 patients) showed 93.4% and 95% radiographic success rate based upon diuretic scintirenography for RA-LPP and C-LPP respectively. CONCLUSIONS Operative time, perioperative outcome and success rates are similar for C-LPP and RA-LPP. Mean suturing time for RA-LPP was shorter; however, there was no significant time difference in total operative time. Complications for both procedures are infrequent. Success rates, as measured by diuretic scintirenography, are high for the 2 procedures.

Cost comparison of nephron-sparing treatments for cT1a renal masses

OBJECTIVES Treatment options for small renal tumors have evolved from radical nephrectomy (RN) to partial nephrectomy (PN), thermal ablation, or active surveillance. With the advancement of techniques, costs differences are unclear. The objective of this study is to compare the 6-month costs associated with nephron-sparing procedures for cT1a renal tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a review of patients diagnosed with a solitary cT1a renal mass who underwent surgical treatment from June 2008 to May 2011. Open partial nephrectomy (OPN), robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RLPN), laparoscopic radio-frequency ablation (LRFA), or computed tomography guided radio frequency ablation (CTRFA) was performed on 173 patients. Cost data were collected for surgical costs, associated hospital stay, and the 6-month postoperative period. RESULTS Patients underwent surgery, including 52 OPN, 48 RLPN, 44 LRFA, and 29 CTRFA. Median total costs associated were

Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: knowledge, acceptance and practice among urologists.

17,018,

An Unusual Complication During Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation

20,314,

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: The likelihood of initiation and completion.

13,965, and

Comparison of urologist reimbursement for managing patients with low-risk prostate cancer by active surveillance versus total prostatectomy

6,475, for OPN, RLPN, LRFA, and CTRFA, respectively. When stratified by approach differences were noted for total cost (P < 0.001), operating room (OR) time (P < 0.001), surgical supply (P < 0.001), and room and board (P < 0.001) in univariable analysis. Multivariable linear regression (R(2) = 0.966) showed surgical approach (P = 0.007), length of stay (P < 0.001), and OR time (P < 0.001) to be significant predictors of total cost. However, tumor size (P = 0.175), and Charlson comorbidity index (P = 0.078) were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS Six-month cost of nephron-sparing surgery is lowest with radio frequency ablation (RFA) by either laparoscopic or computed tomography (CT)-guided approach compared to RLPN and OPN. As oncologic and safety outcomes improve and become comparable in all nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) approaches, cost of each procedure will start to play a stronger role in the clinical and healthcare policy setting.

Anomalies of the inferior vena cava and renal veins and implications for renal surgery.

Background:This study aimed to survey urologists regarding their knowledge, acceptance and practice of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer.Methods:An email-based survey was distributed to 4987 urologists. Respondents were surveyed regarding their knowledge and acceptance of AS. Those who felt AS was a reasonable strategy were asked their opinions on the criteria for AS enrollment and the details of their practice of AS. Respondents who felt AS was not a reasonable alternative were queried as to the reasons why.Results:A total of 425 (9%) urologists successfully completed the survey and 387 (91%) were both familiar with AS and aware that AS differed from watchful waiting. Of this latter group, 370 (96%) respondents felt AS was a reasonable management strategy, 95% of whom manage patients with this approach. A minority of respondents (6%) felt that patients with a PSA>10 ng ml−1 were eligible for AS. Further, most participants (74%) felt that patients required a Gleason score ⩽6. There was little agreement on the timing of follow-up biopsies. Respondents who objected to AS were most commonly concerned with missing an opportunity for curative treatment (76%) and the risk of tumor undergrading (65%).Conclusions:The majority of participants were knowledgeable and accepting of AS. Respondents were in relative agreement regarding the PSA and Gleason score criteria for AS enrollment. In contrast, there was a lack of agreement on the timing of follow-up biopsies. In the future, comparative studies are required to determine the optimal enrollment criteria and follow-up protocol for patients managed with AS.