Development and Implementation of a Continuing Medical Education Program in Canada: Knowledge Translation for Renal Cell Carcinoma (KT4RCC).

An in-person multidisciplinary continuing medical education (CME) program was designed to address previously identified knowledge gaps regarding quality indicators of care in kidney cancer. The objective of this study was to develop a CME program and determine if the program was effective for improving participant knowledge. CME programs for clinicians were delivered by local experts (uro-oncologist and medical oncologist) in four Canadian cities. Participants completed knowledge assessment tests pre-CME, immediately post-CME, and 3-month post-CME. Test questions were related to topics covered in the CME program including prognostic factors for advanced disease, surgery for advanced disease, indications for hereditary screening, systemic therapy, and management of small renal masses. Fifty-two participants attended the CME program and completed the pre- and immediate post-CME tests. Participants attended in Ottawa (14; 27%), Toronto (13; 25%), Québec City (18; 35%), and Montréal (7; 13%) and were staff urologists (21; 40%), staff medical oncologists (9; 17%), fellows (5; 10%), residents (16; 31%), and oncology nurses (1; 2%). The mean pre-CME test score was 61% and the mean post-CME test score was 70% (p = 0.003). Twenty-one participants (40%) completed the 3-month post-CME test. Of those that completed the post-test, scores remained 10% higher than the pre-test (p value 0.01). Variability in test scores was observed across sites and between French and English test versions. Urologists had the largest specialty-specific increase in knowledge at 13.8% (SD 24.2, p value 0.02). The kidney cancer CME program was moderately effective in improving provider knowledge regarding quality indicators of kidney cancer care. These findings support continued use of this CME program at other sites.

The kidney cancer research priority-setting partnership: Identifying the top 10 research priorities as defined by patients, caregivers, and expert clinicians.

It is critically important to define disease-specific research priorities to better allocate limited resources. There is growing recognition of the value of involving patients and caregivers, as well as expert clinicians in this process. To our knowledge, this has not been done this way for kidney cancer. Using the transparent and inclusive process established by the James Lind Alliance, the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. The final result was identification of 10 research priorities for kidney cancer, which are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge. This process provided a systematic and effective way to collaboratively establish research priorities with patients, caregivers, and clinicians, and provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies.

Setting Research Priorities for Kidney Cancer.

Defining disease-specific research priorities in cancer can facilitate better allocation of limited resources. Involving patients and caregivers as well as expert clinicians in this process is of value. We undertook this approach for kidney cancer as an example. The Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership that identified ten research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. These are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge.

Needs Assessment Survey for the Management of Kidney Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In this study we determined self-perceived knowledge gaps and continuing medical education preferences among Canadian urologists and medical oncologists related to the treatment of patients with kidney cancer. METHODS: A needs assessment survey was created by the Quality Initiative group of the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada using an iterative feedback process. The survey determined knowledge gaps and continuing medical education preferences pertaining to 23 previously validated quality indicators of kidney cancer care. Topics included screening, diagnosis, prognosis, surgical management, systemic therapies and followup care. The survey was distributed via e-mail to Canadian urologists and medical oncologists. RESULTS: Among the 164 respondents 121 (74%) were urologists and 43 (26%) were medical oncologists. The majority of respondents practice in academic (72, 57%) or large urban community centers (40, 32%). Of the 23 quality indicators examined 14 were designated as priority continuing medical education topics based on perceived inadequate knowledge or high interest in the topic. Priority topics were similar for urologists and medical oncologists, and covered the spectrum of kidney cancer care with an emphasis on hereditary kidney cancer and management of advanced disease. Most respondents preferred that continuing medical education be delivered through in person, case based group discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian urologists and medical oncologists report similar knowledge gaps and continuing medical education preferences regarding kidney cancer care. Priority topics include screening for hereditary kidney cancer and management of advanced disease.

Structured assessment and followup for patients with hereditary kidney tumour syndromes.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal clinical assessment and subsequent followup of patients with or suspected of having a hereditary renal cell carcinoma syndrome (hRCC) is not standardized and practice varies widely. We propose protocols to optimize these processes in patients with hRCC to encourage a more uniform approach to management that can then be evaluated. METHODS: A review of the literature, including existing guidelines, was carried out for the years 1985-2015. Expert consensus was used to define recommendations for initial assessment and followup. RESULTS: Recommendations for newly diagnosed patients' assessment and optimal ages to initiate followup protocols for von Hippel Lindau disease (VHL), hereditary papillary renal cancer (HPRC), hereditary leiomyomatosis with renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC), Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome (BHD), familial paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma syndromes (PGL-PCC), and tuberous sclerosis (TSC) are proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed consensus for structured assessment and followup is intended as a roadmap for the care of patients with hRCC to guide healthcare providers. Although the list of syndromes included is not exhaustive, the document serves as a starting point for future updates.

Knowledge of genetic testing for hereditary kidney cancer in Canada is lacking: The results of the Canadian national hereditary kidney cancer needs assessment survey.

INTRODUCTON: Treatment of hereditary renal cell carcinoma (HRCC) requires a multidisciplinary approach that may involve medical oncologists, geneticists, genetic counsellors, and urologists. The objective of our survey was to obtain current and representative information about the use and perceived importance of genetic testing for HRCC in Canada. METHODS: A self-administered web-based survey was provided to Canadian medical oncologists, geneticists, genetic counsellors, and urologists in collaboration with their respective associations. The survey was created through an iterative process in consultation with the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada and contained both quantitative and qualitative components. The survey was designed to be exploratory and results were compared across regions. RESULTS: The overall response was low (6.6%). Of the respondents, 42%, 33%, 19%, 5% were genetic counsellors, urologists, medical oncologists and medical geneticists, respectively. Of the respondents, 62.7% described their practice as academic, and 37.3% described it as non-academic. Non-academic respondents tended to refer for genetic counselling less frequently than academic (48.6% vs. 67.2%). Most respondents believed that genetic testing for HRCC was available (82.8%), although 47.7% did not know which tests were available. This observation was consistent across provinces. Testing for Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome was given the highest priority among respondents. Limited provider knowledge, clinical guidelines, institutional funding, access, and poor coordination between disciplines were cited as barriers to testing. INTERPRETATION: There is a need to increase provider knowledge of genetic testing for HRCC. These findings support the development of practice guidelines and national strategies to improve coordination of specialists and access to genetics services. Limitations of the present study include low survey response which did not allow for inferential analysis by geographic region or respondent specialty.

Kidney cancer survivorship survey of urologists and survivors: The gap in perceptions of care, but agreement on needs.

INTRODUCTION: There is lack of evidence-based literature addressing comprehensive long-term care for kidney cancer (KC) survivors. Additionally, it is unclear if the concerns of KC patients/caregivers are being adequately addressed. Therefore, Kidney Cancer Canada, a patient-led support organization for Canadians with KC, commissioned this first recorded survivorship survey specific to KC patients/caregivers. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of Canadian patients/caregivers diagnosed with localized KC, and a separate parallel survey of Canadian urologists. The primary objectives were to assess patient/caregivers' and urologists' perceptions of information provided, as well as the physical/psychological/emotional impact of KC treatment. RESULTS: Urologists recalled providing information about surgical complications (90%) and their management (63%), while patients/caregiver recalled much less (33% and 35%). Of the urologists, 93% recalled providing information on cancer recurrence, but only 42% of patients/caregivers remembered receiving this information. Concerns identified by patients/caregivers and urologists were similar: fear of recurrence, concerns about cancer, fatigue, and anxiety. Importantly, all agreed that survivorship information was paramount. Education of both patients/caregivers and physicians and the development of guidelines were factors identified to ensure optimal KC survivorship. Study limitations include potential biases in recall and selection of participants. CONCLUSION: There was some discordance between urologists' and patients/caregivers' rates of recall of information provided. Patients/caregivers would have desired more information about their cancer, long-term follow-up, and potential complications. A survivorship care plan (SCP) tailored to KC may be an effective measure to address these needs. The impact of this SCP on survivor outcomes should be rigorously assessed.

Growth kinetics of small renal masses: A prospective analysis from the Renal Cell Carcinoma Consortium of Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Most small renal masses (SRMs) are diagnosed incidentally and have a low malignant potential. As more elderly patients and infirm patients are diagnosed with SRMs, there is an increased interest in active surveillance (AS) with delayed intervention. Patient and tumour characteristics relating to aggressive disease have not been well-studied. The objective was to determine predictors of growth of SRMs treated with AS. METHODS: A multicentre prospective phase 2 clinical trial was conducted on 207 SRMs in 169 patients in 8 institutions in Canada from 2004 to 2009; in these patients treatment was delayed until disease progression. Patient and tumour characteristics were evaluated to determine predictors of growth of SRMs by measuring rates of change in growth (on imaging) over time. All patients underwent AS for presumed renal cell carcinoma (RCC) based on diagnostic imaging. We used the following factors to develop a predictive model of tumour growth with binary recursive partitioning analysis: patient characteristics (age, symptoms at diagnosis) and tumour characteristics (consistency [solid vs. cystic] and maximum diameter at diagnosis. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 603 days, 169 patients (with 207 SRMs) were followed prospectively. Age, symptoms at diagnosis, tumour consistency and maximum diameter of the renal mass were not predictors of growth. This cohort was limited by lack of availability of patient and tumour characteristics, such as sex, degree of endophytic component and tumour location. CONCLUSION: Slow growth rates and the low malignant potential of SRMs have led to AS as a treatment option in the elderly and infirm population. In a large prospective cohort, we have shown that age, symptoms, tumour consistency and maximum diameter of the mass at diagnosis are not predictors of growth of T1a lesions. More knowledge on predictors of growth of SRMs is needed.

Canadian guideline on genetic screening for hereditary renal cell cancers.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary renal cell cancer (RCC) is an ideal model for germline genetic testing. We propose a guideline of hereditary RCC specific criteria to suggest referral for genetic assessment. METHODS: A review of the literature and stakeholder resources for existing guidelines or consensus statements was performed. Referral criteria were developed by expert consensus. RESULTS: The criteria included characteristics for patients with RCC (age ≤45 years, bilateral or multifocal tumours, associated medical conditions and non-clear cell histologies with unusual features) and for patients with or without RCC, but a family history of specific clinical or genetic diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline represents a practical RCC-specific reference to allow healthcare providers to identify patients who may have a hereditary RCC syndrome, without extensive knowledge of each syndrome. RCC survivors and their families can also use the document to guide their discussions with healthcare providers about their need for referral. The criteria refer to the most common hereditary renal tumour syndromes and do not represent a comprehensive or exclusive list. Prospective validation of the criteria is warranted.

Active surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most early stage kidney cancers are renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), and most are diagnosed incidentally by imaging as small renal masses (SRMs). Indirect evidence suggests that most small RCCs grow slowly and rarely metastasize. OBJECTIVE: To determine the progression and growth rates for newly diagnosed SRMs stratified by needle core biopsy pathology. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter prospective phase 2 clinical trial of active surveillance of 209 SRMs in 178 elderly and/or infirm patients was conducted from 2004 until 2009 with treatment delayed until progression. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent serial imaging and needle core biopsies. MEASUREMENTS: We measured rates of change in tumor diameter (growth measured by imaging) and progression to ≥ 4 cm, doubling of tumor volume, or metastasis with histology on biopsy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Local progression occurred in 25 patients (12%), plus 2 progressed with metastases (1.1%). Of the 178 subjects with 209 SRMs, 127 with 151 SRMs had>12 mo of follow-up with two or more images, with a mean follow-up of 28 mo. Their tumor diameters increased by an average of 0.13 cm/yr. Needle core biopsy in 101 SRMs demonstrated that the presence of RCC did not significantly change growth rate. Limitations included no central review of imaging and pathology and a short follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first SRM active surveillance study to correlate growth with histology prospectively. In the first 2 yr, the rate of local progression to higher stage is low, and metastases are rare. SRMs appear to grow very slowly, even if biopsy proven to be RCC. Many patients with SRMs can therefore be initially managed conservatively with serial imaging, avoiding the morbidity of surgical or ablative treatment.

Impact of a multi-disciplinary patient education session on accrual to a difficult clinical trial: the Toronto experience with the surgical prostatectomy versus interstitial radiation intervention trial.

PURPOSE: Random assignment to clinical trials involving different treatment modalities can be difficult. We describe our experience with the Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial (SPIRIT; ACOSOG Z0070 NCIC PR10), a randomized trial for early-stage prostate cancer comparing radical prostatectomy (RP), and brachytherapy (BT). A multidisciplinary educational session was developed to improve patient understanding of treatment options and to facilitate accrual. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prostate cancer referrals were screened and men who met favorable risk criteria (T1c/T2a, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] < 10 ng/mL, Gleason < or = 6) were invited to a structured education session before a specialty consultation. Men and their partners viewed the SPIRIT informed-consent video and heard from a cancer patient who described his participation in a randomized trial. Then, a urologist and radiation oncologist together compared and contrasted RP and BT to establish the rationale for the trial. RESULTS: In May 2002, SPIRIT opened for accrual and was endorsed by the University Health Network urologists and radiation oncologists. The first 27 eligible patients were approached about SPIRIT, consulted both specialties, and viewed an educational video. No patients consented. The multidisciplinary education session was then introduced. Forty-seven education sessions with 263 patients resulted in 34 consents. Of 203 patients who were suitable for the study but declined random assignment, 62 chose surgery, 94 chose brachytherapy, three patients chose external radiotherapy, and 11 chose no treatment. Consent rates for eligible and suitable patients were one in six. CONCLUSION: Men who understand their treatment options and trial rationale as presented jointly by representative specialists from competing treatment modalities may be better equipped to make an informed decision and are more likely to consent to random assignment.