Surgical treatment for renal masses in the elderly: analysis of oncological, surgical and functional outcomes

ABSTRACT Purpose: Radical treatment in elderly patients with renal tumor remains debatable due to uncertainties regarding the risk of surgical complications, risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and survival benefit. The aim of the study was to assess outcomes of radical treatment for renal cancer in elderly patients. Materials and Methods: This retrospective analysis enrolled 507 consecutive patients treated with partial or radical nephrectomy due to renal mass. Patients with upfront metastatic disease (n=46) and patients lost to follow-up (n=110) were excluded from the analysis. Surgical, functional (screen for ESRD development) and survival outcomes were analyzed in patients aged >75 years in comparison to younger individuals. Results: The analyzed group included 55 elderly patients and 296 younger controls. Within the cohort a total of 148 and 203 patients underwent radical and partial nephrectomies respectively. The rate of surgical complications, including grade ≥3 Clavien- Dindo complications, did not differ between groups (3.6% vs. 4.4%, p=0.63). Median length of hospital stay was equal in both groups (7 days). During a follow-up (median 51.9 months, no difference between groups), ESRD occurred in 3.4% of controls and was not reported in elderly group (p=0.37). Younger patients demonstrated a statistically significant advantage in both overall survival and cancer-specific survival over elderly patients (OS 94.6% vs. 87% p=0.036, CSS 97.3% vs. 89.1% p=0.0008). Conclusions: Surgical treatment in elderly patients with renal tumor is as safe as in younger individuals and does not increase the risk of ESRD. However, cancer specific survival among these patients remains shorter than in younger patients.

Surgical treatment for renal masses in the elderly: analysis of oncological, surgical and functional outcomes.

PURPOSE: Radical treatment in elderly patients with renal tumor remains debatable due to uncertainties regarding the risk of surgical complications, risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and survival benefit. The aim of the study was to assess outcomes of radical treatment for renal cancer in elderly patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis enrolled 507 consecutive patients treated with partial or radical nephrectomy due to renal mass. Patients with upfront metastatic disease (n=46) and patients lost to follow-up (n=110) were excluded from the analysis. Surgical, functional (screen for ESRD development) and survival outcomes were analyzed in patients aged >75 years in comparison to younger individuals. RESULTS: The analyzed group included 55 elderly patients and 296 younger controls. Within the cohort a total of 148 and 203 patients underwent radical and partial nephrectomies respectively. The rate of surgical complications, including grade >3 Clavien- Dindo complications, did not differ between groups (3.6% vs. 4.4%, p=0.63). Median length of hospital stay was equal in both groups (7 days). During a follow-up (median 51.9 months, no difference between groups), ESRD occurred in 3.4% of controls and was not reported in elderly group (p=0.37). Younger patients demonstrated a statistically significant advantage in both overall survival and cancer-specific survival over elderly patients (OS 94.6% vs. 87% p=0.036, CSS 97.3% vs. 89.1% p=0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment in elderly patients with renal tumor is as safe as in younger individuals and does not increase the risk of ESRD. However, cancer specific survival among these patients remains shorter than in younger patients.

The practice of defensive medicine among hospital doctors in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Defensive medicine is defined as a doctor's deviation from standard practice to reduce or prevent complaints or criticism. The objectives of this study were to assess the prevalence of the practice of defensive medicine in the UK among hospital doctors and the factors affecting it. METHODS: A quantitative study was designed, with a detailed seventeen point questionnaire. Defensive medicine practice was assessed and tested against four factors age, gender, specialty and grade. Three hundred hospital doctors from three UK hospitals received the questionnaire. RESULTS: Two hundred and four (68%) out of 300 hospital doctors responded to the survey. Seventy eight percent reported practicing one form or another of defensive medicine. Ordering unnecessary tests is the commonest form of defensive medicine reported by 59% of the respondents. This is followed by unnecessary referral to other specialties (55%). While only 9% of the sampled doctors would refuse to treat high risk patients, double this number would avoid high risks procedures all together (21%). A linear regression module has shown that only senior grade was associated with less practice of defensive medicine. CONCLUSION: Defensive medical practice is common among the doctors who responded to the survey. Senior grade is associated with less practice of defensive medicine.