Active surveillance is superior to radical nephrectomy and equivalent to partial nephrectomy for preserving renal function in patients with small renal masses: Results from the DISSRM registry.

PURPOSE: We compared renal function outcomes among patients in the surveillance and intervention arms of the DISSRM registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were grouped into chronic kidney disease stages by estimated glomerular filtration rate range. Cases were considered up staged if a more advanced chronic kidney disease stage was entered during followup. Chronic kidney disease up staging-free survival was compared among groups using Kaplan-Meier analysis and paired comparisons log rank tests. Multivariate Cox regression identified independent predictors of chronic kidney disease up staging-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 162 patients met the study inclusion criteria, with 68 in the surveillance arm, 65 undergoing partial nephrectomy, 15 undergoing radical nephrectomy, and 14 undergoing cryoablation. Median tumor size was 2.2cm. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate change was significantly larger for radical nephrectomy vs. surveillance (-9.2 vs. -0.5ml/min/1.73m2) and for radical vs. partial nephrectomy (-9.2 vs. -1.9ml/min/1.73m2) (P = 0.001). No other groups differed significantly. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, patients undergoing radical nephrectomy had significantly worse chronic kidney disease up staging-free survival vs. those treated with partial nephrectomy (P = 0.029), surveillance (P = 0.007), and cryoablation (P = 0.019). No other groups differed significantly. On multivariate analysis, radical nephrectomy independently predicted poor chronic kidney disease up staging-free survival (odds ratio vs. surveillance 30.6, P = 0.001). Neither partial nephrectomy (P = 0.985) nor cryoablation (P = 0.976) predicted poor chronic kidney disease up staging-free survival relative to surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the surveillance arm had superior estimated glomerular filtration rate preservation compared to those in the radical nephrectomy but not the partial nephrectomy arm. In certain patients with small renal masses, surveillance and partial nephrectomy may offer comparable renal functional outcomes. This could be partly attributable to a modest estimated glomerular filtration rate decrease associated with surveillance itself. A thorough understanding of the renal functional impacts of treatment modalities is critical in the management of small renal masses.

Resection of isolated renal cell carcinoma metastases of the pancreas: outcomes from the Johns Hopkins Hospital.

PURPOSE: This study aims to assess outcomes and characteristics associated with resection of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) to the pancreas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From April 1989 to July 2012, a total of 42 patients underwent resection of pancreatic mRCC at our institution. We retrospectively reviewed records from a prospectively managed database and analyzed patient demographics, comorbidities, perioperative outcomes, and overall survival. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between patient-specific factors and overall survival. RESULTS: The mean time from resection of the primary tumor to reoperation for pancreatic mRCC was 11.2 years (range, 0-28.0 years). In total, 17 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, 16 underwent distal pancreatectomy, and 9 underwent total pancreatectomy. Perioperative complications occurred in 18 (42.9%) patients; there were two (4.8%) perioperative mortalities. After pancreatic resection, the median follow-up was 7.0 years (0.1-23.2 years), and median survival was 5.5 years (range, 0.4-21.9). The overall 5-year survival was 51.8%. On univariate analysis, vascular invasion (hazard ratio, 5.15; p = 0.005) was significantly associated with increased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic resection of mRCC can be safely achieved in the majority of cases and is associated with long-term survival. Specific pathological factors may predict which patients will benefit most from resection.

Very-high-risk localized prostate cancer: definition and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) can vary substantially-some will have excellent cancer-specific survival, whereas others will experience early metastasis even after aggressive local treatments. Current nomograms, which yield continuous risk probabilities, do not separate high-risk PCa into distinct sub-strata. Here, we derive a binary definition of very-high-risk (VHR) localized PCa to aid in risk stratification at diagnosis and selection of therapy. METHODS: We queried the Johns Hopkins radical prostatectomy database to identify 753 men with NCCN high-risk localized PCa (Gleason sum 8-10, PSA >20 ng ml(-1), or clinical stage ≥T3). Twenty-eight alternate permutations of adverse grade, stage and cancer volume were compared by their hazard ratios for metastasis and cancer-specific mortality. VHR criteria with top-ranking hazard ratios were further evaluated by multivariable analyses and inclusion of a clinically meaningful proportion of the high-risk cohort. RESULTS: The VHR cohort was best defined by primary pattern 5 present on biopsy, or ≥5 cores with Gleason sum 8-10, or multiple NCCN high-risk features. These criteria encompassed 15.1% of the NCCN high-risk cohort. Compared with other high-risk men, VHR men were at significantly higher risk for metastasis (hazard ratio 2.75) and cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio 3.44) (P<0.001 for both). Among high-risk men, VHR men also had significantly worse 10-year metastasis-free survival (37% vs 78%) and cancer-specific survival (62% vs 90%). CONCLUSIONS: Men who meet VHR criteria form a subgroup within the current NCCN high-risk classification who have particularly poor oncological outcomes. Use of these characteristics to distinguish VHR localized PCa may help in counseling and selection optimal candidates for multimodal treatments or clinical trials.