Partial Versus Radical Nephrectomy: Complexity of Decision-Making and Utility of AUA Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The American-Urological-Association(AUA) Guidelines for renal cancer(2017) recommend consideration for radical-nephrectomy(RN) over partial(PN) whenever there is increased oncologic-risk; and RN should be prioritized if three other criteria are all also met: 1) increased tumor-complexity; 2) no preexisting chronic-kidney-disease/ proteinuria, and 3) normal contralateral kidney that will likely provide estimated glomerular-filtration-rate (eGFR) >45ml/min/1.73m2 even if RN is performed. Our objective was to assess the complexity of decision-making about RN/PN and utility of AUA Guidelines statements regarding this issue. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 267 consecutive RN/PN from 2019(100-RN/167-PN). High tumor-complexity was defined as R.E.N.A.L.≥9. Increased oncologic-risk was defined as tumor >7cm, locally-advanced or infiltrative-features on imaging, or high-risk pathology on biopsy, if obtained. New-baseline GFR after RN was estimated using global-GFR, split-renal-functioncontralateral, and presuming 25% renal-functional-compensation. RESULTS: 163 patients(61%) fit scenarios that are well-defined in the Guidelines. Of these, 34 had strong indications for RN, and all had RN. Twelve of 129 patients(9.3%) underwent RN despite Guidelines generally favoring PN. The remaining 104 patients(39%) did not fit within situations where the Guidelines provide specific recommendations. In these patients, RN was often performed despite functional-considerations favoring PN due to overriding concerns about oncologic-risk and/or tumor-complexity. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate complexity of decision-making about PN/RN as almost 40% of patients did not fit well-described AUA Guidelines descriptors. Compliance was generally strong although occasional overutilization of RN remains a concern in our series, and will be addressed with additional education. Further studies will be required to assess the generalizability of our findings in other institutions/settings.

The Performance and Optimum Cutoff Value for Pelvic Cavity Index as a Predictor of Early Continence After Extraperitoneal Single-Port Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Role of Pelvic Anatomical Characteristics.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the value of the pelvic cavity index (PCI), as an objective pelvimetry feature, to predict operative time, margin status, and early urine continence after extraperitoneal single-port robotic radical prostatectomy (RP). We sought to define an optimal cutoff point for PCI in predicting postoperative outcomes. Methods: A total of 94 patients who underwent extraperitoneal single-port robotic RP and preoperative cross-sectional imaging were enrolled. PCI was calculated as follows: Pelvicinletdiameter×PelvicoutletdiameterPelvicdepth. The predictive value of PCI for operative time, surgical margin status, and 3-month urinary continence recovery was assessed using regression models. To report the optimum cutoff value, on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, we calculated the performance of PCI cutoff points ranging from 5.56 to 10.80 cm by every 0.01 increment. Results: No significant associations were noted between clinical characteristics (including PCI) and operative time. Similarly, other than pathological stage, no clinical variables (including PCI) were predictive of the positive surgical margin. However, a higher PCI was associated with a significantly higher rate of continence 3 months after surgery [odds ratio 2.44 (1.75-5.33); p = 0.01]. On ROC analysis, a PCI cutoff value = 8.21 cm yielded the best accuracy (area under the curve = 0.733, 95% confidence interval 0.615-0.851; p = 0.001). No association was noted between variables and 6-month continence rates. Conclusions: With a single-port robotic system, the operative time, positive surgical margin rate, and long-term continence after prostatectomy would be independent of the bony pelvic cavity. However, a higher PCI is associated with a higher rate of early continence after surgery. PCI at a cutoff of 8.21 cm has the optimum performance to predict postoperative urine continence recovery. If validated, this information may be helpful regarding patient counseling before single-port robotic RP.

A randomized controlled trial comparing treatment with oral agents and basal insulin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes in long-term care facilities.

BACKGROUND: Managing hyperglycemia and diabetes is challenging in geriatric patients admitted to long-term care (LTC) facilities. METHODS: This randomized control trial enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with blood glucose (BG) >180 mg/dL or glycated hemoglobin >7.5% to receive low-dose basal insulin (glargine, starting dose 0.1 U/kg/day) or oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) therapy as per primary care provider discretion for 26 weeks. Both groups received supplemental rapid-acting insulin before meals for BG >200 mg/dL. Primary end point was difference in glycemic control as measured by fasting and mean daily glucose concentration between groups. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients (age: 79±8 years, body mass index: 30.1±6.5 kg/m(2), duration of diabetes mellitus: 8.2±5.1 years, randomization BG: 194±97 mg/dL) were randomized to basal insulin (n=75) and OAD therapy (n=75). There were no differences in the mean fasting BG (131±27 mg/dL vs 123±23 mg/dL, p=0.06) between insulin and OAD groups, but patients treated with insulin had greater mean daily BG (163±39 mg/dL vs 138±27 mg/dL, p<0.001) compared to those treated with OADs. There were no differences in the rate of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) between insulin (27%) and OAD (31%) groups, p=0.58. In addition, there were no differences in the number of hospital complications, emergency room visits, and mortality between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this randomized study indicate that elderly patients with T2D in LTC facilities exhibited similar glycemic control, hypoglycemic events and complications when treated with either basal insulin or with oral antidiabetic drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01131052.