Growth rates and outcomes of observed large renal masses.

INTRODUCTION: The natural history of small renal masses has been well defined, leading to the recommendation of active surveillance in some patients with limited life expectancy. However, this information is less clear for large renal masses (LRM), leading to ambiguity for management in the older, comorbid patient. The objective of this study was to define the natural history, including the growth rate and metastatic risk, of LRM in order to better counsel patients regarding active surveillance. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients with solid renal masses >4 cm that had repeated imaging identified from an institutional imaging database. Patient comorbidities and outcomes were obtained through retrospective chart analysis. Outcomes assessed included tumour growth and metastatic rates, as well as cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) usimg Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS: We identified 69 patients between 2005 and 2016 who met the inclusion criteria. Mean age at study entry was 75.5 years; mean tumour maximal dimension at study entry was 5.6 cm. CSS was 83% and OS 63% for patients presenting without metastasis, with a mean followup of 57.5 months. The mean growth rate of those that developed metastasis during followup (n=15) was 0.98 cm/year (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-1.63) as compared to those that did not develop metastasis (n=46), with a growth rate of 0.67 cm/year (95% CI 0.34-1) (non-significant). Seven patients had evidence of metastasis at the baseline imaging of their LRM and had subsequent growth rate of 1.47 cm/year (95% CI 0.37-2.57) (non-significant) CONCLUSIONS: Compared to small renal masses, LRM are associated with higher metastasis rates and lower CSS and more rapid growth rates. Selection criteria for recommending observation of LRM in older, comorbid patients should be more conservative than for small renal masses.

Randomized, controlled trial of laser vs. bipolar plasma vaporization treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate vaporization technology is becoming a standard of care for treatment of moderate, symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We compared two transurethral prostate vaporization technologies with respect to cost, efficiency, efficacy, safety, and surgical team satisfaction. METHODS: Fifty-five patients meeting standardized symptom criteria for BPH were randomized to either Olympus Plasma ButtonTM or Biolitec EVOLVE® diode laser vaporization. Primary outcome of cost with secondary outcomes of clinical efficacy, resection time, surgical team satisfaction, and safety were analyzed. Followup was carried out at six and 12 weeks. Patient factors included baseline, as well as six- and 12-week International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) with quality of life (QoL) scores. We recorded surgical team satisfaction with a Likert-style survey investigating ease of set-up, reliability, efficiency, and ability to reach desired endpoint. All complications or side effects detected within three months and the resulting management were included in the cost analysis. RESULTS: Mean cost per patient was $3418 for the Olympus group and $4564 for Biolitec (p<0.05). Surgical vaporization time was significantly less for the Olympus group, 24.3 vs. 33.5 minutes (p<0.05). Surgical and nursing staff preferred the Olympus device (p<0.05). IPPS symptom improvement and complication rates were similar between groups. Patients in the Biolitec arm had more intraoperative bleeding episodes requiring conversion to monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (three vs. none). CONCLUSIONS: In a head-to-head randomized trial, Olympus Plasma Button transurethral vaporization was more cost-effective, faster, and preferred by surgical staff when compared to Biolitetec Diode Laser vaporization. Both devices showed similar safety and efficacy.

Day of surgery cancellation rates in urology: Identification of modifiable factors.

OBJECTIVE: Day-of-surgery cancellations have a negative effect on operating room (OR) resources, as well as on patient satisfaction and perception of quality of care. Given increasing wait times in a universal healthcare system and the nature of urological surgery in our aging population, it should be a priority to identify modifiable risks of OR cancellations to assure timely and efficient delivery of care. We explore the rate and reasons for elective surgery cancellations in a Canadian urological practice. METHODS: We evaluated the rate and reason of urological surgery cancellation at a single academic institution, prospectively collected in our centre's Operating Room Scheduling Office System (ORSOS) database. Documented reasons for cancellations were divided into 3 components: (1) structural factors (e.g., no hospital bed); (2) patient factors (e.g., patient unwell); and (3) process factors (e.g., scheduling error). Rates and reasons for cancellations were compared to those of General Surgery and Gynecology. The documented reasons for cancellation in the ORSOS database were confirmed or extended by chart review and interviews with a subset of cancelled patients. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2009, 1544 out of 19 141 (8.07 %) elective surgical cases were cancelled within the three surgical specialties (general surgery, gynecology and urology); urology had the highest average rate of 9.53%. Non-oncological cases represented a higher percentage of cancelled cases (15%, p < 0.001) and overall rates varied significantly over time in urology compared to the other surgical specialties. Potentially modifiable, process-related causes were by far the most common reason for cancellation (58.5%) and "standby" cases were a common cause of overall cancellation rates. Patient interviews confirmed the emotional and financial impact of cancellation; there was no overwhelming concern that clinical outcomes were negatively affected. CONCLUSIONS: This contemporary exploration of cancelled urological cases is consistent with previous reports, although variable over time and dependent on definitions used. Potentially modifiable, process-related factors appear to be most frequently associated with cancellation, although more thorough and detailed documentation is required to further mitigate inefficient OR use. We suggest that all OR cancellations should be considered to be adverse incidents to be monitored by institutions in a systematic fashion.