Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Concern regarding coexisting malignant pathology in benign renal tumors deters renal biopsy and questions its validity. We examined the rates of coexisting malignant and high grade pathology in resected benign solid solitary renal tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Using our prospectively maintained database we identified 1,829 patients with a solitary solid renal tumor who underwent surgical resection between 1994 and 2012. Lesions containing elements of renal oncocytoma, angiomyolipoma or another benign pathology formed the basis for this analysis. Patients with an oncocytic malignancy without classic oncocytoma and those with known hereditary syndromes were excluded from study. RESULTS:We identified 147 patients with pathologically proven elements of renal oncocytoma (96), angiomyolipoma (44) or another solid benign pathology (7). Median tumor size was 3.0 cm (IQR 2.2-4.5). As quantified by the R.E.N.A.L. (radius, exophytic/endophytic, nearness to collecting system or sinus, anterior/posterior and location relative to polar lines) nephrometry score, tumor anatomical complexity was low in 28% of cases, moderate in 56% and high in 16%. Only 4 patients (2.7%) were documented as having hybrid malignant pathology, all involving chromophobe renal cell carcinoma in the setting of renal oncocytoma. At a median followup of 44 months (IQR 33-55) no patient with a hybrid tumor experienced regional or metastatic progression. CONCLUSIONS:In our cohort of patients with a solitary, sporadic, solid benign renal mass fewer than 3% of tumors showed coexisting hybrid malignancy. Importantly, no patient harbored coexisting high grade pathology. These data suggest that uncertainty regarding hybrid malignant pathology coexisting with benign pathological components should not deter renal biopsy, especially in the elderly and comorbid populations.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Thromboprophylaxis with subcutaneous heparin or low molecular weight heparin is now an integral part of national surgical quality and safety assessment efforts, and has been incorporated into the current AUA Best Practice Statement. We evaluated familiarity and compliance with the AUA Best Practice Statement, assessed practice patterns in terms of perioperative thromboprophylaxis and specifically examined self-reported compliance in high risk patients undergoing radical cystectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:An electronic survey was sent to AUA members with valid e-mail addresses (10,966). Associations between AUA Best Practice Statement adherence and factors such as urological specialty, graduation year and guideline familiarity were assessed using chi-square analyses and generalized estimating equations. RESULTS:With 1,210 survey responses the largest group of respondents was urological oncologists and/or laparoscopic/robotic specialists (26.0%). This group was more likely to use thromboprophylaxis than nonurological oncologists and/or laparoscopic/robotic specialists in high risk patients (OR 1.3, CI 1.1-1.5). Respondents aware of the AUA Best Practice Statement guidelines (50.7%) were more likely to use thromboprophylaxis (OR 1.4, CI 1.2-1.6). Although 18.1% of urological oncologists and/or laparoscopic/robotic specialists and 34.2% of nonurological oncologists and/or laparoscopic/robotic specialists avoided routine thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing radical cystectomy, the former were more likely to use thromboprophylaxis (p <0.0001) than other respondents. Urologists graduating after the year 2000 used thromboprophylaxis in high risk patients undergoing radical cystectomy more often than did earlier graduates (79.2% vs 63.4%, p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Although younger age and self-reported urological oncologist and/or laparoscopic/robotic specialist status correlated strongly with thromboprophylaxis use, self-reported adherence to AUA Best Practice Statement was low, even in high risk cases with clear AUA Best Practice Statement recommendations such as radical cystectomy. These data identify opportunities for quality improvement in patients undergoing major urological surgery.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate prostate cancer diagnosis rates and survival outcomes in patients receiving unrelated (non-prostate) urological care with those in patients receiving non-urological care. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We conducted a population-based study using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database to identify men who underwent surgical treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC; n = 18,188) and colorectal carcinoma (CRC; n = 45,093) between 1992 and 2008. Using SEER*stat software to estimate standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), we investigated rates of prostate cancer diagnosis in patients with RCC and patients with CRC. Adjusting for patient age, race and year of diagnosis on multivariate analysis, we used Cox and Fine and Gray proportional hazards regressions to evaluate overall and disease-specific survival endpoints. RESULTS:The observed incidence of prostate cancer was higher in both the patients with RCC and those with CRC: SIR = 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-1.46) vs 1.06 (95% CI 1.02-1.11). Adjusted prostate cancer SIRs were 30% higher (P < 0.001) in patients with RCC. Overall (hazard ratio = 1.13, P < 0.001) and primary cancer-adjusted mortalities (sub-distribution Hazard Ratio (sHR) = 1.17, P < 0.001) were higher in patients with RCC with no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality (sHR = 0.827, P = 0.391). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Rates of prostate cancer diagnosis were higher in patients with RCC (a cohort with unrelated urological cancer care) than in those with CRC. Despite higher overall mortality in patients with RCC, prostate cancer-specific survival was similar in both groups. Opportunities may exist to better target prostate cancer screening in patients who receive non-prostate-related urological care. Furthermore, urologists should not feel obligated to perform prostate-specific antigen screening for all patients receiving non-prostate-related urological care.

The increased diagnosis of small renal masses (SRMs) poses the challenge of how best to manage patients with tumours that are not likely to progress and cause death during their lifetime. Concerns regarding overdiagnosis and overtreatment of patients with low-risk or indolent disease has led to the introduction of active surveillance as an alternative to immediate intervention in select candidates. However, differentiating between benign or low-grade lesions and high-grade aggressive phenotypes is difficult. Renal biopsy, radiographic assessment, and clinical nomograms have been used before surgery to evaluate the probability of whether an SRM will exhibit characteristics of an aggressive cancer. SRM growth trends have been studied over periods of observation but no characteristics have been found to correlate with aggressive growth kinetics. Stratification of patients with SRMs according to risk status is crucial when considering whether active surveillance might be an appropriate treatment option. Factors that should be taken into account include comorbidities, a history of malignancy, pre-existing chronic kidney disease, life expectancy and patient preference. Standardized active surveillance protocols are currently lacking, and clinical trials designed to randomize patients with SRMs to receive either active surveillance or immediate treatment are sorely needed to address the existing evidence gap.