Distribution of metastatic sites in renal cell carcinoma: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the distribution of site-specific metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) according to age. Moreover, we evaluated recommendations proposed by guidelines and focused specifically on bone and brain metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) were abstracted from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (1998-2007). Age was stratified into four groups: <55, 55-64, 65-74 and ≥ 75 years. Cochran-Armitage trend test and multivariable logistic regression analysis tested the relationship between age and the rate of multiple metastatic sites. Finally, we examined the rates of brain or bone metastases according to the presence of other metastatic sites. RESULTS: In 11,157 mRCC patients, the rate of multiple metastatic sites decreased with increasing age (P < 0.001). This phenomenon was confirmed in patients with lung, bone, liver and brain metastases (all P ≤ 0.01). The rate of bone metastases was 10% in patients with exclusive abdominal metastases and 49% in patients with abdominal, thoracic and brain metastases. The rate of brain metastases was 2% in patients with exclusive abdominal metastases and 16% in patients with thoracic and bone metastases. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients with multiple metastatic sites is higher in young patients. The rates of bone (10%-49%) and brain (2%-16%) metastases are nonnegligible in mRCC patients.

Sorafenib in the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Sorafenib represents one of the two standards of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In the present review, we provide information regarding the use of sorafenib in first and second lines. We also describe results for dose escalation strategies. Finally, we provide data addressing the efficacy of sorafenib in patients with mRCC of non-clear-cell histology. RECENT FINDINGS: Sorafenib is a valid first-line agent. Sorafenib response rates and toxicity are not affected by patient age or site of metastasis. The sequence of first-line sorafenib followed by second-line sunitinib resulted in a longer duration of response than did the opposite sequence. Sorafenib efficacy in first-line therapy can be potentiated by co-administration of low-dose interferon. Moreover, in first-line therapy, impressive response rates were recorded when the dose of sorafenib was escalated beyond the standard 400 mg twice daily. Similarly impressive response rates were observed with dose escalation in second-line therapy. It is notable that dose escalation after failure of standard sorafenib dose also prolongs progression-free survival. Finally, the efficacy of sorafenib is not limited to clear-cell histology, but also applies to chromophobe and papillary mRCC variants. SUMMARY: Sorafenib is a highly effective and well-tolerated agent for first- and second-line patients with clear-cell, chromophobe, or papillary mRCC variants.

Propensity-score matched comparison of complications, blood transfusions, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality between open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a national series.

BACKGROUND: To examine the use of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN), as well as intraoperative and postoperative morbidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for years 1998-2007. Patients with non-metastatic kidney cancer who underwent OPN or LPN were identified. Propensity-based matching was performed to adjust for potential baseline differences between the two groups. The rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications, blood transfusions, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality were assessed for both procedures. RESULTS: Overall, 7990 (93.9%) and 523 (6.1%) patients underwent OPN and LPN, respectively. Use of LPN increased 19-fold over the study period (P < 0.001). For OPN and LPN respectively, the following rates were recorded: blood transfusions, 9.3 vs. 3.8% (P < 0.001); intraoperative complications, 2.9 vs. 1.5% (P = 0.06); postoperative complications, 15.4 vs. 11.3% (P = 0.01); length of stay ≥5 days, 46.7 vs. 20.8% (P < 0.001); in-hospital mortality, 0.4 vs. 0.4% (P = 0.98). In multivariable logistic regression analyses, LPN patients were less likely to have a blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.40, P < 0.001), to experience any postoperative complication (OR: 0.74, P = 0.03), and to be hospitalized for more than 5 days (OR: 0.32, P < 0.001). Post-propensity score matched analyses revealed virtually the same results. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for potential selection biases, LPN is associated with fewer adverse outcomes than OPN. However, the current results should be interpreted with caution, given the lack of tumor characteristics. Furthermore, statistical adjustment is not a substitute for a needed randomized trial.

Impact of annual surgical volume on length of stay in patients undergoing minimally invasive prostatectomy: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: On average, patients remain hospitalized no more than 2 days after MIRP. The aim of our study was to examine the temporal trends in length of stay ≥ 3 days and to test the relationship between annual surgical volume (ASV) and annual hospital volume (AHV) and length of stay ≥ 3 days in patients undergoing MIRP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Within the Florida Hospital Inpatient Datafile, 2439 men who were treated with MIRP for prostate cancer between 2005 and 2008 were identified. Temporal trends were assessed and uni and multi-variable logistic regression models tested the relationship between ASV, AHV and length of stay ≥ 3 days. RESULTS: The average length of stay decreased from 2.4 in 2005 to 1.7 days in 2008. Length of stay ≥ 3 days was recorded in 13.6% of patients and the proportion of patients staying more than ≥ 3 days decreased over time (25.5-12.2%; Chi Square trend p < 0.001). After stratification into low (<1-15 MIRPs) vs. intermediate (16-63 MIRPs) vs. high ASV tertiles (≥ 64 MIRPs) the proportion of patients with length of stay ≥ 3 days were 29.1; 13.2 and 11.1%. In multivariable logistic regression models predicting length of stay ≥ 3 days, ASV, year of surgery and comorbidities achieved independent predictor status and MIRP patients operated by highest ASV tertile surgeons were 71% (p < 0.001) less likely to be hospitalized for more than 3 days. CONCLUSION: The length of stay after MIRP decreased between 2005 and 2008. Surgical expertise represented one of the main determinants of shorter length of stay.

Partin Tables cannot accurately predict the pathological stage at radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The Partin Tables represent the most commonly used staging tool for radical prostatectomy (RP) candidates. The Partin Tables' predictions are used to guide the type (nerve preserving RP) and/or the extent (RP with wide resection) of RP. We examined the ability of the Partin Tables' predictions incorrectly assigning the stage at RP. METHODS: The testing of the Partin Tables (external validation) was based on 3105 patients treated with RP at a single European institution. Standard validation metrics were used (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, AUC) to test the three endpoints predicted by the Partin Tables, namely the presence of extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), and lymph node invasion (LNI). RESULTS: Ideal predictions are denoted with 100% accuracy vs. 50% for entirely random predictions. For the 2001 version of the Tables the accuracy defined by the AUC was 79.7, 77.8, and 73.0 for ECE, SVI, and LNI, respectively. For the 2007 version of the Tables the corresponding accuracy estimates were 79.8, 80.5, and 76.2. The relationship between predicted probabilities and observed rates was poor. CONCLUSION: The Partin Tables are meant to guide clinicians about the safety of nerve bundle preservation at RP, about the need for seminal vesicle resection or for lymphadenectomy. Therefore, the use of the Partin Tables predictions may significantly affect the type and/or the extent of RP. In their present format the Partin Tables are not accurate enough to influence the pre-operative decision making regarding the type or extent of RP.