Assessing the impact of MRI based diagnostics on pre-treatment disease classification and prognostic model performance in men diagnosed with new prostate cancer from an unscreened population.

INTRODUCTION: Pre-treatment risk and prognostic groups are the cornerstone for deciding management in non-metastatic prostate cancer. All however, were developed in the pre-MRI era. Here we compared categorisation of cancers using either only clinical parameters or with MRI enhanced information in men referred for suspected prostate cancer from an unscreened population. PATIENT AND METHODS: Data from men referred from primary care to our diagnostic service and with both clinical (digital rectal examination [DRE] and systematic biopsies) and MRI enhanced attributes (MRI stage and combined systematic/targeted biopsies) were used for this study. Clinical vs MRI data were contrasted for clinico-pathological and risk group re-distribution using the European Association of Urology (EAU), American Urological Association (AUA) and UK National Institute for Health Care Excellence (NICE) Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) models. Differences were retrofitted to a population cohort with long-term prostate cancer mortality (PCM) outcomes to simulate impact on model performance. We further contrasted individualised overall survival (OS) predictions using the Predict Prostate algorithm. RESULTS: Data from 370 men were included (median age 66y). Pre-biopsy MRI stage reassignments occurred in 7.8% (versus DRE). Image-guided biopsies increased Grade Group 2 and ≥ Grade Group 3 assignments in 2.7% and 2.9% respectively. The main change in risk groups was more high-risk cancers (6.2% increase in the EAU and AUA system, 4.3% increase in CPG4 and 1.9% CPG5). When extrapolated to a historical population-based cohort (n = 10,139) the redistribution resulted in generally lower concordance indices for PCM. The 5-tier NICE-CPG system outperformed the 4-tier AUA and 3-tier EAU models (C Index 0.70 versus 0.65 and 0.64). Using an individualised prognostic model, changes in predicted OS were small (median difference 1% and 2% at 10- and 15-years' respectively). Similarly, estimated treatment survival benefit changes were minimal (1% at both 10- and 15-years' time frame). CONCLUSION: MRI guided diagnostics does change pre-treatment risk groups assignments but the overall prognostic impact appears modest in men referred from unscreened populations. Particularly, when using more granular tiers or individualised prognostic models. Existing risk and prognostic models can continue to be used to counsel men about treatment option until long term survival outcomes are available.

Outcome of pediatric renal transplantation in urological versus non-urological causes of end stage renal disease: Does it matter?

INTRODUCTION: Causes for end stage renal disease (ESRD) in children can be categorized into urological causes or non-urological causes. We sought to compare the outcomes of urological and non-urological causes of ESRD in children. METHODS: Patients were divided into two groups: urological causes of ESRD versus non-urological causes of ESRD. All patients and donors had at least 6 months of follow-up. The main outcomes included the effect on complications and renal function. Comparisons were carried out using the chi-square test or the Student t-test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to define the effect of different variables on the outcome of renal transplantation (Table). RESULTS: Our study included 123 patients, 91 males. The mean age was 9 years and mean follow up was 46 months. Two-thirds of the patients had non-urological causes of ESRD. Overall survival was 100%, and only one patient needed a graft nephrectomy 3 months after the transplant. The mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 117 mL/min, and did not differ significantly between the two groups (p = 0.13). Multivariable regression showed that female gender (OR 8.7, 95% CI 2.9-26, p = 0 0.0001) was associated with better renal function, while having a urological cause of ESRD (OR 0.28, CI 0.08-0.98, p = 0 0.05) was associated with worse renal function. Non-urological causes of ESRD were significantly less likely to develop complications following renal transplantation (OR 0.28, CI 0.09-0.89, p = 0 0.03). CONCLUSION: Female patients with non-urological causes of ESRD are more likely to have better long-term renal functions, and less liable to develop complications following renal transplant.

Outcomes of living donor renal transplantation in children with lower urinary tract dysfunction: a comparative retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of renal transplantation (RTx) in children with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) resulting from lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD) vs other causes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A database of children (<18 years old) who underwent RTx between May 2008 and April 2012 was reviewed. Patients were divided into those with LUTD (group A, n = 29) and those with other causes of ESRD (group B, n = 74). RTx was performed after achieving low intravesical pressure (<30 cmH2 O) with adequate bladder capacity and drainage. The groups were compared using Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney, chi-squared or exact tests. Graft survival rates (GSRs) were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test. RESULTS: The mean ± sd (range) age of the study cohort was 5.05 ± 12.4 (2.2-18) years. Causes of LUTD were posterior urethral valve (PUV; 41.4%), vesico-ureteric reflux (VUR; 37.9%), neurogenic bladder (10.3%), prune belly syndrome (3.4%), obstructive megaureter (3.4%) and urethral stricture disease (3.4%). There was no significant difference in age, dialysis duration or donor type. In group A, 25 of the 29 patients (86.2%) underwent ≥1 surgery to optimize the urinary tract for allograft. Pretransplant nephrectomy was performed in 15 of the 29 patients (51.7%), PUV ablation in nine patients (31%) and ileocystoplasty in four patients (13.7%). The mean ± sd follow-up was 4.52 ± 1.55 and 4.07 ± 1.27 years in groups A and B, respectively. There was no significant difference in creatinine and eGFR between the groups at different points of follow-up. The GSRs at the end of the study were 93.1 and 91.1% in groups A and B, respectively (P = 1.00). According to Kaplan-Meier survival curves, there was no significant difference in the GSR between the groups using the log-rank test (P = 0.503). No graft was lost as a result of urological complications. In group B, one child died from septicaemia. The rate of urinary tract infections was 24 and 12% in groups A and B, respectively, but was not significant. No significant difference was found between the groups with regard to the incidence of post-transplantation hydronephrosis. Of the 22 patients who had hydronephrosis after transplantation, three were complicated by UTI. Injection of bulking agents was required in two patients for treatment of grade 3 VUR. In the third patient, augmentation cystoplasty was needed. CONCLUSION: Acceptable graft function, survival and UTI rates can be achieved in children with ESRD attributable to LUTD. Thorough assessment and optimization of LUT, together with close follow-up, are key for successful RTx.