Virtual Follow-Up in Patients Initiating Antineoplastic Treatment in the Ambulatory Setting.

PURPOSE: Initiating antineoplastic therapy can be distressful and affect patient retention of treatment-related side effects and safety protocols. Return visits can range from 8 to 28 days after treatment, during which patients may develop treatment-related questions and toxicities. This study's objective is to evaluate how implementing a follow-up phone call 24-48 hours after initial antineoplastic infusion, compared with standard pretreatment education, affects patient satisfaction and education retention. METHODS: We conducted a single-center pilot study where patients who were literate, English-speaking, with genitourinary malignancies, initiating intravenous chemotherapy or immunotherapy were eligible. The primary end point was patient knowledge retention. Secondary end points included patient satisfaction. The Leuven's Questionnaire Patient Knowledge Tool, a validated, standardized tool, was used to evaluate patient knowledge retention, with a higher score indicating more retention. Telephone follow-up was initiated 24-48 hours after initial infusion, where Leuven's Questionnaire was used to assess patient knowledge. A nurse then reinforced treatment-related education, reviewed notification parameters, and coordinated appropriate follow-up. One week later, participants were sent a follow-up Leuven's Questionnaire and standardized patient satisfaction assessment. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with renal cell carcinoma, prostate, bladder, germ cell/testicular, or adrenal cancers were included in the study. Mean preintervention Leuven's Questionnaire score was 5.3 and mean postintervention score was 8.1 on a 1-10 scale (P < .0001). Ninety-seven percent of patients reported improved satisfaction postintervention. CONCLUSION: Proactive telephonic follow-up for oncology patients improves education retention, patient satisfaction, and has potential to improve patient safety and quality of care.

Outcomes of Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma With Non-Clear Cell Histology Treated With Systemic Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and RCC with sarcomatoid differentiation have been under-represented in clinical trials. This study evaluates the outcomes and treatment patterns of patients with non-clear cell RCC and RCC with sarcomatoid features compared to those with clear cell RCC receiving systemic therapy. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis of patients with advanced or metastatic RCC receiving systemic therapy was conducted. Patients were divided into groups based on histology: nonclear cell RCC, clear cell RCC, and RCC with and without sarcomatoid features. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) for each group calculated from the date of diagnosis of advanced or metastatic RCC to the date of last follow-up or death. Additionally, an exploratory analysis was conducted by nonclear cell type and type of first-line treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 251 patients were included, with most treated before 2018. First-line therapies included vascular endothelial growth factor monotherapy (68.5%), immunotherapy monotherapy (7.6%), immunotherapy combination therapy (16.7%), or other treatments (7.2%). Overall survival was shorter for patients with nonclear cell RCC compared to clear cell RCC (39.2 months vs. 81.1 months, hazard ratio (HR), 1.60, 95% Confidence Interval 1.0, 2.6, P = .04). Additionally, OS for patients with sarcomatoid differentiation was shorter compared to patients without sarcomatoid differentiation (43.4 vs. 75.0 months, HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.8, 2.6, P = .20). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate inferior outcomes among patients with advanced or metastatic nonclear cell RCC and RCC with sarcomatoid differentiation receiving systemic treatment. Further prospective studies are warranted testing immunotherapy combinations and novel treatments in patients with nonclear cell RCC.

Managing First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Favorable-Risk Disease.

Defining metastatic renal-cell carcinoma as a favorable risk depends on clinical risk-stratification tools such as the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium or the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center scores. The favorable-risk disease tends to have better prognosis and survival compared with disease stratified as either intermediate or poor risk and can be attributed in part to an indolent tumor biology. Several phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival and objective response rate, but not overall survival benefit with combinations of immunotherapy and vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors compared with sunitinib in favorable-risk disease.

Cabozantinib Safety With Different Anticoagulants in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) on cabozantinib, venous thromboembolism (VTE) management remains challenging due to limited safety data regarding direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) use in conjunction with cabozantinib. We investigated the safety of cabozantinib with different anticoagulants in patients with RCC. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study (9 sites), patients with advanced RCC were allocated into 4 groups: (1) cabozantinib without anticoagulation, cabozantinib with concomitant use of (2) DOACs, (3) low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), or (4) warfarin. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of major bleeding events (defined per International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria). The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of new/recurrent VTE while anticoagulated. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2020, 298 patients with RCC received cabozantinib (no anticoagulant = 178, LMWH = 41, DOAC = 64, and warfarin = 15). Most patients had clear cell histology (78.5%) and IMDC intermediate/poor disease (78.2%). Cabozantinib was first, second, or ≥ third line in 21.8%, 31.9%, 43.3% of patients, respectively. Overall, there was no difference in major bleeding events between the no anticoagulant, LMWH, and DOAC groups (P = .088). Rate of new/recurrent VTE was similar among anticoagulant groups. Patients with a VTE had a statistically significantly worse survival than without a VTE (HR 1.48 [CI 95% 1.05-2.08, P = .02]). CONCLUSION: This real-world cohort provides first data on bleeding and thrombosis complications in patients with RCC treated with cabozantinib with or without concurrent anticoagulation. DOACs appear safe for VTE treatment for patients with RCC on cabozantinib, but optimized anticoagulation management, including individualized risk-benefit discussion, remains important in clinical practice.

Hyaluronic Acid Filler Incidentally Found During Mohs Micrographic Surgery: Observations in 36 Patients Regarding Skin Depth, Degradation Size, and Estimated Persistence Time.

BACKGROUND: Although its clinical effect is reported to last up to 2 years, how long hyaluronic acid filler (HAF) histologically persists in the skin is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the approximate persistence time of HAF in the skin and to correlate persistence time with HAF histological appearance, size, depth, and location. METHODS: Retrospective review of patient data and available frozen sections from 2003 to 2021 in which HAF was identified in 36 Mohs micrographic surgery patients. RESULTS: Incidental HAF histologically persisted in the skin for as long as 10.75 years in 1 patient and 3 years or more in 36.8% (7/19) of the patients who remembered the time of implantation. HAF is more apparent in frozen sections stained with toluidine blue than those stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Although HAF volume tended to be less with time, fragmentation was present both early at 3 months and at 3 years or more. There was no correlation of persistence time with anatomic location or depth. In 90.3% of the cases (28/31), HAF was located in the subcutaneous fat. There was no granulomatous or giant cell response at any time period. CONCLUSION: Hyaluronic acid filler may be seen histopathologically in the skin, usually in the subcutaneous fat, up to 10.75 years after implantation.

Fractal Deposits of a Hemostatic Hydrophilic Polymer in Mohs Micrographic Surgery Frozen Sections: A Histologic Analysis and Comparison With Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate (Kayexalate).

Hydrophilic polymer with potassium ferrate (HPPF) powder is available as an over-the-counter hemostatic agent used by patients to stop superficial bleeding. In dermatology, it is applied to stop bleeding after superficial shave or punch biopsies or in open wounds after Mohs micrographic surgery. Despite its widespread availability, however, HPPF in histopathologic skin sections is highly unusual. We noted HPPF in skin closely resembles sodium polystyrene sulfonate (SPS) seen in colonic necrosis; SPS is a potassium binder given orally or rectally in hyperkalemic patients with end-stage renal disease. We describe the in vivo and in vitro histologic appearance of HPPF, compare HPPF with SPS, and discuss its potential migration into blood or lymph vessels.