Pathological outcome for Chinese patients with low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance and undergoing radical prostatectomy: comparison of six different active surveillance protocols.

INTRODUCTION: Active surveillance is one of the therapeutic options for the management of patients with low-risk prostate cancer. This study compared the performance of six different active surveillance protocols for prostate cancer in the Chinese population. METHODS: Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer from January 1998 to December 2012 at a university teaching hospital in Hong Kong were reviewed. Six active surveillance protocols were applied to the cohort. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the probabilities of missing unfavourable pathological outcome. The sensitivity and specificity of each protocol in identifying low-risk disease were compared. RESULTS: During the study period, 287 patients were included in the cohort. Depending on different active surveillance protocols used, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, pathological T3 disease, and upgrading of Gleason score were present on final pathology in 3.3%-17.1%, 0%-3.3%, 3.3%-19.1%, and 20.6%-34.5% of the patients, respectively. The University of Toronto protocol had a higher rate of extracapsular extension at 17.1% and pathological T3 disease at 19.1% on final pathology than the more stringent protocols from John Hopkins (3.3% extracapsular extension, P=0.05 and 3.3% pathological T3 disease, P=0.03) and Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS; 8.0% pathological T3 disease, P=0.04). The Royal Marsden protocol had a higher rate of upgrading of Gleason score at 34.5% compared with the more stringent protocol of PRIAS at 20.6% (P=0.04). The specificities in identifying localised disease and low-risk histology among different active surveillance protocols were 59%-98% and 58%-94%, respectively. The John Hopkins active surveillance protocol had the highest specificity in both selecting localised disease (98%) and low-risk histology (94%). CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance protocols based on prostate-specific antigen and Gleason score alone or including Gleason score of 3+4 may miss high-risk disease and should be used cautiously. The John Hopkins and PRIAS protocols are highly specific in identifying localised disease and low-risk histology.

Partial nephrectomy for T1 renal cancer can achieve an equivalent oncological outcome to radical nephrectomy with better renal preservation: the way to go.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who undergo partial nephrectomy have been shown to be at decreased risk of renal impairment compared with radical nephrectomy. We examined the oncological outcome of patients in our centre who underwent partial or radical nephrectomy for T1 renal cancer (7 cm or smaller), and compared the likelihood of developing chronic kidney disease. METHODS: This historical cohort study with internal comparison was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong. A cohort of 86 patients with solitary T1 renal cancer and a normal contralateral kidney who underwent radical (38 patients) or partial (48 patients) nephrectomy between January 2005 and December 2010 was included. The overall and cancer-free survival, change in glomerular filtration rate, and new onset of chronic kidney disease were compared between the radical and partial nephrectomy groups. RESULTS: A total of 32 (84%) radical nephrectomy patients and 43 (90%) partial nephrectomy patients were alive by 31 December 2012. The mean follow-up was 43.5 (standard deviation, 22.4) months. There was no significant difference in overall survival (P=0.29) or cancer-free survival (P=0.29) between the two groups. Both groups enjoyed good oncological outcome with no recurrence in the partial nephrectomy group. Overall, 18 (21%) patients had pre-existing chronic kidney disease. The partial nephrectomy group had a significantly smaller median reduction in glomerular filtration rate (12.6% vs 35.4%; P<0.001), and radical nephrectomy carried a significantly higher risk of developing chronic kidney disease (hazard ratio=5.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-23.55; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy can prevent chronic kidney disease and still achieve an excellent oncological outcome for T1 renal tumours, in particular T1a tumours and tumours with a low R.E.N.A.L. score.