ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Nephrectomy and venous thrombectomy is a challenging procedure with potential morbidity and mortality. Despite the increasing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), data regarding the outcomes of venous thrombectomy following ICI is limited. We evaluated the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of nephrectomy and venous thrombectomy following ICIs. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic RCC with venous thrombus undergoing nephrectomy following ICI therapy were evaluated in four high-volume US academic centers between June 2017 and June 2021. Clinical data, perioperative outcomes, and 90-day complications were recorded. RESULTS: Out of 79 patients who received post-ICI nephrectomy, 27 had venous thrombus. Median (IQR) age was 64 (55-71) years. ICI regimens were Nivolumab ± Ipilimumab (n=19), and Pembrolizumab± Axitinib (n=8). Nephrectomy was indicated following either a good clinical response to ICI (n=24) or as a palliative surgery (n=3). Venous thrombi levels are shown in Table-1. Among all patients, 26 (96%) underwent radical and 1 (4%) partial nephrectomy;12 (44.5%) open, 12 (44.5%) robotic and 3 (11%) laparoscopic. One robotic case converted electively to open. Vascular procedures included renal vein thrombectomy (n=6), IVC thrombectomy and primary repair (n=19), IVC patch repair (n=1), and suprarenal cavectomy (n=1). No intraoperative complications were reported. Nine patients showed no viable tumor in the thrombus, of whom 2 had complete response in the primary tumor as well (ypT0N0). 90-day complication rate was 33% (n=9), with 8 patients (30%) requiring readmission (Table-2). One death was reported within 90 days due to COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: Nephrectomy and venous thrombectomy following systemic immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy is feasible. One third of patients show no viable tumor in the thrombus. Larger studies are needed to predict pathological response.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Minority communities disproportionately shouldered poor COVID-19 outcomes, however the impact of the pandemic on prostate cancer (PCa) surgery is unknown. To that end, we sought to determine the racial impact on PCa care during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Using a multi-institutional collaborative we evaluated practice patterns for Black and White patients with untreated non-metastatic PCa during the initial COVID-19 lockdown (March-May 2020) compared to prior (March-May 2019). Patient and practice characteristics were compared by race using Fisher's exact and Pearson's chi-square to compare categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum to evaluate continuous covariates. We determined the covariate-adjusted impact of year and race on surgery, using logistic regression models with a race year interaction term. RESULTS: Among the 647 men with non-metastatic PCa, 269 received care during the pandemic and 378 prior. Surgery was significantly less likely in Black men (1.3% v 25.9%;p<0.001), despite similar COVID-19 risk factors, biopsy Gleason grade group, and comparable surgery rates prior (17.7% vs. 19.1%;p=0.75). Black men had higher PSA (8.8 vs. 7.2 p=0.04) and were younger (38.2% vs. 24.4% <60 yr;p=0.09). Regression results demonstrated an 94% reduced odds of surgery (OR=0.06, 95% CI 0.007-0.43;p=0.006) for Black patients, with no change for White patients (OR=1.41, 95% CI 0.89-2.21;p=0.142), after adjusting for covariates. Changes in surgical volume varied by site (33% increase to complete shutdown), with sites that experienced the largest reduction in cancer surgery, caring for a greater proportion of Black patients (figure). CONCLUSIONS: In a large multi-institutional regional collaborative, odds of prostatectomy declined only among Black patients during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. While localized prostate cancer does not require immediate treatment, this study illuminates systemic inequities within healthcare. Public health efforts are needed to fully recognize the unintended consequence of diversion of cancer resources to the pandemic in order to develop balanced mitigation strategies as viral rates continue to fluctuate.