Cone-Beam CT-Guided Transarterial Tagging of Endophytic Renal Tumors with Indocyanine Green for Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and clinical impact of preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CT)-guided selective embolization of endophytic renal tumors with the fluorescent dye indocyanine green (ICG) and ethiodized oil in patients undergoing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) using near-infrared fluorescence imaging (NIR-FI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with renal endophytic tumors eligible for RAPN and transarterial embolization with ICG and ethiodized oil were prospectively enrolled. Technical success was defined as the completion of the embolization procedure. Radiographic success, defined as ethiodized oil accumulation in the nodule, was classified as poor, moderate, good, or optimal on the basis of postembolization cone-beam CT. Surgical visibility of the tumors during RAPN with the use of NIR-FI was classified as follows: (a) not visible, (b) visible with poorly defined margins, and (c) visible with well-defined margins. RESULTS: Forty-one patients underwent preoperative selective embolization. Technical success was 100%. Ethiodized oil accumulation on cone-beam CT was poor in 2 (4.9%), moderate in 6 (14.6%), good in 25 (61.0%), and optimal in 8 (19.5%) of 41 patients. During RAPN with NIR-FI, tumors were visible with well-defined margins in 26 (63.4%), visible with blurred margins in 14 (34.1%), and not visible in 1 (2.4%) of 41 cases. There were no adverse events following endovascular embolization. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative transarterial superselective embolization of endophytic renal tumors with ICG and ethodized oil in patients undergoing RAPN is safe and effective, allowing accurate intraoperative visualization and resection of endophytic tumors.

Differences in rates of pelvic lymph node dissection in National Comprehensive Cancer Network favorable, unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer across United States SEER registries.

Background: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in NCCN high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. We tested for PLND nonadherence (no-PLND) rates within the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (2010-2015). Materials and methods: We identified all radical prostatectomy patients who fulfilled the NCCN PLND guideline criteria (n = 23,495). Nonadherence rates to PLND were tabulated and further stratified according to NCCN risk subgroups, race/ethnicity, geographic distribution, and year of diagnosis. Results: Overall, the no-PLND rate was 26%; it was 41%, 25%, and 11% in the NCCN intermediate favorable, intermediate unfavorable, and high-risk prostate cancer patients, respectively (p < 0.001). Over time, the no-PLND rates declined in the overall cohort and within each NCCN risk subgroup. Georgia exhibited the highest no-PLND rate (49%), whereas New Jersey exhibited the lowest (15%). Finally, no-PLND race/ethnicity differences were recorded only in the NCCN intermediate unfavorable subgroup, where Asians exhibited the lowest no-PLND rate (20%) versus African Americans (27%) versus Whites (26%) versus Hispanic-Latinos (25%). Conclusions: The lowest no-PLND rates were recorded in the NCCN high-risk patients followed by NCCN intermediate unfavorable and favorable risk in that order. Our findings suggest that unexpectedly elevated differences in no-PLND rates warrant further examination. In all the NCCN risk subgroups, the no-PLND rates decreased over time.

Survival after Radical Prostatectomy versus Radiation Therapy in High-Risk and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to compare cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network© (NCCN©) high risk (HR) patients, as well as in Johns Hopkins University (JH) HR and very high risk (VHR) subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 24,407 NCCN HR patients, of whom 10,300 (42%) vs 14,107 (58%) patients qualified for JH HR vs VHR, respectively. Overall, 9,823 (40%) underwent RP vs 14,584 (60%) EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing-risks regression addressed CSM after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, prostate specific antigen, clinical T and N stages, and biopsy Gleason score) between RP and EBRT patients. All analyses addressed the combined NCCN HR cohort, as well as in JH HR and JH VHR subgroups. RESULTS: In the combined NCCN HR cohort 5-year CSM rates were 2.3% for RP vs 4.1% for EBRT and yielded a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.54-0.86, p <0.001) favoring RP. In VHR patients 5-year CSM rates were 3.5% for RP vs 6.0% for EBRT, yielding a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% CI 0.44-0.77, p <0.001) favoring RP. Conversely, in HR patients no significant difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.39-1.25, p=0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that RP holds a CSM advantage over EBRT in the combined NCCN HR cohort, and in its subgroup of JH VHR patients.

Nomogram Predicting Downgrading in National Comprehensive Cancer Network High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Some high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients may show more favorable Gleason pattern at radical prostatectomy (RP) than at biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To test whether downgrading could be predicted accurately. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2016), 6690 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk PCa patients were identified. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES: We randomly split the overall cohort between development and validation cohorts (both n = 3345, 50%). Multivariable logistic regression models used biopsy Gleason, prostate-specific antigen, number of positive prostate biopsy cores, and cT stage to predict downgrading. Accuracy, calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA) tested the model in the external validation cohort. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 6690 patients, 50.3% were downgraded at RP, and of 2315 patients with any biopsy pattern 5, 44.1% were downgraded to RP Gleason pattern ≤4 + 4. Downgrading rates were highest in biopsy Gleason pattern 5 + 5 (84.1%) and lowest in 3 + 4 (4.0%). In the validation cohort, the logistic regression model-derived nomogram predicted downgrading with 71.0% accuracy, with marginal departures (±3.3%) from ideal predictions in calibration. In DCA, a net benefit throughout all threshold probabilities was recorded, relative to treat-all or treat-none strategies and an algorithm based on an average downgrading rate of 50.3%. All steps were repeated in the subgroup with any biopsy Gleason pattern 5, to predict RP Gleason pattern ≤4 + 4. Here, a second nomogram (n = 2315) yielded 68.0% accuracy, maximal departures from ideal prediction of ±5.7%, and virtually the same DCA pattern as the main nomogram. CONCLUSIONS: Downgrading affects half of all high-risk PCa patients. Its presence may be predicted accurately and may help with better treatment planning. PATIENT SUMMARY: Downgrading occurs in every second high-risk prostate cancer patients. The nomograms developed by us can predict these probabilities accurately.