Does Urologist-level Utilization of Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer Correspond with Utilization of Active Surveillance for Small Renal Masses?

Active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (CaP) or small renal masses (SRMs) helps in limiting the overtreatment of indolent malignancies. Implementation of AS for these conditions varies substantially across individual urologists. We examined the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry to assess for correlation of AS between patients with low-risk CaP and patients with SRM managed by individual urologists. We identified 27 urologists who treated at least ten patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk CaP and ten patients with SRMs between 2017 and 2021. For surgeons in the lowest quartile of AS use for low-risk CaP (<74%), 21% of their patients with SRMs were managed with AS, in comparison to 74% of patients of surgeons in the highest quartile (>90%). There was a modest positive correlation between the surgeon-level risk-adjusted proportions of patients managed with AS for low-risk CaP and for SRMs (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.48). A surgeon's tendency to use AS to manage one low-risk malignancy corresponds to their use of AS for a second low-risk condition. By identifying and correcting structural issues associated with underutilization of AS, interventions aimed at increasing AS use may have effects that influence clinical tendencies across a variety of urologic conditions. PATIENT SUMMARY: The use of active surveillance (AS) for patients with low-risk prostate cancer or small kidney masses varies greatly among individual urologists. Urologists who use AS for low-risk prostate cancer were more likely to use AS for patients with small kidney masses, but there is room to improve the use of AS for both of these conditions.

The Use and Short-term Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Men With National Comprehensive Cancer Network Favorable Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: The Initial Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Experience.

PURPOSE: National Comprehensive Cancer Network favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease with varied oncologic and survival outcomes. We describe the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative's experience with the use of active surveillance and the short-term oncologic outcomes for men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Materials and Methods:We reviewed the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry for men diagnosed with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer from 2012-2020. The proportion of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance was calculated by year of diagnosis. For men selecting active surveillance, the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate treatment-free survival. To assess for the oncologic safety of active surveillance, we compared the proportion of patients with adverse pathology and biochemical recurrence-free survival between men undergoing delayed radical prostatectomy after a period of active surveillance with men undergoing immediate radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Of the 4,275 men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 1,321 (31%) were managed with active surveillance, increasing from 13% in 2012 to 45% in 2020. The 5-year treatment-free probability for men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance was 73% for Gleason Grade Group 1 and 57% for Grade Group 2 disease. More men undergoing a delayed radical prostatectomy had adverse pathology (46%) compared with immediate radical prostatectomy (32%, P < .001), yet short-term biochemical recurrence was similar between groups (log-rank test, P = .131). CONCLUSIONS: The use of active surveillance for men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer has increased markedly. Over half of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance remained free of treatment 5 years after diagnosis. Most men on active surveillance will not lose their window of cure and have similar short-term oncologic outcomes as men undergoing up-front treatment. Active surveillance is an oncologically safe option for appropriately selected men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Integration and Diagnostic Accuracy of 3T Nonendorectal coil Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Context of Active Surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the integration of 3T nonendorectal coil multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) at 2 high-volume practices that routinely use mpMRI in the setting of active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, and dual-institution retrospective cohort study. Subjects undergoing 3T mpMRI without endorectal coil at either study institution over a 13-month period (August 1, 2015-August 31, 2016) were selected based on predefined criteria: clinical T1/T2 Gleason 6 prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen <15 ng/mL, ≥40 years old, mpMRI within 2 years of prostate biopsy, and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 score assigned. Subjects surveilled for Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer were excluded. The primary outcome was detection of Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer on magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy, standard biopsy, or prostatectomy within 6 months following mpMRI. Positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 286 subjects (N = 193 from institution 1, N = 93 from institution 2) met the criteria. Most (87% [90 of 104]) with maximum PI-RADS v2 scores of 1-2 did not receive immediate biopsy or treatment and remained on active surveillance. Incidence and PPVs for PI-RADS v2 scores of ≥3 were the following: PI-RADS 3 (n = 57 [20%], PPV 21% [6 of 29]), PI-RADS 4 (n = 96 [34%], PPV 51% [39 of 77]), and PI-RADS 5 (n = 29 [13%], PPV 71% [20 of 28]). No Gleason ≥4 + 3 prostate cancer was identified for PI-RADS v2 scores of 1-3 (0 of 43 with histology). Following mpMRI and subsequent biopsy, 21% (61 of 286) of subjects were removed from active surveillance and underwent definitive therapy. CONCLUSION: The 3T nonendorectal coil mpMRI has been integrated into the care of patients on active surveillance and effectively stratifies risk of Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer in this population.

Comparison of outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous renal cryoablation with sedation vs general anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of local anesthesia with conscious sedation (LACS) with general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing percutaneous renal cryoablation (PRC) for renal cortical neoplasms. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing PRC between 2003 and 2013. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative and postoperative follow-up data were recorded and analyzed. We compared 3 principal outcomes across the GA and LACS groups: anesthesia-related outcomes, treatment failure, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients with available data were included. Of these, 82 underwent PRC under GA and 153 patients under LACS. The 2 groups were similar with regard to age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor features, preoperative serum creatinine level, and hematocrit value. The GA and LACS groups had a similar percentage of patients with biopsy-proven renal cell carcinoma (68.5% and 64.2%, respectively; P = .62). The mean follow-up time for GA and LACS was 37 and 21 months, respectively (P <.0001). The mean procedure time for GA was significantly longer compared with LACS (133 vs 102 minutes; P <.001), and the mean hospital stay was shorter under LACS (1.08 vs 1.95 days; P <.0001). There was no difference in immediate failure (0% and 1.9%; P = .051) or recurrences (11% and 3.9%, respectively; P = .051) between GA and LACS groups. There was no difference in intraoperative and postoperative treatment-related complications between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: PRC for small renal masses under LACS is effective and safe. PRC with LACS has the advantage of decreased procedure time and a shorter hospital stay.