The Current Status of Palliative Care, Hospice, and End-of-Life Health Care Utilization in Patients With Malignant Ureteral Obstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant ureteral obstruction is associated with a poor prognosis, with a median survival of 3 to 7 months. These patients are ideal candidates for concurrent palliative care services, consistent with American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines. We aimed to characterize palliative care, hospice, and end-of-life health care utilization in patients with malignant ureteral obstruction. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years old at our institution and diagnosed with malignant ureteral obstruction between May 2014 and August 2020 were retrospectively identified and pertinent data extracted. Palliative care, hospice, and end-of-life health care utilization was described, and factors associated with each were assessed with logistic regression models. Overall survival was assessed with Cox proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen patients qualified for analysis; 39.1% (45/115) utilized palliative care and spent a median of 12.5 days (IQR 3-52 days) on nonhospice palliative care. On adjusted analysis Black ethnicity (aOR 3.44, 95% CI: 1.08-10.94) was associated with palliative care utilization. Of the patients, 53.9% (62/115) utilized hospice. The median time from hospice initiation to death was 12 days (IQR 5-23 days). On adjusted analysis, prior extirpative surgery (aOR 3.63, 95% CI 1.01-13.05) and palliative care utilization (aOR 4.38, 95% CI 1.70-11.31) were associated with hospice utilization. Median survival following diagnosis was 141 days (IQR 37.5-442.5). Of the patients, 43.0% (37/86) had high end-of-life health care utilization. On multivariable analysis, only hospice (aOR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.14) was associated with less end-of-life health care utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care is underutilized in malignant ureteral obstruction. Hospice, but not palliative care utilization, was associated with decreased end-of-life health care utilization.

Robotic transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach for anterior renal mass nephron-sparing surgery.

Robotic nephron-sparing surgery is traditionally performed via a transperitoneal (TP) approach. However, the retroperitoneal (RP) approach has gained popularity, particularly for posterolateral renal masses. The RP approach is associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, and shorter length of stay, while preserving oncologic outcomes in selected masses. Here, we aim to assess the feasibility of the RP approach in excising anterior renal masses. Patients ≥ 18 years of age who underwent robotic nephron-sparing surgery for anterior renal masses were retrospectively identified (2008-2022). Baseline demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative data were collected and characterized based on TP vs RP approaches. Wilcoxon rank sum test and Pearson's Chi-squared test were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Two hundred and sixteen patients were included-178 (82.4%) underwent TP approach and 38 (17.6%) underwent RP approach. Baseline demographics, preoperative tumor size, and renal nephrometry scores were similar. The RP approach was associated with shorter operative (150 vs 203 min, p < 0.001) and warm ischemia time (12 vs 21 min, p < 0.001), and less blood loss (20 vs 100 cc, p = 0.002) (Table 1). The RP approach was associated with shorter length of stay (1 vs 2 days, p < 0.001) and less total complications (5.3% vs 19.1%, p = 0.038). Major complication (Clavien-Dindo Grade > 3) rates were similar. There was no difference in positive surgical margin rates or pathologic characteristics. Robotic RP approach for nephron-sparing surgery is feasible for eligible anterior tumors and is associated with favorable perioperative outcomes with preserved negative surgical margin rates. Table 1 Patient baseline demographics Overall Transperitoneal Retroperitoneal p value Median/N IQR/% Median/N IQR/% Median/N IQR/% N 216 178 82.4% 38 17.6% Age (years) 60.5 (52.1-67.7) 60.4 (52.8-67.7) 61.6 (49.1-69.2) 0.393 Sex Male 126 58.3% 100 56.2% 26 68.4% Female 90 41.7% 78 43.8% 12 31.6% 0.165 Race White 162 75.0% 137 77.0% 25 65.8% Asian 4 1.9% 2 1.1% 2 5.3% Black 21 9.7% 18 10.1% 3 7.9% Hispanic 26 12.0% 18 10.1% 8 21.1% Other 2 0.9% 2 1.1% 0 0.0% 0.197 Body mass index (kg/m2) < 25 32 14.8% 25 14.0% 7 18.4% 25-30 68 31.5% 55 30.9% 13 34.2% 30-35 60 27.8% 50 28.1% 10 26.3% 35 + 56 25.9% 48 27.0% 8 21.1% 0.808 Prior abdominal surgery Yes 118 54.6% 104 58.4% 14 36.8% No 98 45.4% 74 41.6% 24 63.2% 0.015 Prior kidney surgery Yes 10 4.6% 9 5.1% 1 2.6% No 206 95.4% 169 94.9% 37 97.4% 0.518 Chronic kidney disease stage ≥ 3 Yes 45 20.8% 38 21.3% 7 18.4% No 171 79.2% 140 78.7% 31 81.6% 0.687 Charlson comorbidity index 0 138 63.9% 116 65.2% 22 57.9% 1 46 21.3% 38 21.4% 8 21.1% 2 19 8.8% 13 7.3% 6 15.8% ≥ 3 13 6.0% 11 6.2% 2 5.3% 0.412 Tumor size (cm) 2.7 (2-3.6) 2.8 (2-3.5) 2.55 (2-3.7) 0.796 Tumor laterality Left 100 46.3% 78 43.8% 22 57.9% Right 116 53.7% 100 56.2% 16 42.1% 0.114 Clinical T stage cT1a 186 86.1% 152 85.4% 34 89.5% cT1b 30 13.9% 26 14.6% 4 10.5% 0.509 RENAL Nephrometry score Low (4 to 6) 94 43.5% 76 42.7% 18 47.4% Intermediate (7 to 9) 112 51.9% 94 52.8% 18 47.4% High (≥ 10) 19 4.6% 8 4.5% 2 5.3% 0.829 TE tumor enucleation, SPN standard margin partial nephrectomy, IQR interquartile range.