The impact of a multidisciplinary small renal mass clinic on patient treatment decisions.

INTRODUCTION: Small renal masses (SRMs) are managed with active surveillance (AS), thermal ablation (TA), irreversible electroporation (IRE), or surgery, depending on patient and tumor factors. A novel SRM multidisciplinary clinic (SRMC), involving urologists and interventional radiologists, was established to provide patients with information on treatments options. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the SRMC on treatment decision-making METHODS: Demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment decisions were prospectively collected on patients (n=216) attending the SRMC between 2016 and 2019. A retrospective historic cohort (n=238) seen by urologists was used as a control group. Key variables were analyzed and compared. Patient satisfaction (n=27) was surveyed and responses were summarized and explored. RESULTS: Mean age, tumor size, and pathology was similar between groups; however, the SRMC cohort had more male patients (65.7% vs. 53.8%, p=0.009). Chosen treatment modality differed significantly between cohorts (p<0.0001). Patients in the historic cohort were treated by AS (41.5%), surgery (37.9%), TA (11.9%), watchful waiting (7.9%), and IRE (0.8%). SRMC patients were treated by TA (42.2%), AS (26.7%), surgery (21.3%), IRE (7.6%), and watchful waiting (2.2%). Post-hoc analysis revealed statistically significant differences in proportions of AS, TA, IRE, and surgery between cohorts. Patients reported high satisfaction with the collaborative approach. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary approach may have an impact on patient treatment decision-making for SRMs. Consultations involving a urologist and an interventional radiologist resulted in more TA and IRE and less AS and surgery. Future studies should evaluate if these findings occur in other centers.

Percutaneous irreversible electroporation for the treatment of small renal masses: The first Canadian case series.

INTRODUCTION: Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a novel technology used in the minimally invasive treatment of small solid organ tumours. Currently, there is a paucity of literature studying treatment of small renal masses (SRMs) with IRE. Our pilot study is the first case series in Canada to use IRE in the treatment of SRMs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort pilot study includes five patients (three females and two males) who presented with a SRM that was deemed not amendable to any other treatment than a radical nephrectomy or IRE. The IRE procedures were carried out by an interventional radiologist in conjunction with a urologist using the Angiodynamics NanoKnife IRE device. RESULTS: Mean tumour size was 28 mm (range 18-39), with a mean R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score of 8.4±0.55. Over a mean followup of 22.8 months (range 14-31), four out of the five patients did not have a radiological recurrence. No adverse events were reported after the five IRE procedures. Renal function was stable post-IRE, with no to negligible decreases in estimated glomerular filtration rate detected (range +2 to -13 mL/min/1.73 m2). CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study demonstrates that renal percutaneous IRE is safe to use in the context of challenging-to-treat SRMs. Early radiological and renal function outcomes are encouraging, but further study is required to assess oncological success. The small sample size, retrospective nature of the study, relatively short followup, and the lack of routine renal biopsy to confirm malignancy are the major limitations noted.

Evaluation of an enhanced recovery protocol on patients having radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are multimodal perioperative care protocols that are designed to shorten recovery time and reduce complication rates.1,2 An ERAS protocol was implemented in the Saskatoon Health region for radical cystectomy patients in 2013. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of the protocol for patients having radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. METHODS: Length of stay, early in-hospital complication rates, 30-day readmission rates, age, and gender were collected for patients seen for bladder cancer requiring radical cystectomy in Saskatoon between January 2007 and December 2016. Of these patients, 176 were pre-ERAS implementation (control group) and 84 were post-ERAS implementation (experimental group). The data from each variable was compared between the groups using a Z-test. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in age or gender of patients between the groups. Average length of stay pre-ERAS was 14.25±14.57 days, which is significantly longer than the post-ERAS average of 10.91±8.56 days (p=0.043). There was no significant difference in 30-day readmission rate (19.87% pre-ERAS vs. 19.05% post-ERAS; p=0.873) or complication rate (51.7% pre-ERAS vs. 46.4% post-ERAS; p=0.425). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an ERAS protocol for radical cystectomy reduces length of stay, with no effect on early complication rates or 30-day readmission rates. This indicates that the protocol is safe for patients when compared to previous practices and is an effective means of reducing length of stay.

Can a supervised algorithmic assessment of men for prostate cancer improve the quality of care? A retrospective evaluation of a prostate assessment pathway in Saskatchewan.

INTRODUCTION: The Saskatoon Prostate Assessment Pathway (SPAP) was developed in 2013 in part to decrease the wait times between physician referral and biopsy for patients with suspected prostate cancer. Using an algorithm carefully designed to optimize appropriate prostate biopsy rates, physicians can directly refer patients for biopsy through the SPAP without seeing a urologist. All other patients are referred to the Saskatoon Urology Associates (SUA). The present study evaluates the performance of the algorithm. METHODS: 971 patients seen at the SUA and 302 patients seen through the SPAP were identified. Information on age, biopsy status and outcome, risk stratification, and time between referral and biopsy was collected. Biopsy wait time data was analyzed using gamma distribution. Association between referral method and biopsy rate, and between referral method and risk stratification, was analyzed using Z-test. RESULTS: The expected wait time from referral to biopsy for patients seen through SUA was 2.63 times longer than those seen through SPAP (34 vs. 91 days). The biopsy rate of patients seen in the SPAP was significantly higher than those by SUA (88% vs. 69%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.26; p<0.00001). There was no significant difference in positive biopsy rates for patients seen through the SPAP vs. SUA (81% vs. 74%, 95% CI -0.011,0.14; p=0.095), for detection of low-risk cancer, (12% vs. 10%, 95% CI -0.034,0.080; p=0.44), or for clinically relevant cancer, i.e., intermediate- and high-risk cancer, for SPAP vs. SUA (56.54% vs. 56.68%, 95% CI -0.091,0.089; p=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm used in the SPAP is effective in decreasing wait time to prostate biopsy and has the same cancer/pre-cancer detection rate, but at the cost of a higher biopsy rate. Both referral mechanisms result in few low-risk cancer detection biopsies, finding primarily cases of high- or intermediate-risk cancer.

Implementation of a patient decision aid for men with localized prostate cancer: evaluation of patient outcomes and practice variation.

BACKGROUND: Men with localized prostate cancer often have unrealistic expectations. Practitioners are poor judges of men's preferences, contributing to preference misdiagnosis and unwarranted practice variation. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can support men with decisions about localized prostate cancer. This is a comparative case study of two strategies for implementing PtDAs in clinical pathways for men with localized prostate cancer, evaluating (a) PtDA use; (b) impact on men, practitioners, and health system outcomes; and (c) factors influencing sustained use. METHODS/DESIGN: Guided by the Knowledge to Action Framework, this comparative case study will be conducted using administrative data, interviews, and surveys. Cases will be bound by geographic location (one hospital in Ontario; province of Saskatchewan) and time. Eligible participants will be all men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, with outcomes assessed using administrative data and interviews. Nurses, urologists, radiation oncologists, and managers will be surveyed and a smaller sample interviewed. Cases will be established for each setting with findings compared across cases. Changes in the proportions of men given the PtDA over 2 years will be determined from administrative data. Factors associated with receiving the PtDA will be explored using multivariable logistic regression analysis. To assess the impact of the PtDA, outcomes will be described using mean and standard deviation (men's decisional conflict) and frequency and proportions (practitioners consulted, uptake of treatment). To estimate the effect of the PtDA on these outcomes, adjusted mean differences and odds ratios will be calculated using exploratory multivariable general linear regression and binary or multinomial logistic regression. Factors influencing sustained PtDA use will be assessed using descriptive analysis of survey findings and thematic analysis of interview transcripts. DISCUSSION: Determining how to embed PtDAs effectively within clinical pathways for men with localized prostate cancer is essential. PtDAs have the potential to strengthen men's active role in making prostate cancer decisions, enhance uptake of shared decision-making by practitioners, and reduce practice variation. Our team of researchers and knowledge users will use findings to improve current PtDA use and consider scaling-up implementation.

Largest pheochromocytoma reported in Canada: A case study and literature review.

Most giant pheochromocytomas do not present with classic symptoms, as documented by published case reports. Given this, clinicians have to consider a wide differential diagnosis for any retroperitoneal mass and perform screening tests to rule out a pheochromocytoma. We describe the largest pheochromocytoma reported in Canada, where the patient presented with a palpable abdominal mass and dyspnea. The 19 × 18 × 12-cm right retroperitoneal mass was biochemically active and was radiologically and pathologically consistent with a giant pheochromocytoma. We present this case and review the relevant current literature.

Access related complications during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: urology versus radiology at a single academic institution.

PURPOSE: A recent survey revealed that only 11% of urologists performing percutaneous nephrolithotomy routinely obtained percutaneous access themselves. Reasons for this trend may include lack of training, comfort level and perceived need for radiological involvement. In this study we evaluated percutaneous access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy obtained by interventional radiologists or a urologist at a single academic institution, and compared access trends and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two cohorts of patients who had undergone percutaneous nephrolithotomy between 1999 and 2003 were reviewed. Percutaneous access was performed by a group of interventional radiologists (group 1) or a urologist (group 2). An access difficulty score was calculated using patient, stone and procedural variables. Primary outcome measures of percutaneous access complications such as bleeding, failure of access, pneumothorax or other organ injury were compared between groups. Secondary outcome measures of stone-free rates were also compared. RESULTS: In groups 1 and 2, 54 and 49 patients were identified with a total number of tracts of 54 and 60, respectively. Both groups had similar rates of supracostal access. Mean access difficulty scores were similar between groups. Access related complications were significantly higher in the radiology access group (15 vs 5). Stone-free rates were significantly better in the urology access group (86% vs 61%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar access difficulty between groups, access related complications were less and stone-free rates were improved during urologist acquired percutaneous access. Urologists instructed in percutaneous access may be able to provide improved stone-free rates during percutaneous nephrolithotomy while minimizing access related complications.