Patient-centered outcomes of telehealth for the care of rural-residing patients with urologic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients residing in rural areas with urologic cancers confront significant obstacles in obtaining oncologic care. In the Pacific Northwest, a sizeable portion of the population lives in a rural county. Telehealth offers a potential access solution. METHODS: Patients receiving urologic care through telehealth or an in-person appointment at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, were surveyed to assess appointment-related satisfaction and travel costs. Patients' residences were classified as rural or urban based on their self-reported ZIP code. Median patient satisfaction scores and appointment-related travel costs were compared by rural versus urban residence within telehealth and in-person appointment groups using Wilcoxon signed-rank or χ2 testing. RESULTS: A total of 1091 patients seen for urologic cancer care between June 2019 and April 2022 were included, 28.7% of which resided in a rural county. Patients were mostly non-Hispanic White (75%) and covered by Medicare (58%). Among rural-residing patients, telehealth and in-person appointment groups had the same median satisfaction score (61; interquartile ratio, 58, 63). More rural-residing than urban-residing patients in the telehealth appointment groups strongly agreed that "Considering the cost and time commitment of my appointment, I would choose to meet with my provider in this setting in the future" (67% vs. 58%, p = .03). Rural-residing patients with in-person appointments carried a higher financial burden than those with telehealth appointments (medians, $80 vs. $0; p <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Appointment-related costs are high among rural-residing patients traveling for urologic oncologic care. Telehealth provides an affordable solution that does not compromise patient satisfaction.

A multicenter study assessing survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy with and without cytoreductive nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) was called into question following the publication of the CARMENA trial. While previous retrospective studies have supported CN alongside targeted therapies, there is minimal research establishing its role in conjunction with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between CN and oncological outcomes in patients with mRCC treated with immunotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with mRCC between 2000 and 2020 who were treated at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and The Ohio State University and who were treated with ICI systemic therapy (ST) at any point in their disease course. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan Meier analyses. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models evaluated associations with mortality. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 367 patients (CN+ST n = 232, ST alone n = 135). Among patients undergoing CN, 30 were deferred. Median survivor follow-up was 28.4 months. ICI therapy was first-line in 28.1%, second-line in 17.4%, and third or subsequent line (3L+) in 54.5% of patients. Overall, patients who underwent CN+ST had longer median OS (56.3 months IQR 50.2-79.8) compared to the ST alone group (19.1 months IQR 12.8-23.8). Multivariable analyses demonstrated a 67% reduction in risk of all-cause mortality in patients who received CN+ST vs. ST alone (P < 0.0001). Similar results were noted when first-line ICI therapy recipients were examined as a subgroup. Upfront and deferred CN did not demonstrate significant differences in OS. CONCLUSIONS: CN was independently associated with longer OS in patients with mRCC treated with ICI in any line of therapy. Our data support consideration of CN in well selected patients with mRCC undergoing treatment with ICI.