RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Active surveillance (AS) of small renal masses (SRM) is increasingly recognized as a safe option. A recent U.S. study found that half of patients receiving treatment on AS were for preference, but these findings may not be generalizable to other jurisdictions and healthcare models. We aimed to investigate AS failure rates and causes among a contemporary biopsy-evaluated cohort in Canada. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of SRM patients on AS undergoing treatment at our tertiary care center (1999-2018). All patients had undergone renal biopsy and been diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Demographic and clinical parameters surrounding the decision to treat were extracted from chart review. Indications for treatment were dichotomized into clinical (radiographical) progression or preference. Qualitative assessment of clinic notes confirmed treatment indication. Ethics approval was obtained. RESULTS: A total of 38 SRM-RCC patients who underwent treatment on AS were identified, of which 29 had been on AS ≥1 year. Most (75.9%) were male and the mean age beginning AS was 65.9±9.0 years. Most patients had clear-cell RCC with low-grade disease. Seventeen of 29 (58.6%) patients experienced clinical progression after 3.82 (2.57-7.16) years, whereas preference accounted for 12/29 (41.4%) after 2.22 (1.69-3.53) years (time-to-treatment p=0.032). The longest duration on AS was 14.2 years prior to clinical progression. No patients had metastatic progression before treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Two-fifths of patients received treatment for preference and at a much higher rate vs. clinical progression. These findings suggest a clinical gap where effective patient counselling prior to and during AS may improve adherence.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine appointments as an alternative to in-person appointments at an Andrology-focused academic urology practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: Between March and June 2020, all appointments at the practice of a single Andrology-focused academic urologist were conducted by telephone. Consecutive patients were contacted by telephone following their appointment to complete a telephone questionnaire. Baseline demographic information was obtained, and perceptions regarding telephone appointments were assessed using a Likert scale. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients completed the telephone questionnaire. Median age was 48.5 years (interquartile range 37.3-62.8 years) with 55 of 96 (57.3%) of the appointments Andrology-focused. Mean distance of residence from the hospital was 8.4 km (interquartile range 4.7-25.2 km). Only 9 of 96 (9.3%) of the patients felt that the telephone format did not adequately address their needs. However, 26 of 96 (27.1%) of patients said they would prefer an in-person appointment. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, gender, presenting complaint, type of appointment, education level, and employment status, no factors were associated with feeling that the telephone appointment adequately addressed needs or preference for an in-person appointment in the future. CONCLUSION: Patients were generally satisfied with telephone appointments as an alternative to in-person appointments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Nonetheless, a substantial portion of patients said they would prefer in-person appointments in the future.
