Defining a national reference level for intraoperative radiation exposure in urological procedures: FLASH, a retrospective multicentre UK study.

OBJECTIVES: To define reference levels for intraoperative radiation during stent insertion, ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL); to identify variation in radiation exposure between individual hospitals across the UK, between low- and high-volume PCNL centres, and between grade of lead surgeon. PATIENTS/SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In all, 3651 patients were identified retrospectively across 12 UK hospitals over a 1-year period. Radiation exposure was defined in terms of total fluoroscopy time (FT) and dose area product (DAP). The 75th percentiles of median values for each hospital were used to define reference levels for each procedure. RESULTS: Reference levels: ureteric stent insertion/replacement (DAP, 2.3 Gy/cm2 ; FT, 49 s); URS (DAP, 2.8 Gy/cm2 ; FT, 57 s); PCNL (DAP, 24.1 Gy/cm2 ; FT, 431 s). Significant variations in the median DAP and FT were identified between individual centres for all procedures (P < 0.001). For PCNL, there was a statistically significant difference between DAP for low- (<50 cases/annum) and high-volume centres (>50 cases/annum), at a median DAP of 15.0 Gy/cm2 vs 4.2 Gy/cm2 (P < 0.001). For stent procedures, the median DAP and FT differed significantly between grade of lead surgeon: Consultant (DAP, 2.17 Gy/cm2 ; FT, 41 s) vs Registrar (DAP, 1.38 Gy/cm2 ; FT, 26 s; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This multicentre study is the largest of its kind. It provides the first national reference level to guide fluoroscopy use in urological procedures, thereby adding a quantitative and objective value to complement the principles of keeping radiation exposure 'as low as reasonably achievable'. This snapshot of real-time data shows significant variation around the country, as well as significant differences between low- and high-volume centres for PCNL, and grade of lead surgeon for stent procedures.

Increased use of cross-sectional imaging for follow-up does not improve post-recurrence survival of surgically treated initially localized R.C.C.: results from a European multicenter database (R.E.C.U.R.).

Objective: Modality and frequency of image-based renal cell carcinoma (R.C.C.) follow-up strategies are based on risk of recurrence. Using the R.E.C.U.R.-database, frequency of imaging was studied in regard to prognostic risk groups. Furthermore, it was investigated whether imaging modality utilized in contemporary follow-up were associated with outcome after detection of recurrence. Moreover, outcome was compared based on whether the assessment of potential curability was a pre-defined set of criteria's (per-protocol) or stated by the investigator. Materials and methods: Consecutive non-metastatic R.C.C. patients (n = 1,612) treated with curative intent at 12 institutes across eight European countries between 2006 and 2011 were included. Leibovich or U.I.S.S. risk group, recurrence characteristics, imaging modality, frequency and survival were recorded. Primary endpoints were overall survival (O.S.) after detection of recurrence and frequency of features associated with favourable outcome (non-symptomatic recurrences and detection within the follow-up-programme). Results: Recurrence occurred in 336 patients. Within low, intermediate and high risk for recurrence groups, the frequency of follow-up imaging was highest in the early phase of follow-up and decreased significantly over time (p < 0.001). However, neither the image modality for detection nor ≥ 50% cross-sectional imaging during follow-up were associated with improved O.S. after recurrence. Differences between per protocol and investigator based assessment of curability did not translate into differences in O.S. Conclusions: As expected, the frequency of imaging was highest during early follow-up. Cross-sectional imaging use for detection of recurrences following surgery for localized R.C.C. did not improve O.S. post-recurrence. Prospective studies are needed to determine the value of imaging in follow-up.

Long-term Outcomes of Follow-up for Initially Localised Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: RECUR Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Optimal follow-up (FU) strategy to detect potentially curable (PC) recurrences after treatment of localised clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is unclear. This study retrospectively analysed a large international database to determine recurrence patterns and overall survival (OS), as part of a wider project to issue recommendations on FU protocols. OBJECTIVE: To analyse associations between RCC recurrences in patients with ccRCC, their risk group stratifications, treatments, and subsequent outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Nonmetastatic ccRCC patients treated with curative intent between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2011, with at least 4 yr of FU, were included. Patient, tumour and recurrence characteristics, Leibovich score, and management and survival data were recorded. Isolated local, solitary, and oligometastatic (three or fewer lesions at a single site) recurrences were considered PC, while all others were probably incurable (PI). INTERVENTION: Primarily curative surgical treatment of ccRCC while at recurrence detection metastasectomy, systemic therapy, best supportive care, or observation. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Incidence, time to recurrence (TTR), and OS were measured. Competing risk analysis, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox regression models were used. RESULTS AND LIMITATION: Of 1265 patients with ccRCC, 286 had a recurrence, with 131 being PC and 155 PI. Five-year cumulative risks of recurrence for low- (n=53), intermediate- (n=105), and high-risk (n=128) patients were, respectively, 7.2%, 23.2%, and 61.6%, of whom 52.8%, 37.1%, and 30.5% were PC, respectively. Median TTR was 25.0 for PC patients versus 17.3 mo for PI patients (p=0.004). Median OS was longer in PC compared with that in PI patients (p<0.001). Competing risk analysis showed highest risk of ccRCC-related death in younger and high-risk patients. Limitations were no data on comorbidities, retrospective cohort, and insufficient data excluding 12% of cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk group recurrences are rare and develop later. Treatment of recurrences with curative intent is disappointing, especially in high-risk patients. An age- and risk score-dependent FU approach is suggested. PATIENT SUMMARY: We analysed data from eight European countries, and found that the incidence of the kidney cancer recurrence and patient survival correlated with clinical factors known to predict cancer recurrence reliably and age. We conclude that these factors should be used to design follow-up strategies.

Intensive Imaging-based Follow-up of Surgically Treated Localised Renal Cell Carcinoma Does Not Improve Post-recurrence Survival: Results from a European Multicentre Database (RECUR).

The optimal follow-up (FU) strategy for patients treated for localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains unclear. Using the RECUR database, we studied imaging intensity utilised in contemporary FU to evaluate its association with outcome after detection of disease recurrence. Consecutive patients with nonmetastatic RCC (n=1612) treated with curative intent at 12 institutes across eight European countries between 2006 and 2011 were included. Recurrence occurred in 336 patients. Cross-sectional (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging) and conventional (chest X-ray, ultrasound) methods were used in 47% and 53%, respectively. More intensive FU imaging (more than twofold) than recommended by the European Association of Urology (EAU) was not associated with improved overall survival (OS) after recurrence. Overall, per patient treated for recurrence remaining alive with no evidence of disease, the number of FU images needed was 542, and 697 for high-risk patients. The study results suggest that use of more imaging during FU than that recommended in the 2017 EAU guidelines is unlikely to improve OS after recurrence. Prospective studies are needed to design optimal FU strategies for the future. PATIENT SUMMARY: After curative treatment for localised kidney cancer, follow-up is necessary to detect any recurrence. This study illustrates that increasing the imaging frequency during follow-up, even to double the number of follow-up imaging procedures recommended by the European Association of Urology guidelines, does not translate into improved survival for those with recurrence.

Midterm oncological outcome and clinicopathological characteristics of anterior prostate cancers treated by endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to characterise the clinicopathological characteristics of anterior prostate cancer (APC) compared to posterior prostate cancer (PPC)s and to determine the midterm oncological outcomes of patients with APCs undergoing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE). METHODS: A retrospective review was carried out on all EERPEs performed in 2009. Pathology reports (transrectal ultrasound biopsy and surgical specimen), specimen photographs, demographic details and oncological outcome data from a prospectively maintained database were reviewed. Unpaired t test, chi-squared test and Kaplan-Meier curves were used for the analysis. RESULTS: Of 139 patients identified, 53 were APCs (38 %) and 86 were PPCs (62 %). Significantly, greater number of repeat biopsies were required to diagnose APCs (p = 0.02) and they had significantly fewer positive biopsy cores (p = 0.0005). The APC group had a significantly higher PSA density (PSAd) with (<5 and 5-25 %) tumour involvement in positive cores compared to PPCs (p = 0.036 and 0.024, respectively). APCs had higher positive surgical margin (PSM) rates (p = ns), the apical margin more likely positive than PPCs (p = 0.0006). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) for APCs at 1, 2 and 3 years was lower than PPCs, although not statistically significant (p = 0.16). CONCLUSION: In our study, APCs proved more difficult to diagnose and stage, had a higher PSM rate and a trend towards a worse bRFS than PPCs. Additionally, the use of PSAd low core involvement biopsies might aide clinicians to investigate this cohort of patients more thoroughly before advising active surveillance.

Ureteroscopic and percutaneous management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC): systematic review.

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Endoscopic management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) using either ureteroscopy and laser ablation, or percutaneous resection, is a management option for treating selected low-grade tumours with favourable characteristics. However, the evidence base for such practice is relatively weak, as the reported experience is mainly limited to small case series (level of evidence 4), or non-randomised comparative studies that are unmatched for tumour stage (level of evidence 3b), with variability of follow-up duration and reported outcome measures. The present systematic review comprehensively reviews the outcomes of all studies of endoscopic management of UTUC, including the role of topical adjuvant therapy. It establishes for the first time a structured reference for endoscopic management of UTUC, and is a foundation for further clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the oncological outcomes of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) treated with ureteroscopic and percutaneous management. The standard treatment of UTUC is radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). However, over the last two decades several institutions have treated UTUC endoscopically, either via ureteroscopic ablation or percutaneous nephroscopic resection of tumour (PNRT), for both imperative and elective indications. METHODS: For evidence acquisition the Pubmed database was searched for English language publications in December 2011 using the following terms: upper tract (UT) transitional cell carcinoma (TCC), upper tract TCC, UTTCC, upper tract urothelial cell carcinoma, upper tract urothelial carcinoma, UTUC, endoscopic management, ureteroscopic management, laser ablation, percutaneous management, PNRT, conservative management, ureteroscopic biopsy, biopsy, BCG, mitomycin C, topical therapy. RESULTS: There are no randomised trials comparing endoscopic management with RNU. Most published studies were retrospective case series (and database reviews), or unmatched comparative studies. There was strong selection bias for favourable tumour characteristics in many endoscopically treated groups. There was variation in medical comorbidity and indication for treatment across different study groups. The biopsy verification of underlying UTUC pathology was inconsistent. The follow-up in most studies was limited, typically to a mean 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high rate of UT recurrence with endoscopically managed UTUC, and a grade-related risk of tumour progression and disease-specific mortality. Overall, renal preservation may be high with ≈20% of patients proceeding eventually to RNU. For highly selected Grade 1 (or low-grade) disease managed in experienced centres, 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) may be equivalent to RNU, although the small study groups and short follow-ups preclude comments on less favourable Grade 1 (or low-grade) tumour characteristics, or DSS, in the longer-term. For Grade 3 (or high-grade) disease, DSS outcomes are poor and endoscopic management should only be considered for compelling imperative indications in the context of the patient's overall life expectancy and competing comorbidity.