Identifying the facilitators and barriers to implementation of renal tumour biopsy in the diagnostic pathway for small renal masses.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of renal tumour biopsy (RTB) in the diagnostic pathway for renal tumours in England. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants consisted of patients who had a renal tumour diagnosed and/or treated at one of five tertiary centres in England, healthcare professionals involved in the direct care of patients diagnosed with renal tumours, and clinical service managers and commissioners. The study employed a mixed-methods research methodology consisting of individual interviews and an on-line survey that explored the types of facilitators and barriers individuals perceived and experienced and the frequency in which these were reported. A public dissemination event took place following the completion of data collection; to facilitate discussion of potential solutions to implementing RTB. RESULTS: There were 50 participant interviews (23 patients, 22 clinicians, and five health service commissioners/operations managers). The patient on-line survey received 52 responses, and the clinician survey received 22 responses. Patients most frequently reported influences in choosing whether to undergo RTB pertained to wanting to know the diagnosis of their kidney mass (40%), the advice or information provided by healthcare professionals (40%), and not wishing to delay treatment (23%). Clinicians most frequently reported barriers to recommending RTB related to their uncertainty of diagnostic accuracy (56%), availability of appointments or hospital beds (52%), concerns of risk of bleeding (44%), risk of seeding (41%), and delays in meeting national cancer pathway targets (41%). The dissemination event was attended by 18 participants (seven patients and 11 clinicians). Suggestions to improve implementation included reducing variation and promotion of standardisation of practice by a consensus statement, increasing the evidence base (clinicians) and improved communication by developing better patient aids such as videos and diagrams (patients and clinicians). CONCLUSION: Implementation of RTB may be dependent on the quality of information provided, its format and perceived reliability of the information. Increased utilisation of RTB may be improved by development of a consensus statement on the role of biopsy, with patients expressing a preference for alternative information aids such as patient videos.

Imaging modalities for characterising T1 renal tumours: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

Objectives: International guidelines recommend resection of suspected localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC), with surgical series showing benign pathology in 30%. Non-invasive diagnostic tests to differentiate benign from malignant tumours are an unmet need. Our objective was to determine diagnostic accuracy of imaging modalities for detecting cancer in T1 renal tumours. Methods: A systematic review was performed for reports of diagnostic accuracy of any imaging test compared to a reference standard of histopathology for T1 renal masses, from inception until January 2023. Twenty-seven publications (including 2277 tumours in 2044 participants) were included in the systematic review, and nine in the meta-analysis. Results: Forest plots of sensitivity and specificity were produced for CT (seven records, 1118 participants), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (seven records, 197 participants), [99mTc]Tc-sestamibi SPECT/CT (five records, 263 participants), MRI (three records, 220 participants), [18F]FDG PET (four records, 43 participants), [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET (one record, 27 participants) and [111In]In-girentuximab SPECT/CT (one record, eight participants). Meta-analysis returned summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for [99mTc]Tc-sestamibi SPECT/CT of 88.6% (95% CI 82.7%-92.6%) and 77.0% (95% CI 63.0%-86.9%) and for [18F]FDG PET 53.5% (95% CI 1.6%-98.8%) and 62.5% (95% CI 14.0%-94.5%), respectively. A comparison hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model did not converge. Meta-analysis was not performed for other imaging due to different thresholds for test positivity. Conclusion: The optimal imaging strategy for T1 renal masses is not clear. [99mTc]Tc-sestamibi SPECT/CT is an emerging tool, but further studies are required to inform its role in clinical practice. The field would benefit from standardisation of diagnostic thresholds for CT, MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound to facilitate future meta-analyses.

The red hat - designating leadership using visual and verbal cues: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: During a critical event in the labor and delivery operating room, it is crucial for team members responding to the situation to be aware of the designated leaders. Visual and verbal cues have been utilized to designate leadership in various healthcare settings; however, previous research has indicated mixed results using visual cues for role designation. METHODS: The purpose of this study was to explore the use of the red surgical hat as a visual cue of leadership during obstetric emergency simulation training. We used a mixed-methods design to analyze simulation-based education video and debriefing transcripts. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants who declared leadership vs. those who donned the red hat. Participants were more likely to visually declare leadership utilizing a red surgical bouffant hat than to verbally declare leadership. Most participants indicated that observing the red hat to detect leadership in the operating room was more effective than when leaders used a verbal declaration to inform others who was leading. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that utilizing a visual cue of leadership with the red surgical bouffant hat improves participant perceptions of communication of the surgical team during an obstetrical critical event in a simulation environment.

Diagnostic Biopsy for Small Renal Tumours: A Survey of Current European Practice.

Background and objective: Renal tumour biopsy (RTB) can help in risk stratification of renal tumours with implications for management, but its utilisation varies. Our objective was to report current practice patterns, experiences, and perceptions of RTB and research gaps regarding RTB for small renal masses (SRMs). Methods: Two web-based surveys, one for health care providers (HCPs) and one for patients, were distributed via the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologist Renal Cancer Working Group and the European Society of Residents in Urology in January 2023. Key findings and limitations: The HCP survey received 210 responses (response rate 51%) and the patient survey 54 responses (response rate 59%). A minority of HCPs offer RTB to >50% of patients (14%), while 48% offer it in <10% of cases. Most HCPs reported that RTB influences (61.5%) or sometimes influences (37.1%) management decisions. Patients were more likely to favour active treatment if RTB showed high-grade cancer and less likely to favour active treatment for benign histology. HCPs identified situations in which they would not favour RTB, such as cystic tumours and challenging anatomic locations. RTB availability (67%) and concerns about delays to treatment (43%) were barriers to offering RTB. Priority research gaps include a trial demonstrating that RTB leads to better clinical outcomes, and better evidence that benign/indolent tumours do not require active treatment. Conclusions and clinical implications: Utilisation of RTB for SRMs in Europe is low, even though both HCPs and patients reported that RTB results can affect disease management. Improving timely access to RTB and generating evidence on outcomes associated with RTB use are priorities for the kidney cancer community. Patient summary: A biopsy of a kidney mass can help patients and doctors make decisions on treatment, but our survey found that many patients in Europe are not offered this option. Better access to biopsy services is needed, as well as more research on what happens to patients after biopsy.

The prognostic role of histomorphological subtyping in nonmetastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma after curative surgery: is subtype really irrelevant? A propensity score matching analysis of a multi-institutional real life data.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The role of histomorphological subtyping is an issue of debate in papillary renal cell carcinoma (papRCC). This multi-institutional study investigated the prognostic role of histomorphological subtyping in patients undergoing curative surgery for nonmetastatic papRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1,086 patients undergoing curative surgery were included from a retrospectively collected multi-institutional nonmetastatic papRCC database. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on histomorphological subtyping (type 1, n = 669 and type 2, n = 417). Furthermore, a propensity score-matching (PSM) cohort in 1:1 ratio (n = 317 for each subtype) was created to reduce the effect of potential confounding variables. The primary outcome of the study, the predictive role of histomorphological subtyping on the prognosis (recurrence free survival [RFS], cancer specific survival [CSS] and overall survival [OS]) in nonmetastatic papRCC after curative surgery, was investigated in both overall and PSM cohorts. RESULTS: In overall cohort, type 2 group were older (66 vs. 63 years, P = 0.015) and more frequently underwent radical nephrectomy (37.4% vs. 25.6%, P < 0.001) and lymphadenectomy (22.3% vs. 15.1%, P = 0.003). Tumor size (4.5 vs. 3.8 cm, P < 0.001) was greater, and nuclear grade (P < 0.001), pT stage (P < 0.001), pN stage (P < 0.001), VENUSS score (P < 0.001) and VENUSS high risk (P < 0.001) were significantly higher in type 2 group. 5-year RFS (89.6% vs. 74.2%, P < 0.001), CSS (93.9% vs. 84.2%, P < 0.001) and OS (88.5% vs. 78.5%, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in type 2 group. On multivariable analyses, type 2 was a significant predictor for RFS (HR:1.86 [95%CI:1.33-2.61], P < 0.001) and CSS (HR:1.91 [95%CI:1.20-3.04], P = 0.006), but not for OS (HR:1.27 [95%CI:0.92-1.76], P = 0.150). In PSM cohort balanced with age, gender, symptoms at diagnosis, pT and pN stages, tumor grade, surgical margin status, sarcomatoid features, rhabdoid features, and presence of necrosis, type 2 increased recurrence risk (HR:1.75 [95%CI: 1.16-2.65]; P = 0.008), but not cancer specific mortality (HR: 1.57 [95%CI: 0.91-2.68]; P = 0.102) and overall mortality (HR: 1.01 [95%CI: 0.68-1.48]; P = 0.981) CONCLUSIONS: This multiinstitutional study suggested that type 2 was associated with adverse histopathologic outcomes, and predictor of RFS and CSS after surgical treatment of nonmetastatic papRCC, in overall cohort. In propensity score-matching cohort, type 2 remained the predictor of RFS. Eventhough 5th WHO classification for renal tumors eliminated histomorphological subtyping, these findings suggest that subtyping is relevant from the point of prognostic view.