Hiten D Patel1, Max Kates, Phillip M Pierorazio, Mohamad E Allaf. 1. James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA; Center for Surgical Trials and Outcomes Research, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA; Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess modification of comparative cancer survival by cardiovascular (CV) risk and treatment strategy among older patients with small renal masses (SRMs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with localised T1a renal cell carcinoma were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database (1995-2007). Patients were stratified by CV risk, using major atherosclerotic CV comorbidities identified by the Framingham Heart Study, to compare overall (OS), cancer-specific (CSS), and CV-specific survival (CVSS) for those who deferred therapy (DT) to those undergoing either partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN). Cox proportional hazards and Fine and Gray competing risks regression adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and tumour size were performed. RESULTS: In all, 754 (10.5%) patients had DT, 1849 (25.8%) patients underwent PN, and 4574 (63.7%) patients underwent RN. Patients at high CV risk who had DT had the greatest CV-to-cancer mortality rate ratio (2.89), and CV risk was generally associated with worse OS and CVSS. Patients in the high CV risk strata had no difference in CSS between treatment strategies [DT vs PN: hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-1.41; DT vs RN: HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.46-1.43)], while there was a 2-4 fold CSS benefit for surgery in the low CV risk strata. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survival was comparable across treatment strategies for older patients with SRMs with high risk CV disease. Greater attention to CV comorbidity as it relates to competing risks of death and life expectancy may be deserved in selecting patients appropriate for active surveillance because patients at low CV risk might benefit from surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To assess modification of comparative cancer survival by cardiovascular (CV) risk and treatment strategy among older patients with small renal masses (SRMs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with localised T1a renal cell carcinoma were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database (1995-2007). Patients were stratified by CV risk, using major atherosclerotic CV comorbidities identified by the Framingham Heart Study, to compare overall (OS), cancer-specific (CSS), and CV-specific survival (CVSS) for those who deferred therapy (DT) to those undergoing either partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN). Cox proportional hazards and Fine and Gray competing risks regression adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and tumour size were performed. RESULTS: In all, 754 (10.5%) patients had DT, 1849 (25.8%) patients underwent PN, and 4574 (63.7%) patients underwent RN. Patients at high CV risk who had DT had the greatest CV-to-cancer mortality rate ratio (2.89), and CV risk was generally associated with worse OS and CVSS. Patients in the high CV risk strata had no difference in CSS between treatment strategies [DT vs PN: hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-1.41; DT vs RN: HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.46-1.43)], while there was a 2-4 fold CSS benefit for surgery in the low CV risk strata. CONCLUSIONS:Cancer survival was comparable across treatment strategies for older patients with SRMs with high risk CV disease. Greater attention to CV comorbidity as it relates to competing risks of death and life expectancy may be deserved in selecting patients appropriate for active surveillance because patients at low CV risk might benefit from surgery.
Authors: John M Hollingsworth; David C Miller; Stephanie Daignault; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David A Berger; Ifeanyichukwu I Megwalu; Anna Vlahiotis; Mohamed H Radwan; Maria F Serrano; Peter A Humphrey; Jay F Piccirillo; Adam S Kibel Journal: Urology Date: 2008-05-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Hiten D Patel; Jeffrey K Mullins; Phillip M Pierorazio; Gautam Jayram; Jason E Cohen; Brian R Matlaga; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hiten D Patel; Max Kates; Phillip M Pierorazio; Elias S Hyams; Michael A Gorin; Mark W Ball; Sam B Bhayani; Xuan Hui; Carol B Thompson; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: Urology Date: 2013-11-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: David C Miller; Christopher S Saigal; Joan L Warren; Meryl Leventhal; Dennis Deapen; Mousumi Banerjee; Julie Lai; Jan Hanley; Mark S Litwin Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-06-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Matthew R Danzig; Peter Chang; Andrew A Wagner; Mohamad E Allaf; James M McKiernan; Phillip M Pierorazio Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Hiten D Patel; Phillip M Pierorazio; Michael H Johnson; Ritu Sharma; Emmanuel Iyoha; Mohamad E Allaf; Eric B Bass; Stephen M Sozio Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Kenan E Celtik; Paras H Shah; Vinay R Patel; Daniel M Moreira; Arvin K George; Valerio Iacovelli; Manaf Alom; Andrew Ng; Amin Herati; Simpa S Salami; Hannah Bierwiler; Michael J Schwartz; Lee Richstone; Joph Steckel; Manish A Vira; Louis R Kavoussi Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Marta Nowakowska; Edyta Płońska-Gościniak; Andrzej Szyszka; Łukasz Chrzanowski; Magdalena Krakowska; Piotr Potemski; Katarzyna Mizia-Stec; Zbigniew Gąsior; Artur Bodys; Maciej Siński; Adrianna Gościńska-Szmagała; Piotr Gościniak; Monika Różewicz; Beata Zaborska; Wojciech Braksator; Dariusz Kosior; Jarosław D Kasprzak Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 3.318
Authors: Ridwan Alam; Hiten D Patel; Tijani Osumah; Arnav Srivastava; Michael A Gorin; Michael H Johnson; Bruce J Trock; Peter Chang; Andrew A Wagner; James M McKiernan; Mohamad E Allaf; Phillip M Pierorazio Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 5.588