Christian Beisland1,2, Gigja Guðbrandsdottir3, Lars A R Reisæter4,5, Leif Bostad6,5, Karin M Hjelle3,5. 1. Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021, Bergen, Norway. christian.beisland@helse-bergen.no. 2. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. christian.beisland@helse-bergen.no. 3. Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021, Bergen, Norway. 4. Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 5. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 6. Department of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In mid-2007, we introduced a new risk-stratified follow-up programme (FUP) for surgically treated localized renal cell carcinoma. After inclusion, the patients have been followed prospectively. In this study, we present the results in regard to stratification, completeness of the FUP and recurrences. METHODS: The FUP consists of three risk groups: low risk (LR), intermediate risk (IR) and high risk (HR), based on the risk stratification model introduced by Leibovich et al. (Cancer 97(7):1663-1671, 2003). In all risk groups, the patients are scheduled for ten follow-up visits (FUV) over 5 years, but seven, five and three FUVs, respectively, are outsourced to the patient's general practitioner (GP). Chest X-ray and abdomen CT are the imaging modalities used in the FUP. RESULTS: Of 312 included patients, 195 (62.5 %) had a complete FUP. However, in 86 patients the scheduled FUP had to be reduced, leaving 86.3 % of the remaining patients with a complete FUP. By including GPs, the number of FUVs at the hospital was reduced by ~60 %. The 5-year probability for freedom of recurrence is 0.98, 0.84 and 0.52 for the LR, IR and HR groups, respectively. Of 31 recurrences, 20 patients (65 %) were diagnosed within the FUP. Eleven patients (35 %) were diagnosed due to symptoms, and five of these had recurrences in locations not covered by standard imaging. Patients diagnosed within the FUP showed a better prognosis for survival and could in greater part receive tumour-directed treatment. CONCLUSIONS: After 8 years of clinical use, the outcome measures of the FUP seem to be within acceptable ranges.
PURPOSE: In mid-2007, we introduced a new risk-stratified follow-up programme (FUP) for surgically treated localized renal cell carcinoma. After inclusion, the patients have been followed prospectively. In this study, we present the results in regard to stratification, completeness of the FUP and recurrences. METHODS: The FUP consists of three risk groups: low risk (LR), intermediate risk (IR) and high risk (HR), based on the risk stratification model introduced by Leibovich et al. (Cancer 97(7):1663-1671, 2003). In all risk groups, the patients are scheduled for ten follow-up visits (FUV) over 5 years, but seven, five and three FUVs, respectively, are outsourced to the patient's general practitioner (GP). Chest X-ray and abdomen CT are the imaging modalities used in the FUP. RESULTS: Of 312 included patients, 195 (62.5 %) had a complete FUP. However, in 86 patients the scheduled FUP had to be reduced, leaving 86.3 % of the remaining patients with a complete FUP. By including GPs, the number of FUVs at the hospital was reduced by ~60 %. The 5-year probability for freedom of recurrence is 0.98, 0.84 and 0.52 for the LR, IR and HR groups, respectively. Of 31 recurrences, 20 patients (65 %) were diagnosed within the FUP. Eleven patients (35 %) were diagnosed due to symptoms, and five of these had recurrences in locations not covered by standard imaging. Patients diagnosed within the FUP showed a better prognosis for survival and could in greater part receive tumour-directed treatment. CONCLUSIONS: After 8 years of clinical use, the outcome measures of the FUP seem to be within acceptable ranges.
Authors: Suzanne B Stewart; R Houston Thompson; Sarah P Psutka; John C Cheville; Christine M Lohse; Stephen A Boorjian; Bradley C Leibovich Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael A Feuerstein; Coral L Atoria; Laura C Pinheiro; William C Huang; Paul Russo; Elena B Elkin Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Christian Beisland; Gigja Gudbrandsdottir; Lars A R Reisæter; Leif Bostad; Tore Wentzel-Larsen; Karin M Hjelle Journal: Scand J Urol Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 1.612
Authors: Daniel Y C Heng; Wanling Xie; Meredith M Regan; Mark A Warren; Ali Reza Golshayan; Chakshu Sahi; Bernhard J Eigl; J Dean Ruether; Tina Cheng; Scott North; Peter Venner; Jennifer J Knox; Kim N Chi; Christian Kollmannsberger; David F McDermott; William K Oh; Michael B Atkins; Ronald M Bukowski; Brian I Rini; Toni K Choueiri Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sherri M Donat; Mireya Diaz; Jay Todd Bishoff; Jonathan A Coleman; Philipp Dahm; Ithaar H Derweesh; S Duke Herrell; Susan Hilton; Eric Jonasch; Daniel W Lin; Victor E Reuter; Sam S Chang Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Paolo Capogrosso; Alessandro Larcher; Daniel D Sjoberg; Emily A Vertosick; Francesco Cianflone; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Cristina Carenzi; Andrea Salonia; Andrew J Vickers; Francesco Montorsi; Roberto Bertini; Umberto Capitanio Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Gigja Gudbrandsdottir; Helene H Aarstad; Leif Bostad; Karin M Hjelle; Hans J Aarstad; Øystein Bruserud; Tor Henrik Anderson Tvedt; Christian Beisland Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 6.968