Hanan Goldberg1, Rami Ajaj2, Jaime Omar Herrera Cáceres2, Alejandro Berlin3, Thenappan Chandrasekar4, Zachary Klaassen5, Christopher J D Wallis2, Ardalan E Ahmad2, Ricardo Leao2, Anika R Petrella6, John R Kachura7, Neil Fleshner2, Andrew Matthew6, Antonio Finelli2, Michael A S Jewett2, Robert J Hamilton2. 1. Urology Division, Surgical Oncology Department, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: Gohanan@gmail.com. 2. Urology Division, Surgical Oncology Department, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Techna Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA; Georgia Cancer Center, Augusta, GA. 6. Departments of Surgery and Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the psychological distress throughout several predefined disease time points in patients younger than 70 with small renal masses (SRMs) treated with either active surveillance (AS) or ablative/surgical therapy. METHODS: Using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System - revised (ESAS-r) questionnaire, we focused on psychological distress symptoms in all consecutive patients with an SRM between 2014 and 2017. We further evaluated the psychological distress sub-score (PDSS) of ESAS-r, consisting of the sum scores of anxiety, depression, and well-being. PDSS of patients treated with AS or ablation/surgery were compared at 4 distinct time points (before and after diagnosis, after a biopsy is performed, and at last follow-up). Multivariable linear regression models were performed to assess factors associated with worse PDSS (1-point score increase). RESULTS: We examined 477 patients, of whom 217 and 260 were treated with AS and surgery/ablation, respectively. Similar ESAS-r and PDSS scores were shown at all predefined disease time points except following an SRM biopsy and at last, follow-up, where AS-treated patients with a biopsy-proven malignancy had significantly worse PDSS (11.4 vs. 6.1, P = 0.035), and (13.2 vs. 5.4, P = 0.004), respectively. At last follow-up, multivariable linear models demonstrated that a biopsy-proven malignancy (B = 2.630, 95% CI 0.024-5.236, P = 0.048) and AS strategy (B = 6.499, 95% CI 2.340-10.658, P = 0.002) were associated with worse PDSS in all patients, and in those who underwent a biopsy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Offering standardized psychological supportive care may be required for patients younger than 70 years on AS for SRM, especially for those with a biopsy-proven tumor.
PURPOSE: To compare the psychological distress throughout several predefined disease time points in patients younger than 70 with small renal masses (SRMs) treated with either active surveillance (AS) or ablative/surgical therapy. METHODS: Using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System - revised (ESAS-r) questionnaire, we focused on psychological distress symptoms in all consecutive patients with an SRM between 2014 and 2017. We further evaluated the psychological distress sub-score (PDSS) of ESAS-r, consisting of the sum scores of anxiety, depression, and well-being. PDSS of patients treated with AS or ablation/surgery were compared at 4 distinct time points (before and after diagnosis, after a biopsy is performed, and at last follow-up). Multivariable linear regression models were performed to assess factors associated with worse PDSS (1-point score increase). RESULTS: We examined 477 patients, of whom 217 and 260 were treated with AS and surgery/ablation, respectively. Similar ESAS-r and PDSS scores were shown at all predefined disease time points except following an SRM biopsy and at last, follow-up, where AS-treated patients with a biopsy-proven malignancy had significantly worse PDSS (11.4 vs. 6.1, P = 0.035), and (13.2 vs. 5.4, P = 0.004), respectively. At last follow-up, multivariable linear models demonstrated that a biopsy-proven malignancy (B = 2.630, 95% CI 0.024-5.236, P = 0.048) and AS strategy (B = 6.499, 95% CI 2.340-10.658, P = 0.002) were associated with worse PDSS in all patients, and in those who underwent a biopsy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Offering standardized psychological supportive care may be required for patients younger than 70 years on AS for SRM, especially for those with a biopsy-proven tumor.
Authors: Douglas Cheung; Jed Frankel; Pavinder Tut; Maria Komisarenko; Lisa Martin; Michael Jewett; Antonio Finelli Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 2.052
Authors: Theresa Junker; Louise Duus; Benjamin S B Rasmussen; Nessn Azawi; Lars Lund; Ole Graumann; Birgitte Nørgaard Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2022-01-04
Authors: Liliana Vartolomei; Andrei Cotruș; Camelia Stanciu; Cristian Delcea; Marco Tozzi; Elena Lievore; Felice Crocetto; Francesco Del Giudice; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Matteo Muto; Matteo Ferro Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Hannah Glick; Aashima Sarin; Lindsey A Herrel; Lindsay Ma; Marissa Moore; Inga Van Wieren; Stephanie Chisolm; Diana O'Dell; Ashley Duby; Todd M Morgan; James E Montie; Daniela Wittmann Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 2.328
Authors: Christopher J D Wallis; James W F Catto; Antonio Finelli; Adam W Glaser; John L Gore; Stacy Loeb; Todd M Morgan; Alicia K Morgans; Nicolas Mottet; Richard Neal; Tim O'Brien; Anobel Y Odisho; Thomas Powles; Ted A Skolarus; Angela B Smith; Bernadett Szabados; Zachary Klaassen; Daniel E Spratt Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 20.096