Literature DB >> 34024653

The European Association of Urology COVID Intermediate-priority Group is Poorly Predictive of Pathological High Risk Among Patients with Renal Tumours.

Pranav Satish1, Teele Kuusk2, Nick Campain2, Yasmin Abu-Ghanem2, Joana Neves2, Ravi Barod2, Soha El-Sheikh3, Faiz Mumtaz2, Prasad Patki2, Maxine Tran2, My-Anh Tran-Dang3, Lee Grant4, Tobias Klatte5, Axel Bex6.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34024653      PMCID: PMC8136273          DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.05.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


× No keyword cloud information.
The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office formed a Rapid Reaction Group (EAU GORRG) on March 19, 2020 [1] in response to the need for swift changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. In brief, the EAU GORRG guidelines assigned patients with suspected renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to low-, intermediate-, and high-priority groups according to their clinical TNM stage (Supplementary Table 1) [2]. Priority group allocation determined the extent to which surgery was postponed. Despite vaccine rollout, strain on health care resources is still widespread, especially in our London centre, where national lockdown was still in place at the time of writing. Thus, the need to assess the efficacy of this system is clear, as decisions to postpone interventions must be justified by the level of clinical harm that delayed treatment could incur. To evaluate the EAU GORRG guidelines, we assessed the extent to which priority groups matched postoperative pathological risk, determined according to the 2003 Leibovich score (LS) [3]. We compared the GORRG priority groups with postoperative pathological reports for 351 patients with biopsy-proven or suspected RCC (Supplementary Table 2). LS 0–2 was considered to correspond to low GORRG priority, LS 3–5 to intermediate priority, and LS >5 to high priority. As the EAU intermediate-priority group encompasses the widest range of tumour sizes (>4 cm to ≤10 cm), we evaluated risk migration to either low or high Leibovich risk for each 1-cm increment within this group. The least concordance between GORRG priority group and pathological risk occurred in the intermediate-priority group. A total of 102 patients (48%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 41–55%) were incorrectly prioritised, 35 of whom (16%, 95% CI 12–22%) were actually at high risk (Fig. 1 ). Analysis of the intermediate-priority group by tumour size interval revealed a higher likelihood of a change to low risk for cT1b (4–7 cm) tumours than for cT2a tumours (7–10 cm; Fig. 1B). More precisely, 45% (95% CI 33–57%) of all lesions >4 cm and <5 cm would be migrated to low risk (Supplementary Table 3). In fact, our centre would have been marginally more accurate by including tumours <5 cm in the GORRG low-priority group, rather than <4 cm. Conversely, we found that among cT2a tumours (>7 cm to ≤10 cm), 32% (95% CI 22–45%) were assigned LS high risk versus only 13% (95% CI 8–19%) of cT1b tumours (>4 cm to ≤7 cm; Supplementary Table 4). With higher risk observed for 16% (95% CI 11–22%) of patients in the EAU intermediate-priority group and 16% (95% CI 10–25%) in the low-priority group, some patients may experience poorer outcomes if their treatment is deferred. Recent work by Srivastava et al [4] suggests that a delay in care of 3 mo for cT1b–cT2b tumours does not lead to greater upstaging rates or shorter overall survival. However, their study had a relatively short follow up period and only considered upstaging to pT3a in the pre-COVID era.
Fig. 1

Sankey diagrams showing matching of European Association of Urology priority groups (left) to risk according to the Leibovich score (right) for patients with renal cell carcinoma. (A) Whole cohort (n = 351) and (B) stratification of the intermediate-priority group (n = 214) by 1-cm increments in tumour size.

Sankey diagrams showing matching of European Association of Urology priority groups (left) to risk according to the Leibovich score (right) for patients with renal cell carcinoma. (A) Whole cohort (n = 351) and (B) stratification of the intermediate-priority group (n = 214) by 1-cm increments in tumour size. Overall, the system erred on the side of caution, with the GORRG guidelines overestimating risk for 67 patients (19%, 95% CI 15–24%), compared to the 50 patients (14%, 95% CI 11–18%) whose risk was underestimated. However, the cT2a intermediate-priority subgroup, in which almost one-third of the patients were upgraded to high risk, constitutes a possible exception. For future use, we therefore recommend minimising deferred interventions for intermediate-priority patients with cT2a RCC as much as possible. Conversely, at times of severely reduced resources, centres may consider intermediate-priority tumours of <5 cm as low priority. The authors have nothing to disclose.
  3 in total

1.  Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a stratification tool for prospective clinical trials.

Authors:  Bradley C Leibovich; Michael L Blute; John C Cheville; Christine M Lohse; Igor Frank; Eugene D Kwon; Amy L Weaver; Alexander S Parker; Horst Zincke
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  European Association of Urology Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group: An Organisation-wide Collaborative Effort to Adapt the European Association of Urology Guidelines Recommendations to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Era.

Authors:  Maria J Ribal; Philip Cornford; Alberto Briganti; Thomas Knoll; Stavros Gravas; Marek Babjuk; Christopher Harding; Alberto Breda; Axel Bex; Jens J Rassweiler; Ali S Gözen; Giovannalberto Pini; Evangelos Liatsikos; Gianluca Giannarini; Alex Mottrie; Ramnath Subramaniam; Nikolaos Sofikitis; Bernardo M C Rocco; Li-Ping Xie; J Alfred Witjes; Nicolas Mottet; Börje Ljungberg; Morgan Rouprêt; Maria P Laguna; Andrea Salonia; Gernot Bonkat; Bertil F M Blok; Christian Türk; Christian Radmayr; Noam D Kitrey; Daniel S Engeler; Nicolaas Lumen; Oliver W Hakenberg; Nick Watkin; Rizwan Hamid; Jonathon Olsburgh; Julie Darraugh; Robert Shepherd; Emma-Jane Smith; Christopher R Chapple; Arnulf Stenzl; Hendrik Van Poppel; Manfred Wirth; Jens Sønksen; James N'Dow
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  Delaying surgery for clinical T1b-T2bN0M0 renal cell carcinoma: Oncologic implications in the COVID-19 era and beyond.

Authors:  Arnav Srivastava; Hiren V Patel; Sinae Kim; Brian Shinder; Joshua Sterling; Alexandra L Tabakin; Charles F Polotti; Biren Saraiya; Tina Mayer; Isaac Y Kim; Saum Ghodoussipour; Hiten D Patel; Thomas L Jang; Eric A Singer
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 3.498

  3 in total
  1 in total

1.  Exploring the Diversity and Predictors of Histopathological Findings Across the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group Priority Groups for Patients with Renal Tumors: Implications for Individualized Prioritization of Renal Cancer Care.

Authors:  Riccardo Campi; Riccardo Tellini; Antonio Andrea Grosso; Alessio Pecoraro; Andrea Mari; Maria Rosaria Raspollini; Mauro Gacci; Marco Carini; Sergio Serni; Andrea Minervini
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2021-10-28
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.