Danielle Earis1, Chris Wall2, Nicolette Sinclair2, Trustin Domes3, Kunal Jana3. 1. College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada. 2. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Division of Interventional Radiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Small renal masses (SRMs) are managed with active surveillance (AS), thermal ablation (TA), irreversible electroporation (IRE), or surgery, depending on patient and tumor factors. A novel SRM multidisciplinary clinic (SRMC), involving urologists and interventional radiologists, was established to provide patients with information on treatments options. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the SRMC on treatment decision-making METHODS: Demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment decisions were prospectively collected on patients (n=216) attending the SRMC between 2016 and 2019. A retrospective historic cohort (n=238) seen by urologists was used as a control group. Key variables were analyzed and compared. Patient satisfaction (n=27) was surveyed and responses were summarized and explored. RESULTS: Mean age, tumor size, and pathology was similar between groups; however, the SRMC cohort had more male patients (65.7% vs. 53.8%, p=0.009). Chosen treatment modality differed significantly between cohorts (p<0.0001). Patients in the historic cohort were treated by AS (41.5%), surgery (37.9%), TA (11.9%), watchful waiting (7.9%), and IRE (0.8%). SRMC patients were treated by TA (42.2%), AS (26.7%), surgery (21.3%), IRE (7.6%), and watchful waiting (2.2%). Post-hoc analysis revealed statistically significant differences in proportions of AS, TA, IRE, and surgery between cohorts. Patients reported high satisfaction with the collaborative approach. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary approach may have an impact on patient treatment decision-making for SRMs. Consultations involving a urologist and an interventional radiologist resulted in more TA and IRE and less AS and surgery. Future studies should evaluate if these findings occur in other centers.
INTRODUCTION: Small renal masses (SRMs) are managed with active surveillance (AS), thermal ablation (TA), irreversible electroporation (IRE), or surgery, depending on patient and tumor factors. A novel SRM multidisciplinary clinic (SRMC), involving urologists and interventional radiologists, was established to provide patients with information on treatments options. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the SRMC on treatment decision-making METHODS: Demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment decisions were prospectively collected on patients (n=216) attending the SRMC between 2016 and 2019. A retrospective historic cohort (n=238) seen by urologists was used as a control group. Key variables were analyzed and compared. Patient satisfaction (n=27) was surveyed and responses were summarized and explored. RESULTS: Mean age, tumor size, and pathology was similar between groups; however, the SRMC cohort had more male patients (65.7% vs. 53.8%, p=0.009). Chosen treatment modality differed significantly between cohorts (p<0.0001). Patients in the historic cohort were treated by AS (41.5%), surgery (37.9%), TA (11.9%), watchful waiting (7.9%), and IRE (0.8%). SRMC patients were treated by TA (42.2%), AS (26.7%), surgery (21.3%), IRE (7.6%), and watchful waiting (2.2%). Post-hoc analysis revealed statistically significant differences in proportions of AS, TA, IRE, and surgery between cohorts. Patients reported high satisfaction with the collaborative approach. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary approach may have an impact on patient treatment decision-making for SRMs. Consultations involving a urologist and an interventional radiologist resulted in more TA and IRE and less AS and surgery. Future studies should evaluate if these findings occur in other centers.
Authors: Howard Korman; Thomas Lanni; Chirag Shah; Jan Parslow; Joyce Tull; Mihai Ghilezan; Daniel Krauss; Savitha Balaraman; Kenneth Kernen; Matthew Cotant; Jeffrey Margolis; Frank A Vicini Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Michael A S Jewett; Ricardo Rendon; Louis Lacombe; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Simon Tanguay; Wassim Kassouf; Mike Leveridge; Ilias Cagiannos; Anil Kapoor; Stephen Pautler; Darrel Drachtenberg; Ronald Moore; Martin Gleave; Andrew Evans; Massoom Haider; Antonio Finelli Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Maxine Sun; Marco Bianchi; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jens Hansen; Firas Abdollah; Nawar Hanna; Zhe Tian; Shahrokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Paul Perrotte; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Leonard G Gomella; Jianqing Lin; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Patricia Dugan; Fran Guiles; Costas D Lallas; Jaspreet Singh; Peter McCue; Timothy Showalter; Richard K Valicenti; Adam Dicker; Edouard J Trabulsi Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.840
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