Metastatic stage vs complications at radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava thrombectomy

BackgroundTo investigate perioperative complication rates at radical nephrectomy (RN) according to inferior vena cava thrombectomy (IVC-T) status and stage (metastatic vs non-metastatic) within kidney cancer patients.Materials and methodsWe ascertained perioperative complication rates within the National Inpatient Sample database (2016–2019). First, log-link linear Generalized Estimating Equation function (GEE) regression models (adjusted for hospital clustering and weighted for discharge disposition) tested complication rates in IVC-T patients, according to metastatic stage. Subsequently, a subgroup analysis relied on RN patients with or without IVC-T. Here, multivariable logistic regression models tested complication rates in RN patients according to IVC-T status, after propensity score matching including metastatic stage.ResultsOf 26,299 RN patients, 461 (2%) patients underwent IVC-T. Of those, 252 (55%) were non-metastatic vs 209 (45%) were metastatic. Rates of acute kidney injury (AKI), transfusion, cardiac, thromboembolic and other medical complications in non-metastatic vs metastatic patients were 40 vs 40%, 25 vs 22%, 21 vs 23%, 19 vs 14% and 38 vs 40%, respectively (all p ≥ 0.2). Metastatic stage in IVC-T patients did not predict differences in complications in log-link linear GEE regression models (all p > 0.1). However, in logistic regression models with propensity score matching, relying on the overall cohort of RN patients, IVC-T status was associated with higher complication rates (all p < 0.001): AKI (Odds ratio [OR]:2.60; 95%-CI [95%-Confidence interval: 1.97–3.44), transfusions (OR:2.40; 95%-CI: 1.72–3.36), cardiac (OR:2.27; 95%-CI: 1.49–3.47), thromboembolic (OR:9.07; 95%-CI: 5.21–16.58) and other medical complications (OR:2.01; 95%-CI: 1.52–2.66).ConclusionsThe current analyses indicate that presence of concomitant IVC-T is associated with higher complication rate at RN. Conversely, metastatic stage has no effect on recorded complication rates.     

Long-term survival and postoperative complications of pre-liver transplantation transarterial chemoembolisation in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this meta-analysis was to conduct a contemporary systematic review of high quality non-randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of pre-liver transplantation (LT) transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) on long-term survival and complications of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.BackgroundTACE is used as a neoadjuvant therapy to mitigate waitlist drop-out for patients with HCC awaiting LT. Previous studies have conflicting conclusions on the effect of TACE on long-term survival and complications of HCC patients undergoing LT.MethodsCINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Baseline characteristics included number of patients outside Milan criteria, tumour diameter, MELD score, and time on the waiting list. Primary outcomes included 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included tumour recurrence, 30-day postoperative mortality, and hepatic artery and biliary complications.ResultsTwenty-one high-quality NRCTs representing 8242 patients were included. Tumour diameter was significantly larger in TACE patients (3.49 cm vs 3.15 cm, P = 0.02) and time on the waiting list was significantly longer in TACE patients (4.87 months vs 3.46 months, P = 0.05), while MELD score was significantly higher in non-TACE patients (10.81 vs 12.35, P = 0.005). All primary and secondary outcomes displayed non-significant differences.ConclusionPatients treated with TACE had similar survival and postoperative outcomes to non-TACE patients, however, they had worse prognostic features compared to non-TACE patients. These findings strongly support the current US and European clinical practice guidelines that neoadjuvant TACE can be used for patients with longer expected waiting list times (specifically >6 months). Randomised controlled trials would be needed to increase the quality of evidence.     

Evolving Trends in the Management of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

IntroductionDeferred treatment is a growing management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer. However, it is unknown whether this growth is mediated by patient factors. In this study, we sought to evaluate factors associated with deferred treatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer and shifts in these factors after recent incorporation of active surveillance into national guidelines.Materials and MethodsWe identified 137,915 men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤6, stage cT1-cT2a) in the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2017. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with deferred treatment. Interaction variables were added to determine whether trends in use of deferred treatment over time depend on race, income, education, and insurance status.ResultsThe use of deferred treatment among men with low-risk prostate cancer increased from 14.7% in 2010-2011 to 46.3% in 2016-2017 (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, deferred treatment was associated with older age, more contemporary year of diagnosis, black race, lower income, higher educational attainment, government insurance, being uninsured, treatment at an academic/research facility, and treatment at a facility in New England (each P < .05). Incorporation of interaction variables showed that black race, belonging to the two lowest income quartiles, government insurance, and being uninsured became less associated with deferred treatment in recent years.ConclusionsThe use of deferred treatment among men with low-risk prostate cancer increased significantly from 2010 to 2017. However, patients who were black, low-income, and not privately insured experienced smaller increases in deferred treatment. Interventions to increase uptake in these groups present opportunities to improve quality of care.     

A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of Initial Treatment Choice in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Prior to the Immunotherapy Era: The MaRCC Registry Experience

IntroductionThe Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (MaRCC) Registry provides prospective data on real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Methods and MaterialsPatients with mRCC and no prior systemic therapy were enrolled at academic and community sites. End of study data collection was in March 2019. Outcomes included overall survival (OS). A survey of treating physicians assessed reasons for treatment initiations and discontinuations.ResultsOverall, 376 patients with mRCC initiated first-line therapy; 171 (45.5%) received pazopanib, 75 (19.9%) sunitinib, and 74 (19.7%) participated in a clinical trial. Median (95% confidence interval) OS was longest in the clinical trial group (50.3 [35.8-not reached] months) versus pazopanib (39.0 [29.7-50.9] months) and sunitinib 26.2 [19.9-61.5] months). Non-clear cell RCC (21.5% of patients) was associated with worse median OS than clear cell RCC (18.0 vs. 47.3 months). Differences in baseline characteristics, treatment starting dose, and relative dose exposure among treatment groups suggest selection bias. Survey results revealed a de-emphasis on quality of life, toxicity, and patient preference compared with efficacy in treatment selection.ConclusionThe MaRCC Registry gives insights into real-world first-line treatment selection, outcomes, and physician rationale regarding initial treatment selection prior to the immunotherapy era. Differences in outcomes between clinical trial and off-study patients reflect the difficulty in translating trial results to real-world patients, and emphasize the need to broaden clinical trial eligibility. Physician emphasis on efficacy over quality of life and toxicity suggests more data and education are needed regarding these endpoints.