Contemporary surgical management of renal oncocytoma: a nation's outcome

OBJECTIVES: To report on the contemporary UK experience of surgical management of renal oncocytomas. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Descriptive analysis of practice and postoperative outcomes of cases with a final histological diagnosis of oncocytoma included in The British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) nephrectomy registry from 01/01/2013 to 31/12/2016. Short term outcomes were assessed over a follow-up of 30 days. RESULTS: Over 4 years, 32130 renal surgical cases were recorded in the UK, of which 1202 were oncocytomas (3.7%). Most patients were male (n=756; 63.3%), the median age was 66.8 years (interquartile range (IQR) 13). Median lesion size was 4.1cm (IQR 3; range 1-25cm), 43.5% were ≤4cm and 34.2% were 4 to 7cm lesions. Thirty-five patients (2.9%) had preoperative renal tumour biopsy. The majority of patients had minimally invasive surgery, either radical (n=683; 56.8%), partial nephrectomy (n=483; 40.2%) or other procedures (n=36; 3%). One in five (n=253; 20.2%) patients had in-hospital complications: 48 were Clavien-Dindo classification grade III or above (4% of total cohort), including 3 deaths. Two additional deaths occurred within 60 days of surgery. The analysis is limited by the study's observational nature, not capturing lesions on surveillance or ablated after biopsy, possible underreporting, short follow-up, and lack of central histology review. CONCLUSION: We report on the largest surgical series of renal oncocytomas. In the UK, the complication rate associated with surgical removal of a renal oncocytoma was not negligible. Centralisation of specialist services and increased utilisation of biopsy may inform management, reduce overtreatment, and change patient outcomes for this benign tumour. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Relationship of self-reported body size and shape with risk for prostate cancer: A UK case-control study

Introduction Previous evidence has suggested a relationship between male self-reported body size and the risk of developing prostate cancer. In this UK-wide case-control study, we have explored the possible association of prostate cancer risk with male self-reported body size. We also investigated body shape as a surrogate marker for fat deposition around the body. As obesity and excessive adiposity have been linked with increased risk for developing a number of different cancers, further investigation of self-reported body size and shape and their potential relationship with prostate cancer was considered to be appropriate. Objective The study objective was to investigate whether underlying associations exist between prostate cancer risk and male self-reported body size and shape. Methods Data were collected from a large case-control study of men (1928 cases and 2043 controls) using self-administered questionnaires. Data from self-reported pictograms of perceived body size relating to three decades of life (20’s, 30’s and 40’s) were recorded and analysed, including the pattern of change. The associations of self-identified body shape with prostate cancer risk were also explored

Discussing life expectancy with surgical patients: Do patients want to know and how should this information be delivered?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Predicted patient life expectancy (LE) and survival probability (SP), based on a patient's medical history, are important components of surgical decision-making and informed consent. The objective of this study was to assess patients' interpretation of and desire to know information relating to LE, in addition to establishing the most effective format for discussion.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross sectional survey of 120 patients (mean age = 68.7 years, range 50–90 years), recruited from general urological and surgical outpatient clinics in one District General and one Teaching hospital in Southwest England (UK) was conducted. Patients were included irrespective of their current diagnosis or associated comorbidity. Hypothetical patient case scenarios were used to assess patients' desire to know LE and SP, in addition to their preferred presentation format.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>58% of patients expressed a desire to know their LE and SP, if it were possible to calculate, with 36% not wishing to know either. Patients preferred a combination of numerical and pictorial formats in discussing LE and SP, with numerical, verbal and pictorial formats alone least preferred. 71% patients ranked the survival curve as either their first or second most preferred graph, with 76% rating facial figures their least preferred. No statistically significant difference was noted between sexes or educational backgrounds.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A proportion of patients seem unwilling to discuss their LE and SP. This may relate to their current diagnosis, level of associated comorbidity or degree of understanding. However it is feasible that by providing this information in a range of presentation formats, greater engagement in the shared decision-making process can be encouraged.</p

Risk Analysis of Prostate Cancer in PRACTICAL, a Multinational Consortium, Using 25 Known Prostate Cancer Susceptibility Loci.

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies have identified multiple genetic variants associated with prostate cancer risk which explain a substantial proportion of familial relative risk. These variants can be used to stratify individuals by their risk of prostate cancer. METHODS: We genotyped 25 prostate cancer susceptibility loci in 40,414 individuals and derived a polygenic risk score (PRS). We estimated empirical odds ratios (OR) for prostate cancer associated with different risk strata defined by PRS and derived age-specific absolute risks of developing prostate cancer by PRS stratum and family history. RESULTS: The prostate cancer risk for men in the top 1% of the PRS distribution was 30.6 (95% CI, 16.4-57.3) fold compared with men in the bottom 1%, and 4.2 (95% CI, 3.2-5.5) fold compared with the median risk. The absolute risk of prostate cancer by age of 85 years was 65.8% for a man with family history in the top 1% of the PRS distribution, compared with 3.7% for a man in the bottom 1%. The PRS was only weakly correlated with serum PSA level (correlation = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Risk profiling can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk of prostate cancer. The effect size, measured by OR per unit PRS, was higher in men at younger ages and in men with family history of prostate cancer. Incorporating additional newly identified loci into a PRS should improve the predictive value of risk profiles. IMPACT: We demonstrate that the risk profiling based on SNPs can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk that could have useful implications for targeted prevention and screening programs.D F. Easton was recipient of the CR-UK grant C1287/A10118. R A. Eeles was recipient of the CR-UK grant C5047/A10692 and B E. Henderson was recipient of the NIH grant 1U19CA148537-01This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available via AACR at http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2015/04/02/1055-9965.EPI-14-0317.long

Guidelines for the investigation and treatment of urological cancers in the United Kingdom

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m00/12908 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo