Management of Small Renal Masses

We commend Dr Xing and colleagues for their interesting comparative analysis of treatment modalities for small renal masses in the July 2018 issue of Radiology (cf. Xing M, Kokabi N, Zhang D, Ludwig JM, Kim HS. Comparative effectiveness of thermal ablation, surgical resection, and active surveillance for T1a renal cell carcinoma: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare-linked population study. Radiology 2018;288[1]:81–90). This is clearly an important clinical question. The authors made use of propensity score–matched observational data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare database adjusted for 17 variables to compare cancer-specific and overall survival with partial nephrectomy (PN), radical nephrectomy (RN), thermal ablation (TA), and active surveillance (AS)

Qualitative exploration of the renal stone patients' experience and development of the renal stone-specific patient-reported outcome measure

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the experience of patients living with renal calculi via a qualitative methodology, aiming to develop and validate a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for renal stones, the Cambridge Renal Stone PROM (CReSP). PATIENTS, SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with radiologically confirmed renal calculi who had undergone a range of management options were invited to focus groups or semi-structured interviews to elicit patient input and generate the PROM content. The developed renal stone PROM underwent validity studies included Cronbach's α for internal consistency, Spearman's and Pearson's correlation coefficients for test-retest reliability. Discriminant validity was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficients vs the EuroQol five-dimensional five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). Our project has Health and Social Care Research Ethics Committee approval. RESULTS: A total of 106 subjects participated in creating the newly developed PROM. In all, 36 patients were invited to 22 semi-structured interviews and four focus groups, until reaching saturation. Major issues reported, and themes selected for the renal stone PROM included pain, anxiety, limitations to social life and tiredness, urinary symptoms, dietary changes' impacts, and gastrointestinal tract symptoms. Reliability analysis for 30 patients to determine internal consistency using Cronbach's α with a mean (range) of 0.91 (0.90-0.93) within domains and Cronbach's α between domains was 0.92. Average inter-item Pearson's and Spearman's correlation within domains was performed, with a Pearson's correlation mean (range) of 0.77 (0.73-0.85) and Spearman's correlation mean (range) of 0.72 (0.63-0.77). The test-retest Pearson's correlation mean (range) was 0.85 (0.57-0.95). Validity assessment was performed for 20 patients vs 20 controls. Pearson's correlation with EQ-5D-5L was -0.74, showing the newly developed PROM successfully discriminated patients with kidney stones. Our final renal stone PROM consists of 14 questions that are rated on a Likert scale; the higher the score, the worse the effect on a patient's quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Although pain was the most frequent symptom, other health-related and social well-being issues significantly impacted patients' lives. Our validated patient-derived CReSP is a new instrument, specifically tailored to measure renal stone disease health outcomes from the patient's point of view

A Systematic Review of Patient Race, Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Educational Attainment in Prostate Cancer Treatment Randomised Trials—Is the Evidence Base Applicable to the General Patient Population?

Context: Prostate cancer (PC) disproportionately affects men of Black race, and lower educational and socioeconomic status. Guidelines are based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, the representation of different races, educations, and socioeconomic backgrounds in these trials is unclear. Objective: To assess reporting of equality, diversity, and inclusion characteristics (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion [EDI]) and differences in treatment effects between different races, and educational or socioeconomic status. Evidence acquisition: We conducted a systematic review of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in April 2020 examining RCTs investigating treatments for PC. Outcomes collected were race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and socioeconomic status. RCTs investigating PC treatment in any population or setting were included. Data extraction of characteristics was performed independently by pairs of reviewers and checked by a senior author. The Cochrane risk of bias tool assessed the quality of included papers. Evidence synthesis: A total of 265 trials were included, and 138 of these were available as full-text articles. Fifty-four trials including 19 039 participants reported any EDI data. All 54 trials reported race, 11 reported ethnicity, three reported educational attainment, and one reported socioeconomic status. Patients of White race were the majority of the recruited population (82.6%), while the minority prevalence was as follows: Black 9.8% and Asian 5.7%. Three studies reported mortality outcomes depending on the participant's race. All three studies investigated different treatments, so a meta-analysis was not performed. No studies reported outcomes stratified by the educational or socioeconomic status of participants. Conclusions: There is poor reporting of patient race, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and educational attainment in RCTs for PC treatments between 2010 and 2020. Addressing this for future studies will help explain differences in the incidence of and mortality from PC and improve the generalisability of results. Patient summary: In this study, we reviewed prostate cancer treatment trials to see whether these reported race, education, and socioeconomic backgrounds of their patient populations. We conclude that reporting of these characteristics is poor. This needs to be improved in future to improve outcomes for patients with prostate cancer of all ethnical, racial, and socioeconomic groups

Growth and renal function dynamics of renal oncocytomas on active surveillance

OBJECTIVES: To study the natural history of renal oncocytomas and address indications for intervention by determining how growth is associated with renal function over time, the reasons for surgery and ablation, and disease-specific survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in a retrospective cohort of consecutive patients with renal oncocytoma on active surveillance reviewed at the Specialist Centre for Kidney Cancer at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (2012 to 2019). Comparison between groups was performed using Mann–Whitney U-tests and chi-squared tests. A mixed-effects model with a random intercept for patient was used to study the longitudinal association between tumour size and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). RESULTS: Longitudinal data from 98 patients with 101 lesions were analysed. Most patients were men (68.3%) and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 69 (13) years. The median (IQR) follow-up was 29 (26) months. Most lesions were small renal masses, and 24% measured over 4 cm. Over half (64.4%) grew at a median (IQR) rate of 2 (4) mm per year. No association was observed between tumour size and eGFR over time (P = 0.871). Nine lesions (8.9%) were subsequently treated. Two deaths were reported, neither were related to the diagnosis of renal oncocytoma. CONCLUSION: Natural history data from the largest active surveillance cohort of renal oncocytomas to date show that renal function does not seem to be negatively impacted by growing oncocytomas, and confirms clinical outcomes are excellent after a median follow-up of over 2 years. Active surveillance should be considered the 'gold standard' management of renal oncocytomas up to 7cm

Protocol for a feasibility study of a cohort embedded randomised controlled trial comparing NEphron Sparing Treatment (NEST) for small renal masses

Introduction: Small renal masses (SRMs; ≤4 cm) account for two-thirds of new diagnoses of kidney cancer, the majority of which are incidental findings. The natural history of the SRM seems largely indolent. There is an increasing concern regarding surgical overtreatment and the associated health burden in terms of morbidity and economy. Observational data support the safety and efficacy of percutaneous cryoablation but there is an unmet need for high-quality evidence on non-surgical management options and a head-to-head comparison with standard of care is lacking. Historical interventional trial recruitment difficulties demand novel study conduct approaches. We aim to assess if a novel trial design, the cohort embedded randomised controlled trial (RCT), will enable carrying out such a comparison. / Methods and analysis: Single-centre prospective cohort study of adults diagnosed with SRM (n=200) with an open label embedded interventional RCT comparing nephron sparing interventions. Cohort participants will be managed at patient and clinicians’ discretion and agree with longitudinal clinical data and biological sample collection, with invitation for trial interventions and participation in comparator control groups. Cohort participants with biopsy-proven renal cell carcinoma eligible for both percutaneous cryoablation and partial nephrectomy will be randomly selected (1:1) and invited to consider percutaneous cryoablation (n=25). The comparator group will be robotic partial nephrectomy (n=25). The primary outcome of this feasibility study is participant recruitment. Qualitative research techniques will assess barriers and recruitment improvement opportunities. Secondary outcomes are participant trial retention, health-related quality of life, treatment complications, blood transfusion rate, intensive care unit admission and renal replacement requirement rates, length of hospital stay, time to return to pre-treatment activities, number of work days lost, and health technologies costs. / Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been granted (UK HRA REC 19/EM/0004). Study outputs will be presented and published. / Trial registration: ISRCTN18156881; Pre-results