Search

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 294429.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT? This is a summary of a paper published in a medical journal that describes the results of a study called CheckMate 274. This study looked at a new treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer, a type of cancer found in the urinary tract that has spread from the inner lining of the urinary tract or bladder and into the surrounding muscle wall where it can then spread to other parts of the body. The standard treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer is surgery to remove affected parts of the urinary tract. However, cancer returns in more than half of people after this surgery. Adjuvant therapy is given to people after surgery with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer with a goal to reduce the risk of the cancer coming back; however, at the time this study started, there was no standard adjuvant treatment. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE STUDY? In the CheckMate 274 study, researchers compared nivolumab with a placebo as an adjuvant treatment for people with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer. The aim of the study was to understand how well nivolumab worked to reduce the chance of the cancer returning after surgery. The study also looked at what side effects (unwanted or unexpected results or conditions that are possibly related to the use of a medication) people had with treatment. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN? The results showed that people who received nivolumab versus placebo: Survived longer before the cancer was detected again, including people who had programmed death ligand-1 (shortened to PD-L1) on their cancer cells. Survived longer before a secondary cancer outside of the urinary tract was detected. Experienced no differences in health-related quality of life (the impact of the treatment on a person's mental and physical health). Had similar side effects to the people who received nivolumab in other studies. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02632409 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Item does not contain fulltext, INTRODUCTION: We aimed to compare the outcomes of open vs robotic partial nephrectomy (PN), focusing on predictors of Trifecta failure in patients with highly complex renal masses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We queried the prospectively collected database from the SIB International Consortium, including 507 consecutive patients with cT1-2N0M0 renal masses treated at 16 high-volume referral centres, to select those with highly complex (PADUA score ≥10) tumors undergoing PN. RT was classified as enucleation, enucleoresection or resection according to the SIB score. Trifecta was defined as achievement of negative surgical margins, no acute kidney injury and no Clavien-Dindo grade ≥2 postoperative surgical complications. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess independent predictors of Trifecta failure. RESULTS: 113 patients were included. Patients undergoing open PN (n = 47, 41.6%) and robotic PN (n = 66, 58.4%) were comparable in baseline characteristics. RT was classified as enucleation, enucleoresection and resection in 46.9%, 34.0% and 19.1% of open PN, and in 50.0%, 40.9% and 9.1% of robotic PN (p = 0.28). Trifecta was achieved in significantly more patients after robotic PN (69.7% vs. 42.6%, p = 0.004). On multivariable analysis, surgical approach (open vs robotic, OR: 2.62; 95%CI: 1.11-6.15, p = 0.027) and tumor complexity (OR for each additional unit of the PADUA score: 2.27; 95%CI: 1.27-4.06, p = 0.006) were significant predictors of Trifecta failure, while RT was not. The study is limited by lack of randomization; as such, selection bias and confounding cannot be entirely ruled out. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor complexity and surgical approach were independent predictors of Trifecta failure after PN for highly complex renal masses.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: To explore predictors of positive surgical margins (PSM) after robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) in a large multicenter international observational project, harnessing the Surface-Intermediate-Base (SIB) margin score to report the resection technique after PN in a standardized way. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients with cT1-2N0M0 renal masses treated with PN from September 2014 to March 2015 at 16 tertiary referral centers and included in the SIB margin score International Consortium were prospectively collected. For the present study, only patients treated with robotic PN were included. Uni- and multivariable analysis were fitted to explore clinical and surgical predictors of PSMs after PN. RESULTS: Overall, 289 patients were enrolled. Median (IQR) preoperative tumor size was 3.0 (2.3-4.2) cm and median (IQR) PADUA score was 8 (7-9). SIB scores of 0-2 (enucleation), 3-4 (enucleoresection) and 5 (resection) were reported in 53.3%, 27.3% and 19.4% of cases, respectively. A PSM was recorded in 18 (6.2%) patients. PSM rate was 4.5%, 11.4% and 3.6% in case of enucleation, enucleoresection and resection, respectively. Patients with PSMs had tumors with a higher rate of contact with the urinary collecting system (55.6% vs. 27.3%; p < 0.001) and a longer median warm ischemia time (22 vs. 16 min; p = 0.02) compared with patients with negative surgical margins, while no differences emerged between the two groups in terms of other tumor features (i.e., pathological diameter, PADUA score). In multivariable analysis, only enucleoresection (SIB score 3-4) versus enucleation (SIB score 0-2) was found to be an independent predictor of PSM at final pathology (HR: 2.68; 95% CI: 1.25-7.63; p = 0.04), while resection (SIB score 5) was not. Conclusions: In our experience, enucleoresection led to a higher risk of PSMs as compared to enucleation. Further studies are needed to assess the differential impacts of resection technique and surgeon's experience on margin sta

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Over the years, five different Trifecta score definitions have been proposed to optimize the framing of "success" in partial nephrectomy (PN) field. However, such classifications rely on different metrics. The aim of the present study was to explore how the success rate of robotic PN, as well as its drivers, vary according to the currently available definitions of Trifecta. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients with cT1-2N0M0 renal masses treated with robotic PN at 16 referral centers from September 2014 to March 2015 were prospectively collected. Trifecta rate was defined for each of the currently available definitions. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate possible predictors of "Trifecta failure" according to the different adopted formulation. RESULTS: Overall, 289 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among the definitions, Trifecta rates ranged between 66.4% and 85.9%. Multivariable analysis showed that predictors for "Trifecta failure" were mainly tumor-related (i.e. tumor's nephrometry) for those Trifecta scores relying on WIT as a surrogate metric for postoperative renal function deterioration (definitions 1,2), while mainly surgery-related (i.e. ischemia time and excision strategy) for those including the percentage change in postoperative eGFR as the functional cornerstone of Trifecta (definitions 3-5). CONCLUSIONS: There was large variability in rates and predictors of "unsuccessful PN" when using different Trifecta scores. Further research is needed to improve the value of the Trifecta metrics, integrating them into routine patient counseling and standardized assessment of surgical quality across institutions.

Contains fulltext : 285996.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 234161.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)