{"title":"October's reviewers of the month","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/bju.16524","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16524","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"134 4","pages":"509"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142313307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Andrew M. Fang, Justin R. Gregg, Curtis Pettaway, Jingfei Ma, Janio Szklaruk, Tharakeswara K. Bathala, Devaki Shilpa S. Surasi, Brian F. Chapin
ObjectiveTo present a narrative review regarding the diagnostic accuracy of whole‐body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) in staging patients with high‐risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) and compare it to established imaging modalities.MethodsA narrative review was carried out using PubMed using the following keywords: ‘whole body’, ‘magnetic resonance imaging’, ‘MRI’, ‘prostate cancer’, ‘risk stratification’, and ‘staging’. Articles that evaluated WBMRI as the imaging modality to stage patients with HRPCa were included, while studies that solely assessed for biochemical recurrence or metastatic disease progression were excluded.ResultsIn the evaluation of lymphatic metastases, WBMRI has demonstrated a comparable, if not improved, sensitivity and specificity compared to conventional imaging of computed tomography (CT). Furthermore, WBMRI demonstrates improved sensitivity and specificity in detecting bone metastases compared to bone scintigraphy (BS). However, with advent of prostate‐specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligands for positron emission tomography (PET), the diagnostic performance of WBMRI to detect metastatic disease appears inferior.ConclusionsThe diagnostic capabilities of WBMRI exceed that of conventional imaging of CT and BS in detecting metastatic disease in patients with HRPCa. However, WBMRI does not perform as well as PSMA PET/CT. Further study on cost comparisons between WBMRI and PSMA PET/CT are needed, as well as evaluations of combined PSMA PET/MRI are needed.
{"title":"Whole‐body MRI for staging prostate cancer: a narrative review","authors":"Andrew M. Fang, Justin R. Gregg, Curtis Pettaway, Jingfei Ma, Janio Szklaruk, Tharakeswara K. Bathala, Devaki Shilpa S. Surasi, Brian F. Chapin","doi":"10.1111/bju.16514","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16514","url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveTo present a narrative review regarding the diagnostic accuracy of whole‐body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) in staging patients with high‐risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) and compare it to established imaging modalities.MethodsA narrative review was carried out using PubMed using the following keywords: ‘whole body’, ‘magnetic resonance imaging’, ‘MRI’, ‘prostate cancer’, ‘risk stratification’, and ‘staging’. Articles that evaluated WBMRI as the imaging modality to stage patients with HRPCa were included, while studies that solely assessed for biochemical recurrence or metastatic disease progression were excluded.ResultsIn the evaluation of lymphatic metastases, WBMRI has demonstrated a comparable, if not improved, sensitivity and specificity compared to conventional imaging of computed tomography (CT). Furthermore, WBMRI demonstrates improved sensitivity and specificity in detecting bone metastases compared to bone scintigraphy (BS). However, with advent of prostate‐specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligands for positron emission tomography (PET), the diagnostic performance of WBMRI to detect metastatic disease appears inferior.ConclusionsThe diagnostic capabilities of WBMRI exceed that of conventional imaging of CT and BS in detecting metastatic disease in patients with HRPCa. However, WBMRI does not perform as well as PSMA PET/CT. Further study on cost comparisons between WBMRI and PSMA PET/CT are needed, as well as evaluations of combined PSMA PET/MRI are needed.","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"601 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142276941","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ergi Spiro, Salikh Murtazaliev, Alireza Amindarolzarbi, Sara Sheikhbahaei, Krystyna M. Jones, Mehrbod S. Javadi, Basil Kaufmann, Mohamad E. Allaf, Christian P. Pavlovich, Nirmish Singla, Lilja B. Solnes, Michael A. Gorin, Steven P. Rowe
{"title":"The use of 99mTc-tetrofosmin in the characterisation of indeterminate renal masses: a pilot study","authors":"Ergi Spiro, Salikh Murtazaliev, Alireza Amindarolzarbi, Sara Sheikhbahaei, Krystyna M. Jones, Mehrbod S. Javadi, Basil Kaufmann, Mohamad E. Allaf, Christian P. Pavlovich, Nirmish Singla, Lilja B. Solnes, Michael A. Gorin, Steven P. Rowe","doi":"10.1111/bju.16507","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bju.16507","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"134 6","pages":"929-931"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142276802","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Letizia Maria Ippolita Jannello, Franco Orsi, Stefano Luzzago, Giovanni Mauri, Francesco A. Mistretta, Mattia Luca Piccinelli, Chiara Vaccaro, Marco Tozzi, Daniele Maiettini, Gianluca Varano, Stefano Caramella, Paolo Della Vigna, Matteo Ferro, Guido Bonomo, Zhe Tian, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Ottavio De Cobelli, Gennaro Musi
ObjectiveTo conduct a comprehensive comparison of microwave ablation (MWA) vs radiofrequency ablation (RFA) outcomes in the treatment of small renal masses (SRMs), specifically: TRIFECTA ([i] complete ablation, [ii] absence of Clavien–Dindo Grade ≥III complications, and [iii] absence of ≥30% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate) achievement, operative time (OT), and local recurrence rate (LRR).Patients and MethodsWe retrospectively analysed 531 patients with SRMs (clinical T1a–b) treated with MWA or RFA at a single centre (2008–2022). First, multivariable logistic regression models were used for testing TRIFECTA achievement. Second, multivariable Poisson regression models were used to evaluate variables associated with longer OT. Finally, Kaplan–Meier plots depicted LRR over time. All analyses were repeated after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).ResultsOf 531 patients with SRMs, 373/531 (70.2%) underwent MWA and 158/531 (29.8%) RFA. MWA demonstrated superior TRIFECTA achievement (314/373 [84.2%]) compared to RFA (114/158 [72.2%], P = 0.001). These differences were driven by higher rates of complete ablation in MWA‐ vs RFA‐treated patients (348/373 [93.3%] vs 137/158 [86.7%], P < 0.001). In multivariable logistic regression models, MWA was associated with higher TRIFECTA achievement, compared to RFA, before (odds ratio [OR] 1.92, P = 0.008) and after PSM (OR 1.99, P = 0.023). Finally, the median OT was shorter for MWA vs RFA (105 vs 115 min; P = 0.002). At Poisson regression analyses, MWA predicted shorter OT before (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.86, P < 0.001) and after PSM (IRR 0.85, P < 0.001). Local recurrence occurred in 17/373 (4.6%) MWA‐treated patients and 21/158 (13.3%) RFA‐treated patients (P = 0.29) after a median (interquartile range) follow‐up of 24 (8–46) months. There were no differences in the LRR in Kaplan–Meier plots before (P = 0.29) and after PSM (P = 0.42).ConclusionMicrowave ablation provides higher TRIFECTA achievement, and shorter OT than RFA. No significant differences were found regarding the LRR.
{"title":"Microwave vs radiofrequency ablation for small renal masses: perioperative and oncological outcomes","authors":"Letizia Maria Ippolita Jannello, Franco Orsi, Stefano Luzzago, Giovanni Mauri, Francesco A. Mistretta, Mattia Luca Piccinelli, Chiara Vaccaro, Marco Tozzi, Daniele Maiettini, Gianluca Varano, Stefano Caramella, Paolo Della Vigna, Matteo Ferro, Guido Bonomo, Zhe Tian, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Ottavio De Cobelli, Gennaro Musi","doi":"10.1111/bju.16528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16528","url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveTo conduct a comprehensive comparison of microwave ablation (MWA) vs radiofrequency ablation (RFA) outcomes in the treatment of small renal masses (SRMs), specifically: TRIFECTA ([i] complete ablation, [ii] absence of Clavien–Dindo Grade ≥III complications, and [iii] absence of ≥30% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate) achievement, operative time (OT), and local recurrence rate (LRR).Patients and MethodsWe retrospectively analysed 531 patients with SRMs (clinical T1a–b) treated with MWA or RFA at a single centre (2008–2022). First, multivariable logistic regression models were used for testing TRIFECTA achievement. Second, multivariable Poisson regression models were used to evaluate variables associated with longer OT. Finally, Kaplan–Meier plots depicted LRR over time. All analyses were repeated after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).ResultsOf 531 patients with SRMs, 373/531 (70.2%) underwent MWA and 158/531 (29.8%) RFA. MWA demonstrated superior TRIFECTA achievement (314/373 [84.2%]) compared to RFA (114/158 [72.2%], <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.001). These differences were driven by higher rates of complete ablation in MWA‐ vs RFA‐treated patients (348/373 [93.3%] vs 137/158 [86.7%], <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> < 0.001). In multivariable logistic regression models, MWA was associated with higher TRIFECTA achievement, compared to RFA, before (odds ratio [OR] 1.92, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.008) and after PSM (OR 1.99, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.023). Finally, the median OT was shorter for MWA vs RFA (105 vs 115 min; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.002). At Poisson regression analyses, MWA predicted shorter OT before (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.86, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> < 0.001) and after PSM (IRR 0.85, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> < 0.001). Local recurrence occurred in 17/373 (4.6%) MWA‐treated patients and 21/158 (13.3%) RFA‐treated patients (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.29) after a median (interquartile range) follow‐up of 24 (8–46) months. There were no differences in the LRR in Kaplan–Meier plots before (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.29) and after PSM (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.42).ConclusionMicrowave ablation provides higher TRIFECTA achievement, and shorter OT than RFA. No significant differences were found regarding the LRR.","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142236360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Steven M. Monda, Benjamin W. Carney, Allison M. May, Shuchi Gulati, Simpa S. Salami, Thenappan Chandrasekar, Evan T. Keller, Nicolai A. Huebner, Ganesh S. Palapattu, Marc A. Dall'Era
ObjectiveTo assess the distribution of key mutations across tumour sizes in clear‐cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), and secondarily to examine the prognostic impact of aggressive mutations in smaller ccRCCs.Patient and MethodsThe distribution of mutations (VHL, PBRM1, SETD2, BAP1 and CDKN2A loss) across tumour sizes was assessed in 1039 ccRCCs treated with nephrectomy in cohorts obtained from the Tracking Cancer Evolution (TRACERx), The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the Cancer Genomics of the Kidney (CAGEKID) projects. Logistic regression was used to model the presence of each mutation against size. In our secondary analysis, we assessed a subset of ccRCCs ≤7 cm for associations of key aggressive mutations (SETD2, BAP1, and CDKN2A loss) with metastasis, invasive disease and overall survival, while controlling for size. A subset of localised tumours ≤7 cm was also used to assess associations with recurrence after nephrectomy.ResultsOn logistic regression, each 1‐cm increase in tumour size was associated with aggressive mutations, SETD2, BAP1, and CDKN2A loss, at odds ratios (ORs) of 1.09, 1.10 and 1.19 (P < 0.001), whereas no significant association was observed between tumour size and PBRM1 (OR 1.02; P = 0.23). VHL was mildly negatively associated with a 1‐cm increase in size (OR 0.95; P = 0.01). Among tumours ≤7 cm, SETD2 and CDKN2A loss were associated with metastatic disease at ORs of 3.86 and 3.84 (P < 0.05) while controlling for tumour size. CDKN2A loss was associated with worse overall survival, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.19 (P = 0.03). Among localised tumours ≤7 cm, SETD2 was associated with worse recurrence‐free survival (HR 2.00; P = 0.03).ConclusionLarge and small ccRCCs are genomically different. Aggressive mutations, namely, SETD2, BAP1, and CDKN2A loss, are rarely observed in small ccRCCs and are observed more frequently in larger tumours. However, when present in tumours ≤7 cm, SETD2 mutations and CDKN2A loss were still independently associated with invasive disease, metastasis, worse survival, and recurrence after resection, after controlling for size.
{"title":"Differences in mutations across tumour sizes in clear‐cell renal cell carcinoma","authors":"Steven M. Monda, Benjamin W. Carney, Allison M. May, Shuchi Gulati, Simpa S. Salami, Thenappan Chandrasekar, Evan T. Keller, Nicolai A. Huebner, Ganesh S. Palapattu, Marc A. Dall'Era","doi":"10.1111/bju.16527","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16527","url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveTo assess the distribution of key mutations across tumour sizes in clear‐cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), and secondarily to examine the prognostic impact of aggressive mutations in smaller ccRCCs.Patient and MethodsThe distribution of mutations (<jats:italic>VHL</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>PBRM1</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>SETD2</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>BAP1</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>CDKN2A</jats:italic> loss) across tumour sizes was assessed in 1039 ccRCCs treated with nephrectomy in cohorts obtained from the Tracking Cancer Evolution (TRACERx), The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the Cancer Genomics of the Kidney (CAGEKID) projects. Logistic regression was used to model the presence of each mutation against size. In our secondary analysis, we assessed a subset of ccRCCs ≤7 cm for associations of key aggressive mutations (<jats:italic>SETD2</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>BAP1</jats:italic>, and <jats:italic>CDKN2A</jats:italic> loss) with metastasis, invasive disease and overall survival, while controlling for size. A subset of localised tumours ≤7 cm was also used to assess associations with recurrence after nephrectomy.ResultsOn logistic regression, each 1‐cm increase in tumour size was associated with aggressive mutations, <jats:italic>SETD2</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>BAP1</jats:italic>, and <jats:italic>CDKN2A</jats:italic> loss, at odds ratios (ORs) of 1.09, 1.10 and 1.19 (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> < 0.001), whereas no significant association was observed between tumour size and <jats:italic>PBRM1</jats:italic> (OR 1.02; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.23). <jats:italic>VHL</jats:italic> was mildly negatively associated with a 1‐cm increase in size (OR 0.95; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.01). Among tumours ≤7 cm, <jats:italic>SETD2</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>CDKN2A</jats:italic> loss were associated with metastatic disease at ORs of 3.86 and 3.84 (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> < 0.05) while controlling for tumour size. <jats:italic>CDKN2A</jats:italic> loss was associated with worse overall survival, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.19 (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.03). Among localised tumours ≤7 cm, <jats:italic>SETD2</jats:italic> was associated with worse recurrence‐free survival (HR 2.00; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.03).ConclusionLarge and small ccRCCs are genomically different. Aggressive mutations, namely, <jats:italic>SETD2</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>BAP1</jats:italic>, and <jats:italic>CDKN2A</jats:italic> loss, are rarely observed in small ccRCCs and are observed more frequently in larger tumours. However, when present in tumours ≤7 cm, <jats:italic>SETD2</jats:italic> mutations and <jats:italic>CDKN2A</jats:italic> loss were still independently associated with invasive disease, metastasis, worse survival, and recurrence after resection, after controlling for size.","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142174731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Francesco Ditonno, Antonio Franco, Zhenjie Wu, Linhui Wang, Firas Abdollah, Giuseppe Simone, Andres F. Correa, Matteo Ferro, Sisto Perdonà, Daniele Amparore, Raj Bhanvadia, Stephan Brönimann, Dhruv Puri, Dinno F. Mendiola, Reuben Ben-David, Sol C. Moon, Courtney Yong, Farshad S. Moghaddam, Alireza Ghoreifi, Eugenio Bologna, Leslie Claire Licari, Marco Finati, Gabriele Tuderti, Emma Helstrom, Marco Tozzi, Antonio Tufano, Soroush Rais-Bahrami, Chandru P. Sundaram, Reza Mehrazin, Mark L. Gonzalgo, Ithaar H. Derweesh, Francesco Porpiglia, Nirmish Singla, Vitaly Margulis, Alessandro Antonelli, Hooman Djaladat, Riccardo Autorino