Renal Tumor Invasion Depth and Diameter are the Two Most Accurate Anatomical Features Regarding the Choice of Radical Versus Partial Nephrectomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To evaluate simple tumor characteristics (renal tumor diameter and parenchymal invasion depth) compared with more complex classifications, that is, Renal Tumor Invasion Index (RTII) and Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for an Anatomical classification, in predicting the type of nephrectomy (radical vs partial) performed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 915 patients who had undergone either partial nephrectomy ( n = 388, 42%) or radical nephrectomy ( n = 527, 58%) were identified from the Helsinki University Hospital kidney tumor database between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2014. Tumor maximum diameter and depth of invasion into the parenchyma were estimated from computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging images and compared with Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for an Anatomical and Renal Tumor Invasion Index. Logistic regression and receiver operating curves were used to compare the parameters at predicting the type of nephrectomy.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

All the anatomical variables of receiver operating curve/area under the curve analyses were significant predictors for the type of nephrectomy. Parenchymal invasion (area under the curve 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-0.93), RTII (area under the curve 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-0.93), and diameter (area under the curve 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-0.93) performed significantly better than Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for an Anatomical classification (area under the curve 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.89). In multivariable analysis, invasion depth was the best predictor of nephrectomy type (percentage correct, 85.6%). Addition of one anatomic parameter into the model of non-anatomical cofactors improved the accuracy of the model significantly, but the addition of more parameters did not. Parenchymal invasion depth and tumor diameter are the most accurate anatomical features for predicting the nephrectomy type. All potential anatomical classification systems should be tested against these two simple characteristics.

False-positive screening results in the Finnish prostate cancer screening trial

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that prostate cancer (PC) screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum test decreases PC mortality, but screening has adverse effects, such as a high false-positive (FP) rate. We investigated the proportion of FPs in a population-based randomised screening trial in Finland.

METHODS

Finland is the largest centre in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. We have completed three screening rounds with a 4-year screening interval (mean follow-up time 9.2 years) using a PSA cutoff level of 4.0 ng ml(-1); in addition, men with PSA 3.0-3.9 and a positive auxiliary test were referred. An FP result was defined as a positive screening result without cancer in biopsy within 1 year from the screening test.

RESULTS

The proportion of FP screening results varied from 3.3 to 12.1% per round. Of the screened men, 12.5% had at least one FP during three rounds. The risk of next-round PC following an FP result was 12.3-19.7 vs 1.4-3.7% following a screen-negative result (depending on the screening round), risk ratio 3.6-9.9. More than half of the men with one FP result had another one at a subsequent screen. Men with an FP result were 1.5 to 2.0 times more likely to not participate in subsequent rounds compared with men with a normal screening result (21.6-29.6 vs 14.0-16.7%).

CONCLUSION

An FP result is a common adverse effect of PC screening and affects at least every eighth man screened repeatedly, even when using a relatively high cutoff level. False-positive men constitute a special group that receives unnecessary interventions but may harbour missed cancers. New strategies are needed for risk stratification in PC screening to minimise the proportion of FP men.