Introduction: Placement of a ureteral stent at the time of renal transplantation can reduce complications when compared to non-stented anastomoses. Removal by flexible cystoscopy can be associated with discomfort, risk for infection, and high costs. New magnetic stents offer a means of bypassing cystoscopy by use of a magnetic retrieval device. Our objective was to compare clinical and cost-related outcomes of conventional and magnetic stents in patients undergoing deceased donor renal transplantation. Methods: Patients were randomized to receive either a conventional or a Black-Star® magnetic stent. Clinical, procedural, and cost outcomes were assessed, and the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) was administered with the stent in situ and after stent removal. All variables were compared between groups. Results: Forty-one patients were randomized to conventional (n=19) or Black-Star (n=22) stent. The total time for stent removal under cystoscopy was significantly longer compared to Black-Star removal (6.67±2.47 and 4.80±2.21 minutes, respectively; p=0.019). No differences were found in the USSQ domains between groups. Rates of urinary tract infections and surgical complications between groups were similar. Stent removal was well-tolerated in both groups. Black-Star stent use resulted in a cost savings of $304.02 Canadian dollars (CAD) per case. Conclusions: USSQ scores suggest that stent removal with the Black-Star magnetic stent is as equally well-tolerated as flexible cystoscopy by renal transplant patients. Black-Star stent removal was significantly faster than conventional stents. No differences in discomfort, infection rate, or complication rate were found. Use of the Black-Star stent resulted in an estimated annual savings of $27 360 CAD at our centre.

INTRODUCTION: The Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) has prospectively collected data on patients with renal tumors since Jan 1st, 2011 from 16 sites within 14 academic centers in 6 provinces. Canadian kidney cancer experts have used CKCis data to address several research questions. The goal of this study was to determine if the CKCis cohort is representative of the entire Canadian kidney cancer population, specifically regarding demographic and geographic distributions. METHODS: The CKCis prospective cohort was analyzed up to Dec 31, 2018. Baseline demographics and tumor characteristics were analyzed including location of patients’ residence at the time of CKCis entry. Geographic data is presented by province, rural versus urban via postal code info (2nd digit=0) and by Canadian urban boundary files. To determine the proportion of RCC patients that CKCis captures, CKCis accruals were compared to projected Canadian Cancer Society RCC incidence in 2016-2017 and the incidence from the 2016 Canadian Cancer Registry. To determine if the CKCis baseline data is representative it was compared to Registry data and other published data when Registry data was not available. RESULTS: This CKCis cohort includes 10,298 eligible patients: 66.6% male, median age 62.6 years, 14.6% had metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis and 70.4% had clear cell carcinomas. The CKCis cohort captures about 1,250 patients per year, which represents approximately 20% of the total kidney cancer incidence. The proportion of patients captured per province did vary from 13% to 43%. Rural patients make up 17% of patients with some baseline differences between rural and urban patients. There appears to be no major differences between CKCis patient demographics and disease characteristics compared to national data sources. Canadian heat maps detailing patient location are presented. CONCLUSIONS: CKCis contains prospective data on >10,000 Canadian kidney cancer patients making it a valuable resource for kidney cancer research. The baseline demographic and geographic data do appear to include a broad cross section of patients and seem to be highly representative of the Canadian kidney cancer population. Moving forward, future projects will include determining if CKCis cancer outcomes are also representative of the entire Canadian kidney cancer population, and studying variations across provinces and within rural versus urban areas.

Introduction: This study serves as an update of prostate cancer screening practices among family physicians in Ontario, Canada. Since this population was first surveyed in 2010, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released recommendations against prostate cancer screening. Methods: An online survey was developed through input from urologists and family practitioners. It was distributed via email to all members of the Ontario Medical Association's Section on General and Family practice (11 657 family physicians). A reminder email was sent at two weeks and the survey remained active for one month. Results: A total of 1880 family physicians completed surveys (response rate 16.1%). Overall, 80.4% offered prostate cancer screening compared to 91.7% when surveyed in 2010. Physicians new to practice (two years or less) were the most likely to not offer screening (24.6%). A combination of digital rectal exam (DRE) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remained the most common form of screening (58.3%). Following the release of the CTFPHC recommendations, 45.6% of respondents said they now screen fewer patients. Participants were less familiar with national urological society guidelines compared to task force recommendations. The majority (72.6%) of respondents feel PSA screening leads to overdiagnosis and treatment. Those surveyed remained split with respect to PSA utility. Conclusions: Data suggest a decline in screening practices since 2010, with newer graduates less likely to offer screening. CFTPHC and USPSTF recommendations had the greatest impact on clinical practice. Those surveyed were divided with respect to PSA utility. Some additional considerations to PSA screening in the primary care setting, including patient-driven factors, were not captured by our concise survey.

No abstract

BackgroundAlthough surgical resection remains the standard of care for localized kidney cancers, a significant proportion of patients experience systemic recurrence after surgery and hence might benefit from effective adjuvant therapy. So far, several treatment options have been evaluated in adjuvant clinical trials, but only a few have provided promising results. Nevertheless, with the recent development of targeted therapy and immunomodulatory therapy, a series of clinical trials are in progress to evaluate the potential of those novel agents in the adjuvant setting. In this paper, we provide a narrative review of the progress in this field, and we summarize the results from recent adjuvant trials that have been completed.MethodsA literature search was conducted. The primary search strategy at the medline, Cochrane reviews, and http://ClinicalTrials.gov/ databases included the keywords “adjuvant therapy,” “renal cell carcinoma,” and “targeted therapy or/and immunotherapy.”ConclusionsData from the s-trac study indicated that, in the “highest risk for recurrence” patient population, disease-free survival was increased with the use of adjuvant sunitinib compared with placebo. The assure trial showed no benefit for adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib in the “intermediate- to high-risk” patient population. The ariser (adjuvant girentuximab) and protect (adjuvant pazopanib) trials indicated no survival benefit, but subgroup analyses in both trials recommended further investigation. The inconsistency in some of the current results can be attributed to a variety of factors pertaining to the lack of standardization across the trials. Nevertheless, patients in the “high risk of recurrence” category after surgery for their disease would benefit from a discussion about the potential benefits of adjuvant treatment and enrolment in ongoing adjuvant trials.