No abstract

It is critically important to define disease-specific research priorities to better allocate limited resources. There is growing recognition of the value of involving patients and caregivers, as well as expert clinicians in this process. To our knowledge, this has not been done this way for kidney cancer. Using the transparent and inclusive process established by the James Lind Alliance, the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. The final result was identification of 10 research priorities for kidney cancer, which are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge. This process provided a systematic and effective way to collaboratively establish research priorities with patients, caregivers, and clinicians, and provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies.

Men who understand their treatment options and trial rationale as presented jointly by representative specialists from competing treatment modalities may be better equipped to make an informed decision and are more likely to consent to random assignment.

Background: Hereditary renal cell cancer (RCC) is an ideal model for germline genetic testing. We propose a guideline of hereditary RCC specific criteria to suggest referral for genetic assessment. Methods: A review of the literature and stakeholder resources for existing guidelines or consensus statements was performed. Referral criteria were developed by expert consensus. Results: The criteria included characteristics for patients with RCC (age ≤45 years, bilateral or multifocal tumours, associated medical conditions and non-clear cell histologies with unusual features) and for patients with or without RCC, but a family history of specific clinical or genetic diagnoses. Conclusions: This guideline represents a practical RCC-specific reference to allow healthcare providers to identify patients who may have a hereditary RCC syndrome, without extensive knowledge of each syndrome. RCC survivors and their families can also use the document to guide their discussions with healthcare providers about their need for referral. The criteria refer to the most common hereditary renal tumour syndromes and do not represent a comprehensive or exclusive list. Prospective validation of the criteria is warranted.

Introduction: Most small renal masses (SRMs) are diagnosed incidentally and have a low malignant potential. As more elderly patients and infirm patients are diagnosed with SRMs, there is an increased interest in active surveillance (AS) with delayed intervention. Patient and tumour characteristics relating to aggressive disease have not been well-studied. The objective was to determine predictors of growth of SRMs treated with AS. Methods: A multicentre prospective phase 2 clinical trial was conducted on 207 SRMs in 169 patients in 8 institutions in Canada from 2004 to 2009; in these patients treatment was delayed until disease progression. Patient and tumour characteristics were evaluated to determine predictors of growth of SRMs by measuring rates of change in growth (on imaging) over time. All patients underwent AS for presumed renal cell carcinoma (RCC) based on diagnostic imaging. We used the following factors to develop a predictive model of tumour growth with binary recursive partitioning analysis: patient characteristics (age, symptoms at diagnosis) and tumour characteristics (consistency [solid vs. cystic] and maximum diameter at diagnosis. Results: With a median follow-up of 603 days, 169 patients (with 207 SRMs) were followed prospectively. Age, symptoms at diagnosis, tumour consistency and maximum diameter of the renal mass were not predictors of growth. This cohort was limited by lack of availability of patient and tumour characteristics, such as sex, degree of endophytic component and tumour location. Conclusion: Slow growth rates and the low malignant potential of SRMs have led to AS as a treatment option in the elderly and infirm population. In a large prospective cohort, we have shown that age, symptoms, tumour consistency and maximum diameter of the mass at diagnosis are not predictors of growth of T1a lesions. More knowledge on predictors of growth of SRMs is needed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract