BACKGROUND.: The objective of the current study was to evaluate the outcome of a surveillance strategy in patients with renal masses.METHODS.: The medical records of patients with renal masses diagnosed between January 1992 and May 2006 were reviewed retrospectively. In all, 45 patients with renal masses under observation were identified. Of these, 35 patients with 44 renal masses measuring <4 cm in dimension at the time of diagnosis and who were followed for at least 6 months were included in the review. Patients elected observation because of age, comorbidity, solitary kidney, or bilateral renal masses. Medical records were reviewed to determine tumor size and volume changes as well as clinical progression requiring treatment, the development of metastatic disease, or death.RESULTS.: A total of 35 patients (21 men and 14 women) with 44 renal masses were observed for a mean follow‐up of 47.6 months. The mean age of these patients was 71.8 years. The majority of the patients (89%) were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis. The mean and median initial tumor dimension was 2.2 cm and 2.2 cm, respectively (range, 0.5–4 cm). Of the 35 patients, 2 (5.7%) were lost to follow‐up, 8 (22.9%) underwent surgical resection, and 9 (25.7%) died of other causes. The mean dimension growth rate was 0.21 cm/year (range, 0.03–1.9 cm/year). The mean and median volume growth rate was 2.7 cc/year and 1.4 cc/year, respectively. Progression to metastatic disease was identified in 2 patients (5.7%).CONCLUSIONS.: The majority of renal masses will grow if observed and some may require treatment. Initial tumor size cannot predict the natural history of renal masses. A small but non‐negligible risk of developing metastatic disease exists in this patient population. Further research should focus on the role of biopsy and on identification of prognostic parameters allowing more accurate prediction of tumor growth and metastasis. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND. Active surveillance (AS) with deferred treatment is an established management option for patients with prostate cancer and favorable clinical parameters. The impact of repeat biopsy after diagnosis was examined in a cohort of men with prostate cancer on AS. METHODS. In all, 186 men with prostate cancer with favorable parameters or who refused treatment were conservatively managed by AS. Of these, 92 patients had at least 1 biopsy after diagnosis. Patients were followed every 3 to 6 months with prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) and physical examination and were offered rebiopsy annually or if there were any changes on physical examination or in the PSA value. Disease progression while on AS was defined as having ≥1 of the following: ≥cT2b disease, ≥3 positive cores, >50% of cancer in at least 1 core, or a predominant Gleason pattern of 4 in rebiopsies. RESULTS. The median age of the patients at the time of diagnosis was 67 years (range, 49–78 years). The median follow‐up was 76 months (range, 20–169 months). Of the 92 patients who underwent repeat biopsies, 42 patients, 25 patients, 13 patients, 10 patients, and 2 patients had 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 rebiopsies, respectively. A total of 34 patients (36%) demonstrated disease progression on rebiopsy. The first rebiopsy was positive for cancer in 48 patients (52.2%) and negative in 44 patients (47.8%). The 5‐year actuarial progression‐free probability was 82% for patients with a negative first repeat biopsy compared with 50% for patients with a positive first rebiopsy (P = .02). A PSA doubling time <67 months was associated an increased risk of disease progression on biopsy. CONCLUSIONS. Negative rebiopsy in patients with prostate cancer on AS is associated with low‐volume disease. The result of first repeated biopsy appears to have a strong impact on disease progression. Patients with a positive first repeated biopsy should be considered for treatment. An intensive biopsy protocol within the first 2 years is required to identify and treat those patients. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

Background: Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection has been advocated for the management of post-chemotherapy (PC-RPLND) residual masses of non-seminomatous germ cell tumors of the testis (NSGCT). There remains some debate as to the clinical benefit and associated morbidity. Our objective was to report our experience with PC-RPLND in NSGCT. Methods: We have reviewed the clinical, pathologic and surgical parameters associated with PC-RPLND in a single institution. Between 1994 and 2008, three surgeons operated 73 patients with residual masses after cisplatin-based chemotherapy for a metastatic testicular cancer. Patients needed to have normal postchemotherapy serum tumor markers, no prior surgical attempts to resect retroperitoneal masses and resectable retroperitoneal tumor mass at surgery to be included in this analysis Results: Mean age was 30.4 years old. Fifty-three percent had mixed germ cell tumors. The mean size of retroperitoneal metastasis was 6.3 and 4.0 cm, before and post-chemotherapy, respectively. In 56% of patients, the surgeon was able to perform a nerve sparing procedure. The overall complication rate was 27.4% and no patient died due to surgical complications. The pathologic review showed presence of fibrosis/necrosis, teratoma and viable tumor (non-teratoma) in 27 (37.0%), 30 (41.1%) and 16 (21.9%) patients, respectively. The subgroups presenting fibrosis and large tumors were more likely to have a surgical complication and had less nerve sparing procedures. Conclusion: PC-RPLND is a relatively safe procedure. The presence of fibrosis and large residual masses are associated with surgical complications and non-nerve-sparing procedure.

An emerging field of research describes the role of pre operative health behaviours, known as prehabilitation. The preoperative period may be a more physically and emotionally salient time to introduce and foster chronic adherence to health behaviours, such as exercise, in patients compared to post-treatment during recovery. Moreover, physical and psychosocial improvements during the preoperative period may translate into an enhanced recovery trajectory with reduced operative complications and postoperative adverse effects. No studies have assessed prehabilitation for men with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. This is a multi-centre, pilot randomized control trial conducted at two Canadian urban teaching hospitals. 100 men undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer with no contraindications to exercise will be recruited and randomized to the prehabiliation program or usual care. Prehabilitation participants will engage in a preoperative, individualized exercise program including pelvic floor muscle strengthening instructions and a healthy lifestyle guide for men with prostate cancer. These participants will be asked to engage in 60 minutes of home-based, unsupervised, moderate-intensity exercise on 3–4 days per week. Usual care participants will receive the same pelvic floor muscle strengthening instructions and healthy lifestyle guide only. We will assess the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered trial of the same design via recruitment rate, programmatic adherence/contamination, attrition, and safety. Estimates of intervention efficacy will be captured through measurements at baseline (4–8 weeks preoperatively), within 1 week prior to surgery, and postoperatively at 4, 12, and 26 weeks. Efficacy outcomes include: fatigue, quality of life, urinary incontinence, physical fitness, body composition, aerobic fitness, pain, and physical activity volume. The primary outcome of this study is to determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale, randomized controlled trial of prehabilitation versus usual care and to estimate effect sizes that will inform sample size determinations for subsequent trials in this field. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine a structured presurgical exercise program for men undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. This trial will advance our understanding of strategies to efficiently and effectively use the preoperative period to optimize postoperative recovery. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02036684 )