Molecular testing in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has allowed for a better understanding of the biology of both sporadic and hereditary diseases, where genetic testing is currently recommended in the guidelines for a select population with risk factors. Historically, screening, surveillance, and management decisions were based solely on clinicopathologic data; however, we now know that molecular profiling can enhance decision making, altering the treatment plan, approach, or selection of systemic therapy and enhancing the delivery of precision oncologic care. Advances and the increasing availability of next-generation sequencing technologies have improved the identification of germline and somatic variants in key RCC-associated genes. Given the molecular heterogeneity of RCC, these modern methods can identify unique genetic events that occur in a single individual, allowing for distinction between a metachronous tumor from metastases. Separate four-tier systems have been proposed to categorize germline and somatic variants according to their clinical significance, which should be highlighted. Additionally, emerging technologies, such as liquid biopsy, show potential for enhancing precision oncology in RCC. With this said, challenges, such as variant interpretation, ethical considerations, and accessibility, persist. This review examines the molecularly defined RCC, genetic testing methodologies currently available, their current clinical applications, limitations, and future directions.

Purpose:Percutaneous ablation therapy (AT) and partial nephrectomy (PN) are successful management strategies for T1a renal cancer. Our objective was to compare AT to PN with respect to recurrence-f...

Introduction: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of implementing a same-day discharge (SDD) protocol for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and pelvic lymph node dissection. Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study including all consecutive eligible patients undergoing RARP in 2021 following initiation of SDD RARP protocol in April. Baseline characteristics were compared using t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and odds ratios (OR) calculated using multiple logistic regression to assess for predictors of SDD success. Results: A total of 117 patients underwent RARP in 2021 following initiation of the SDD protocol. Fifty-seven patients were initiated on the SDD pathway, and 60 patients underwent surgery as an inpatient (IP-RARP). Of those on the SDD pathway (SDD-RARP), 33 (58%) were successfully discharged the same day of surgery, while 24 (42%) failed SDD. Baseline demographics were well-balanced between cohorts. Case order, increased patient age, and distance travelled to the hospital were factors associated with selection of patients for the IP-RARP protocol. In total, 12 SDD and 12 IP patients presented to the emergency department (p=1.0), and none within 24 hours of discharge. There were no hospital admissions in the SDD cohort, with four readmissions in the IP cohort (p=0.1). Multiple logistic regression revealed that case order (second case) was the only predictive factor for SDD success (OR 4.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.59–11.62, p=0.005). Conclusions: Implementation of an SDD pathway following RARP is feasible, with no increase in rates of complications, unscheduled visits, or readmissions.

Purpose: Emerging evidence supports the use of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) in ambulatory settings. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate differences in perioperative characteristics, complication/readmission rates and satisfaction/cost data between ambulatory and standard-length discharge (SLD) MIPN. Methods: This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023429854). A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted, including studies comparing ambulatory MIPN vs SLD MIPN for patients with renal masses. Studies were assessed for quality using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score. Meta-analysis was performed for comparative studies, and non-comparative studies were included narratively. Results: Eleven studies were included with a pooled population of 20,548 patients, of which 1,419 (7%) had a length of stay less than 1 day and were considered the ambulatory group. There were no significant differences in the total complication rates (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.24, 1.04; p = 0.06) or 30-day readmission rates (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.35; p = 0.53) between the ambulatory and SLD groups. There were fewer >3 Clavien–Dindo complications in the ambulatory group (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.59; p = 0.0002). Few studies reported average health care cost and patient satisfaction. Conclusions: In appropriately selected patients, ambulatory MIPN is safe and feasible. Future studies are needed to quantify cost and patient satisfaction differences and further identify appropriate patient selection criteria for ambulatory MIPN.

Introduction: Neoadjuvant intense androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) has shown pathologic complete responses (pCR) in prostate cancer (PCa), but long‐term survival outcomes remain unclear. This study evaluates the durability of response following neoadjuvant ADT plus enzalutamide before robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and lymph node dissection. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of an open‐label feasibility trial enrolling men with NCCN intermediate‐, high‐, very high‐risk localized and regional PCa treated with 6 months of neoadjuvant ADT and enzalutamide. Factors associated with biochemical recurrence (BCR) and metastases were evaluated using appropriate univariable statistical tests, and BCR‐, metastasis‐free survival (MFS), and cancer‐specific survival (CSS) were estimated using the Kaplan‐Meier method. Results: Of 39 patients enrolled, 36 patients completed all study interventions. Eighteen (66.7%) patients had NCCN very high‐risk disease or clinical regional lymph nodes on imaging. Four patients (11.1%) achieved pCR, although two (5.6%) developed BCR. One patient (2.8%) had M1 and three (8.3%) had N1 disease on final pathology, and all four developed metastases. Eleven (30.6%) patients received salvage therapy, with all but one receiving ADT with radiation. Factors associated with BCR included biopsy ISUP grade and positive surgical margins, while NCCN risk group, biopsy ISUP grade, perineural invasion, and pathological stage were associated with metastases ( p < 0.05). Median follow‐up was 7.3 (95% CI 6.3–8.3) years, and the 5‐year BCR‐free survival, MFS, and CSS were 64.1%, 84.6%, and 94.3%, respectively. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant enzalutamide and ADT was associated with favorable long‐term oncologic outcomes, supporting continued investigation in localized PCa.