Clara Diaz, Maryam Kandi, Philippe D Violette, Matthieu Gratton, Steven E Hanna, Amélie Tétu, Gordon Guyatt, Patrick O Richard
{"title":"探讨小肾肿块患者的治疗偏好:一项初步研究的结果。","authors":"Clara Diaz, Maryam Kandi, Philippe D Violette, Matthieu Gratton, Steven E Hanna, Amélie Tétu, Gordon Guyatt, Patrick O Richard","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.07.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Most patients diagnosed with a small renal mass (SRM) undergo definitive treatment, but active surveillance may be offered as an alternative. Our aim was to determine patient preferences regarding management of their SRM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicenter prospective pilot study, we conducted structured online interviews with patients with a new SRM diagnosis. During the interviews, patients reviewed outcome data and stated their preference for definitive treatment (thermal ablation vs partial nephrectomy). Then the patients reviewed hypothetical scenarios in a ping-pong approach and chose the maximum change in the probability of death from kidney cancer they would be willing to accept in order to decline definitive treatment.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>Of the 41 participants interviewed, 71% (n = 29) preferred thermal ablation over surgery. While the median maximum increase in the probability of death from kidney cancer that patients were willing to accept to decline definitive treatment was 0.1% (interquartile range 0.1-2.5%) at 5 yr, 27% of patients reported a threshold ≥2%. Most patients (97%) preferred to review data in the form of a \"reduction in the risk of death\", rather than an \"increase in the risk of death\", or expressed no preference. Limitations include the small sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of an innovative approach for evaluating the preferences of patients with SRMs and establishes a robust methodology for future studies. Results highlighted a strong preference for thermal ablation and for presenting data in terms of the reduction in mortality risk. Larger studies are required to validate our findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Management Preferences Among Patients with Small Renal Masses: Results from a Pilot Study.\",\"authors\":\"Clara Diaz, Maryam Kandi, Philippe D Violette, Matthieu Gratton, Steven E Hanna, Amélie Tétu, Gordon Guyatt, Patrick O Richard\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.euf.2025.07.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Most patients diagnosed with a small renal mass (SRM) undergo definitive treatment, but active surveillance may be offered as an alternative. Our aim was to determine patient preferences regarding management of their SRM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicenter prospective pilot study, we conducted structured online interviews with patients with a new SRM diagnosis. During the interviews, patients reviewed outcome data and stated their preference for definitive treatment (thermal ablation vs partial nephrectomy). Then the patients reviewed hypothetical scenarios in a ping-pong approach and chose the maximum change in the probability of death from kidney cancer they would be willing to accept in order to decline definitive treatment.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>Of the 41 participants interviewed, 71% (n = 29) preferred thermal ablation over surgery. While the median maximum increase in the probability of death from kidney cancer that patients were willing to accept to decline definitive treatment was 0.1% (interquartile range 0.1-2.5%) at 5 yr, 27% of patients reported a threshold ≥2%. Most patients (97%) preferred to review data in the form of a \\\"reduction in the risk of death\\\", rather than an \\\"increase in the risk of death\\\", or expressed no preference. Limitations include the small sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of an innovative approach for evaluating the preferences of patients with SRMs and establishes a robust methodology for future studies. Results highlighted a strong preference for thermal ablation and for presenting data in terms of the reduction in mortality risk. Larger studies are required to validate our findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European urology focus\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European urology focus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2025.07.008\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European urology focus","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2025.07.008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Exploring Management Preferences Among Patients with Small Renal Masses: Results from a Pilot Study.
Background and objective: Most patients diagnosed with a small renal mass (SRM) undergo definitive treatment, but active surveillance may be offered as an alternative. Our aim was to determine patient preferences regarding management of their SRM.
Methods: In this multicenter prospective pilot study, we conducted structured online interviews with patients with a new SRM diagnosis. During the interviews, patients reviewed outcome data and stated their preference for definitive treatment (thermal ablation vs partial nephrectomy). Then the patients reviewed hypothetical scenarios in a ping-pong approach and chose the maximum change in the probability of death from kidney cancer they would be willing to accept in order to decline definitive treatment.
Key findings and limitations: Of the 41 participants interviewed, 71% (n = 29) preferred thermal ablation over surgery. While the median maximum increase in the probability of death from kidney cancer that patients were willing to accept to decline definitive treatment was 0.1% (interquartile range 0.1-2.5%) at 5 yr, 27% of patients reported a threshold ≥2%. Most patients (97%) preferred to review data in the form of a "reduction in the risk of death", rather than an "increase in the risk of death", or expressed no preference. Limitations include the small sample size.
Conclusions and clinical implications: This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of an innovative approach for evaluating the preferences of patients with SRMs and establishes a robust methodology for future studies. Results highlighted a strong preference for thermal ablation and for presenting data in terms of the reduction in mortality risk. Larger studies are required to validate our findings.
期刊介绍:
European Urology Focus is a new sister journal to European Urology and an official publication of the European Association of Urology (EAU).
EU Focus will publish original articles, opinion piece editorials and topical reviews on a wide range of urological issues such as oncology, functional urology, reconstructive urology, laparoscopy, robotic surgery, endourology, female urology, andrology, paediatric urology and sexual medicine. The editorial team welcome basic and translational research articles in the field of urological diseases. Authors may be solicited by the Editor directly. All submitted manuscripts will be peer-reviewed by a panel of experts before being considered for publication.