You have accessJournal of UrologyKidney Cancer: Localized: Surgical Therapy III (MP21)1 Apr 2020MP21-09 A COMPARISON OF ESTIMATION METHODS FOR RENAL TUMOR CONTACT SURFACE AREA Nick Heller*, Arveen Kalapara, Sarah Peterson, Matthew Peterson, Makinna Oestreich, Bethany Stai, Sean McSweeney, Jack Rickman, Paul Blake, Ranveer Vasdev, Zach Edgerton, Resha Tejpaul, Subodh Regmi, Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos, and Christopher Weight Nick Heller*Nick Heller* More articles by this author , Arveen KalaparaArveen Kalapara More articles by this author , Sarah PetersonSarah Peterson More articles by this author , Matthew PetersonMatthew Peterson More articles by this author , Makinna OestreichMakinna Oestreich More articles by this author , Bethany StaiBethany Stai More articles by this author , Sean McSweeneySean McSweeney More articles by this author , Jack RickmanJack Rickman More articles by this author , Paul BlakePaul Blake More articles by this author , Ranveer VasdevRanveer Vasdev More articles by this author , Zach EdgertonZach Edgerton More articles by this author , Resha TejpaulResha Tejpaul More articles by this author , Subodh RegmiSubodh Regmi More articles by this author , Nikolaos PapanikolopoulosNikolaos Papanikolopoulos More articles by this author , and Christopher WeightChristopher Weight More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000854.09AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Renal tumor Contact Surface Area (CSA) is a sensible predictor for Partial Nephrectomy (PN) complexity. Three methods for estimating CSA have been proposed, but these have only been studied independently. The objective of this work is to critically analyze each of these methods on the same cohort, comparing their predictive power and noting cases in which some methods break down. We conclude by discussing each method’s utility and making recommendations for which to use in practice. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent PN at our center between 2010 and 2018. We excluded cases which did not have imaging available in the corticomedullary phase as well as those with tumor thrombus. This turned up 188 patients from whom we randomly sampled 139 for our study. Students computed CSA estimates based on the three proposed methods (from 2014, 2016, and 2019) for each case, while also collecting ischemia time and Estimated Blood Loss (EBL). Multiple linear regression was used for analysis. RESULTS: We identified failure modes for the 2014 and 2016 methods, but the 2019 method of semantic segmentation + voxel counting was highly robust. In particular, both the 2014 and 2016 methods utilize a “proportion interparenchymal” estimate based on the tumor’s largest axial view, and in cases where (i) no adjacent parenchyma is shown, or (ii) the boundary between tumor and parenchyma is flat or concave, these methods severely underestimate CSA. A further third case in which this axial view shows disjoint parenchyma on both sides of the tumor introduces ambiguity when measuring depth of penetration for the 2016 method. However, since these cases are rare, the estimates that were highly correlated and equivalently useful as an addition to the RENAL score. When regressing over ischemia time with RENAL as a continuous predictor, the 2014, 2016, and 2019 methods took p-values of 6.85e-5, 1.00e-3, and 3.37e-3 respectively. The same test for EBL produced p-values of 0.0210, 0.0280, and 0.0265 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that no matter the estimation method, CSA makes a useful addition to the RENAL score for characterizing PN complexity. The 2019 method, while the most robust, requires full semantic segmentation of the tumor and affected kidney, which currently requires significantly more manual effort than the first two methods. Machine learning has recently shown impressive performance on automating this semantic segmentation, so fully automated CSA by the 2019 method is likely not far away, but until then, we recommend using the first proposed method of Leslie et al. since it is slightly more robust. Source of Funding: NIH GRANT:R01CA225435 © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e321-e321 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Nick Heller* More articles by this author Arveen Kalapara More articles by this author Sarah Peterson More articles by this author Matthew Peterson More articles by this author Makinna Oestreich More articles by this author Bethany Stai More articles by this author Sean McSweeney More articles by this author Jack Rickman More articles by this author Paul Blake More articles by this author Ranveer Vasdev More articles by this author Zach Edgerton More articles by this author Resha Tejpaul More articles by this author Subodh Regmi More articles by this author Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos More articles by this author Christopher Weight More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract