No abstract

Purpose:We compare health-related quality of life using a broad range of validated measures in patients randomized to robotic-assisted radical cystectomy vs open radical cystectomy.Methods:We retrospectively analyzed patients that had enrolled in both a randomized controlled trial comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy vs open radical cystectomy and a separate prospective study of health-related quality of life. The prospective health-related quality of life study collected 14 patient-reported outcomes measures preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively. Linear mixed-effects models with an interaction term (study arm×time) were used to test for differences in mean domain scores and differing effects of approach over time, adjusting for baseline scores.Results:A total of 72 patients were analyzed (n=32 robotic-assisted radical cystectomy, n=40 open radical cystectomy). From 3-24 months post-radical cystectomy, no significant differences in mean scores were detected. Mean differences were small in the following European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 (Core Quality of Life Questionnaire) domains: Global Quality of Life (−1.1; 95% CI −8.4, 6.2), Physical Functioning (−0.4; 95% CI −5.8, 5.0), Role Functioning (0.7; 95% CI −8.6, 10.0). Mean differences were also small in bladder cancer–specific domains (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-BLM30 [Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire]): Body Image (2.9; 95% CI −7.2, 13.1), Urinary Symptoms (8.0; 95% CI −3.0, 19.0). In Urostomy Symptoms, there was a significant interaction term (P < .001) due to lower open radical cystectomy scores at 3 and 24 months. Other domains evaluating urinary, bowel, sexual, and psychosocial health-related quality of life were similar.Conclusions:Over a broad range of health-related quality of life domains comparing robotic-assisted radical cystectomy and open radical cystectomy, there are unlikely to be clinically relevant differences in the medium to long term, and therefore health-related quality of life over this time period should not be a consideration in choosing between approaches.

Introduction: Penile squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is rare in North America; however, the morbidity can be devastating. This analysis represents the first reported penile cancer experience at a tertiary care centre in Canada. Methods: We carried out a retrospective review of all patients who received care at our centre for penile SCC from 2005 until the present time. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected for all patients. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier methods with log-rank test and Cox regression for univariate and multivariate analysis, respectively. Results: We identified 42 patients who were treated at our centre for penile SCC. Of these, 29% underwent excisional biopsy, 38% had partial penectomy, and 33% had total penectomy. Five patients with high-risk tumours underwent modified inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND), while 7 patients had radical ILND for clinically palpable disease. Overall, the median cancer specific survival (CSS) was undefined, with a 60% survival at 102 months. However CSS was significantly correlated to pT stage, pN stage, and tumour grade. The median follow-up was 25 months (interquartile range: 11-48). Conclusion: These findings confirm the poor CSS of patients with positive lymph nodes in penile SCC. Patients with pN0 after ILND had a durable CSS. Risk factors for penile SCC were confirmed as elevated body mass index, positive smoking history, and lack of circumcision. This first epidemiologic report on penile SCC from a Canadian tertiary care centre should be expanded to other national centres.

Radical prostatectomy (RP) remains a standard treatment option for clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer. While RP provides excellent local control, patients with high-risk disease remain at considerable risk for recurrence after surgery. Disease relapse may be the result of occult distant metastases or regional micrometastatic disease at the time of surgery. Accordingly, the role of systemic (neoadjuvant) therapy prior to RP has been investigated. Proposed neoadjuvant regimens: include monotherapy or combinations of chemotherapy, hormonal deprivation, and immunologic agents. Randomized trials using androgen deprivation have demonstrated improved pathologic outcomes, including pathologic downstaging and decreased risk of positive surgical margins, extracapsular extension, and seminal vesical invasion. However, these, albeit early, trials did not reliably demonstrate improved post-prostatectomy oncologic outcomes. More recent trials have evaluated novel combinations of chemo-hormonal therapy and immunologic based therapies. These studies are currently maturing and offer the promise, pending findings, of potentially informing future practice. In this review, we highlight the pathophysiologic basis and contemporary evidence for neoadjuvant therapy prior to RP for clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer.

To analyse the risk of uretero-enteric anastomotic stricture in patients randomised to open (ORC) or robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with extracorporeal urinary diversion. Patients and MethodsWe included 118 patients randomised to RARC (n = 60) or ORC (n = 58) at a single, high-volume institution from March 2010 to April 2013. Urinary diversion was performed by experienced open surgeons. Stricture was defined as non-malignant obstruction on imaging, corroborated by clinical status, and requiring procedural intervention. The risk of stricture within 1 year was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test. ResultsIn all, 58 and 60 patients were randomised to RARC and ORC, respectively. We identified five strictures, all in the ORC group. In patients with ≥1 year of follow-up, the increase in risk of stricture from open surgery was 9.3% (95% confidence interval 1.5%, 17%). Of the five strictures, three were managed endoscopically while two required open revision. There was no evidence that perioperative Grade 3-5 complications were associated with development of a stricture (P = 1) and no evidence of a difference in 24-month estimated glomerular filtration rate between arms (P = 0.15). ConclusionsIn this study at a high-volume centre, RARC with extracorporeal urinary diversion achieved excellent ureteric anastomotic outcomes. Purported increased risk of stricture is not a reason to avoid RARC. Future research should examine the impact of different surgical techniques and operator experience on the risk of stricture, especially as more intracorporeal diversions are performed.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a standard of care primary treatment for men with clinically localized prostate cancer (CLPC). The 2010 Canadian Urological Association (CUA) consensus guideline examining surgical quality performance for radical prostatectomy suggested benchmarks for surgical performance. To date, no study has examined whether Canadian surgeons are achieving these benchmarks. We determined the proportion of University of Alberta (UA) urologic surgeons achieving the CUA surgical quality performance outcome (SQPO) benchmarks. Methods: A retrospective quality assurance analysis of prospectively collected data from the PROstate Cancer Urosurgery Repository of Edmonton (PROCURE) was performed. Men who underwent RARP for CLPC between September 2007 and May 2018 by one of seven surgeons were analyzed. SQPO were an unadjusted pT2–R1 resection rate <25%, blood transfusion rate <10%, rectal injury rate <1%, and 90-day mortality rate <1%. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the proportion of surgeons achieving the benchmarks. Results: Data were evaluable for 2821 men. Seven of 7 (100%) surgeons achieved a blood transfusion rate <10%, rectal injury rate <1%, and 90-day mortality rate <1%. However, only six of seven surgeons achieved an unadjusted pT2–R1 resection rate <25%; one surgeon had an unadjusted pT2–R1 resection rate of 27.9%. Limitations include the lack of centralized pathology review for surgical margin status by a dedicated genitourinary pathologist. Conclusions: UA surgeons are achieving the CUA SQPO benchmarks for blood transfusion, rectal injury, and perioperative mortality. However, not all UA urologists are achieving a pT2– R1 resection rate <25%. Surgical quality performance initiatives designed to improve cancer control may be warranted.