Purpose: To report the prevalence of the defi nitions used to identify post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and to compare the rates of PPI over time under different criteria. Materials and Methods: In the period from January 1, 2000, until December 31, 2017, we used a recently described methodology to perform evidence acquisition called reverse systematic review (RSR). The continence defi nition and rates were evaluated and compared at 1, 3, 6, 12, and >18 months post-operative. Moreover, the RSR showed the "natural history" of PPI after LRP. Results: We identifi ed 353 review articles in the systematized search, 137 studies about PPI were selected for data collection, and fi nally were included 203 reports (nr) with 51.436 patients. The most used criterion of continence was No pad (nr=121; 59.6%), the second one was Safety pad (nr=57; 28.1%). A statistically signifi cant difference between continence criteria was identifi ed only at >18 months (p=0.044). From 2013 until the end of our analysis, the Safety pad and Others became the most reported. Conclusion: RSR revealed the "natural history" of PPI after the LRP technique, and showed that through time the Safety pad concept was mainly used. However, paradoxically, we demonstrated that the two most utilized criteria, Safety pad and No pad, had similar PPI outcomes. Further effort should be made to standardize the PPI denomination to evaluate, compare and discuss the urinary post-operatory function.
There has been discussion over where to draw the line between partial and radical nephrectomy ever since performing the surgery was deemed possible. In 1869 Gustav Simon made history by performing the first ever planned nephrectomy to cure a urinary fistula and later in 1870, the first partial nephrectomy to treat hydronephrosis (1). That stated two important facts that are pertinent to our discussion. The first statement was that removing a kidney or part of one was possible. The second statement affirmed that it was possible to live with only one functioning organ. With that in mind, we persist year after year, trying to figure out where to put a line.Beyond oncological control, the risk of chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular events, hospitalization and death are problems that we as urologists must keep in mind when discussing long term repercussions of kidney cancer treatment, to find a way to push it as far as possible from our patients waiting for a partial or radical nephrectomy (2).Many studies have shown (3-6) that locally invasive tumors such as T3a can be resected in a nephron sparing surgery (NSS) with oncological safety in long enough follow-up. Although positive surgical margins do increase with NSS of more complex and advanced tumors, their consequences are still negligible and a two year follow up, although reduced, is probably enough time to evaluate properly a recurrence rate based on previous studies (7).Still, the literature is teeming with retrospective, non-randomized, biased filled works that try to give us some direction but are yet to give us any definitive answer. With that in mind, one other aspect to discuss would be the benefit of NSS and renal function preservation in this scenario. The follow up becomes central when dealing with this subject, once it has been reported that average time to recover original kidney function rate could take up to 25 months for 49% of patients to regain their previous eGFR (8,9).Tumor size is also significantly different between most partial and radical nephrectomy studied groups, and that may also impact in the final renal function recovery (10). Many studies have shown even in the same T stage, that size may interfere in terms of benefit when performing NSS. According to de Andrade et al. (11) who analyzed patients submitted to radical nephrectomy, it was found that patients with kidneys with larger tumors suffered lower eGFR decreases when compared to kidneys with smaller ones and even lower than kidney donor patients, once the amount of lost functioning nephrons at surgery increases respectively. So eGFR changes after radical and partial nephrectomy depends on the quality and extension of the remaining normal tissue, mainly in the affected kidney, and the biggest EDITORIAL COMMENT
Purpose Current World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology (2004 WHO/ISUP) grading of bladder urothelial carcinoma relies on the highest pathologic grade of the specimen and does not reflect the inherent qualitative and quantitative heterogeneity of disease. Materials and Methods We retrospectively studied consecutive urothelial high-grade cT1 (cT1HG) carcinomas submitted to adjuvant bacille Calmette–Guérin between 2008 and 2015 to evaluate the prognostic potential of grade 3 (presence or predominance) according to the 1973 WHO system concerning disease progression and cancer-specific death. Results Among 253 patients, grading distribution was 34.4% 1+2, 7.5% 2+1, 20.2% 2+2, 19.0% 2+3, 5.1% 3+2, and 13.8% 3+3. Recurrence was diagnosed in 115 (45.5%), progression in 83 (32.8%), and cancer-specific death in 50 patients (19.8%). Mean time to recurrence, progression, and death from disease were 35.9±31.7, 47.6±44.5, and 51.2±50.4 months, respectively. Grade 3 presence (2+3, 3+2, or 3+3) occurred in 96 (37.9%) and independently predicted time to progression (p<0.001; hazard ratio [HR], 3.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88–5.14). Grade 3 predominance (3+2 or 3+3) occurred in 48 (18.9%) and independently predicted time to disease-specific death. Conclusions Grade 3 presence and predominance are independent predictors of progression and disease-specific death and occur in about 40% and 20% of cT1HG, respectively. Describing qualitative and quantitative heterogeneity in urothelial carcinoma grading might improve the stratification of patients. This gives three prognostic high-grade groups based on WHO/ISUP 1973: prognostic grade group I (grade 3 absence), prognostic grade group II (grade 3 presence), and prognostic grade group III (grade 3 predominance).
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Since early 2020, the global pandemic caused by COVID-19 has resulted in considerable healthcare related and economic impacts. To mitigate health impact to the wider population, restrictions on non-essential services were imposed. Australia performed favourably compared to other developed countries, largely due to these state-initiated transient 'lock-downs' to control local outbreaks. Recommendations to limit non-urgent urologic care were formulated to optimise patient safety and many of these were adopted in Australia. We aimed to extend this analysis to observe the trend in PSA tests, biopsies, and radical prostatectomies in the first 18 months of the pandemic, from January 2020 through to mid-2021, and compare these to the previous ten years.METHODS: Medicare Benefits Schedule data was extracted per state and per month from January 2010 to June 2021 for PSA tests, prostate biopsies, and radical prostatectomies. Each item was plotted as a two-year trend, with the count of tests/procedures expressed as a ratio to the first January count of that two-year period. Data on the number of covid cases per day to 30 th June 2021, as a 7-day average. RESULTS: A sharp fall in PSA tests among all states was seen in April 2020 as the first wave of COVID-19 cases were detected and lockdown measures initiated. Test numbers rebounded quickly but remained slightly below the long-term trend (Figure 1, green line). For biopsy procedures, a decline from the expected trend began in March/ April 2020 but generally remained below trend for the remainder of the year for most states within Australia. The observed deviation for radical prostatectomies commenced later than biopsies, with an apparent two-or three-month lag. In comparison to the longer-term average trend, from Jan 2020 to Jun 2021 it is estimated that there were 15% fewer PSA tests, 16% fewer biopsies and 17% fewer prostatectomies in Australia.CONCLUSIONS: The consequence of periodic lockdowns in response to COVID19 on patterns of care on stage at presentation and oncological outcomes is unknown but should be measured. As vaccination rates rise globally, it is expected that strict COVID-19 mitigation measures will not be required, therefore limiting the consequent impact on prostate cancer management contained.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.