Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal最新文献

Introduction: Elective pelvic nodal irradiation for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) undergoing trimodal therapy (TMT ) is controversial. In patients with node-negative (N0) MIBC, the benefit of elective whole-pelvis concurrent chemoradiation (WP-CCR) compared to bladder-only (BO )-CCR has not been demonstrated. Using real-world data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB ), we sought to compare the overall survival (OS ) between BO-CCR and WP-CCR for MIBC.

Methods: Using the 2020 NCDB Participant User File, we identified cases of MIBC diagnosed between 2017 and 2019. We selected patients with clinical T2-T4aN0M0 disease receiving CCR as first-line treatment. CCR was defined as transurethral resection of bladder tumor followed by ≥40 Gy radiation to the bladder with concurrent single- or multiple-agent chemotherapy. Based on elective nodal irradiation status, patients were stratified as having received BO-CCR vs. WP-CCR. OS analysis was performed using summary three-month conditional landmark, inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox regression.

Results: A total of 604 patients receiving CCR for MIBC were identified: 367 (60.8%) BO-CCR and 237 (39.2%) WP-CCR. Before IPTW, the groups were imbalanced in terms of baseline characteristics. The median followup of the weighted population was 42.3 months (interquartile range 18.1-49.1 months). In IPTW-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, WP-CCR was associated with a significant OS benefit compared to BO-CCR (adjusted hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.54-0.96, p=0.026).

Conclusions: In the setting of CCR for N0 MIBC, this retrospective NCDB analysis revealed that WP-CCR was associated with a benefit in OS compared to BO-CCR.

Introduction: This research evaluates the utility and precision of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in urology, inspired by recent affirmations of its feasibility and value.1,2 Our study provides valuable insights for urologists about POCUS's practical usage.

Methods: A prospective study assessed POCUS usage and accuracy in the University of Alberta's Division of Urology using data from April 4, 2022, to April 4, 2023. Data include POCUS indications, findings, and correlation with the final diagnosis/gold standard. Additionally, a qualitative survey was conducted among urologists and residents about POCUS's pros, cons, and barriers to integration.

Results: Thirty-three patients underwent POCUS examinations, mainly for suspected hydronephrosis (27%, n=9). Other indications included urinary retention, testicular mass, torsion, cryptorchidism, renal mass, extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (eFAST ) exams, nephrostomy tube placement confirmation, and scrotal hematomas. POCUS findings matched the final diagnosis in most cases, showing 86% sensitivity, with an average exam time of 1-5 minutes. POCUS showed potential for suprapubic tube insertions. Residents (60%, n=20) were the most frequent users, followed by staff (33%, n=10), and students (6%, n=2). The surveyed urologists and residents expressed comfort with POCUS but cited time, cost, and practicality as barriers.

Conclusions: POCUS proves accurate and beneficial in urology, particularly for hydronephrosis. Most findings align with the gold standard, and the average exam time is brief. Barriers include time and cost. Further research is necessary to evaluate cost-effectiveness and POCUS's impact on patient outcomes in routine urologic practice.

Introduction: Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) failure occurs in approximately 40% of patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) within two years. We describe our institutional experience with sequential intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel (gem/doce) as salvage therapy post-BCG failure in patients who were not candidates for or declined radical cystectomy (RC).

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed NMIBC patients with BCG failure who received gem/doce from April 2019 through October 2022 at the CHU de Québec-Université Laval. Patients received at least five weekly intravesical instillations according to published protocols. Patients who responded to gem/doce had maintenance instillations monthly for up to two years. Primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS), cystectomy-free survival (CFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and treatment adverse events. Survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method from the first gem/doce instillation.

Results: Thirty-five patients with a median age of 78 years old were included in the study. The median followup time was 21 months (interquartile range 10-29). More than 25% of patients received two or more prior BCG induction treatments. Overall and MIBC PFS estimates at one year were 85% and 88%, and at two years, 60% and 70%, respectively. Adverse events occurred in 37% of the patients, but only two patients didn't complete the treatment due to intolerance. Three patients underwent RC due to cancer progression. OS was 94% at two years.

Conclusions: With 60% of PFS at two years, gem/doce appears to be a safe and well-tolerated option for BCG failure patients. Further studies are needed to justify widespread use.

Introduction: Robotic surgery is used in the treatment of kidney tumors. We aimed to determine if robotic access was associated with initial choice of management for patients with a clinical stage I kidney mass.

Methods: Patients with a clinical stage I kidney mass were identified from the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) cohort. Sites were classified by year and access to robotic surgery. Associations between robotic access and initial management were determined using logistic regression. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed, adjusting for tumor size and stage, and presented as relative risks (RR ) or adjusted RR (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: Overall, 4160 patients were included. Among patients treated with surgery, the proportion of partial nephrectomy compared to radical nephrectomy was significantly higher in robotic sites (77.3% for robotic sites vs. 65.9% for non-robotic sites; RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.12-1.23, p<0.0001; aRR 1.12, 95% CI 1.08-1.17, p<0.0001). Patients receiving partial nephrectomy at sites with robotic access were more likely to receive a minimally invasive approach compared to patients at non-robotic sites (61.4% vs. 50.9%, RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12-1.30; aRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.25, p<0.0001). The proportion of patients managed by active surveillance was not significantly different between robotic (405, 16.9%) and non-robotic (258, 14.7%) sites (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.99-1.32; aRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.12).

Conclusions: Access to robotic kidney surgery was associated with increased use of partial nephrectomy and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Use of active surveillance was similar at robotic and non-robotic institutions. Limitations of this study include lack of data on perioperative complications and cancer recurrence.

Introduction: Radical inguinal orchiectomy (RO ) is indicated for the management of testicular tumors and is universally performed under general anesthetic in the hospital. The need to perform radical orchiectomy in an expeditated fashion can result in logistical difficulties, often necessitating this procedure to happen after-hours on a semi-emergent basis. These logistical difficulties have been exacerbated by the backlog of cases from the COVID-19 pandemic. A similar procedure - inguinal hernia repair - is regularly performed under local anesthesia with minimal complications. Thus, we sought to evaluate the feasibility of performing radical orchiectomy under deep intravenous sedation in an ambulatory surgery center.

Methods: We evaluated our single-surgeon (PP), prospective database of patients who underwent RO between September 2022 and February 2023 at the Men's Health Clinic Manitoba. Patients were given a combination of deep sedation, ilioinguinal nerve block, and local anesthetic. Tolerability was assessed both perioperatively and at 4-6 weeks' followup. We reviewed the medical records for any postoperative complications.

Results: Eight patients underwent RO under deep sedation during the study period. All patients tolerated the surgery well and were discharged shortly after surgery. Average operative time was 40 minutes and length of stay was 46 minutes. There were no perioperative complications.

Conclusions: Our pilot study demonstrates that RO can be safely and effectively performed under deep sedation. This anesthetic combination can be used both in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings, thereby resulting in faster recovery, shorter length of stay, and favorable patient and provider satisfaction.