Near-infrared tissue oximetry and digital image analysis: quantification of renal ischaemia in real time during partial nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of using near-infrared tissue oximetry (TO) and digital image analysis for assessing renal function and to quantify local renal ischaemia in a porcine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tissue oximetry was performed and red/blue (R/B) colour ratios were determined on renal units of Yorkshire swine. Interval measurements were taken before clamping the renal hilum, during warm ischaemia, and after unclamping using a ViOptix T.Ox™ Tissue Oximeter and Matlab(®) digital image analysis. Matlab software analysed images from the laparoscopic camera and determined an R/B ratio to track renal ischaemia. The tissue oximeter used direct infrared light and was placed adjacent to the kidney parenchymal surface. The data were divided into preclamp, clamp and post-clamp, and compared between methodologies. RESULTS: The R/B ratio showed a higher rate of change compared with TO during clamp time in both the 15-min experiment (R/B = 96.0 vs. TO = 52.1 unit/reference) and the 30-min experiment (R/B = 97.6 vs. TO = 45.9). The R/B ratio showed a higher rate of change compared with TO at 1 min after clamping in the 15-min experiment (R/B = 80.1 vs. TO = 12.4). Both detection devices showed similar changes in pre- and post-clamp measurements in the 15- min experiment (R/B = 1.6 vs. TO = 3.8) and the 30-min experiment (R/B = 4.7 vs. TO =-4.5). In the 30-min experiment the R/B ratio showed a significant difference between preclamp, clamp, and post-clamp states (P= 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Both TO and digital image analysis were able to calculate an ischaemic drop in tissue oxygen saturation during periods of acute renal ischaemia. The findings suggest that the R/B ratio observed during histogram analysis shows a greater sensitivity compared with TO in quantifying renal ischaemia.

Developing a successful robotics program.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Advancements in the robotic surgical technology have revolutionized the standard of care for many surgical procedures. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the important considerations in developing a new robotics program at a given healthcare institution. RECENT FINDINGS: Patients' interest in robotic-assisted surgery has and continues to grow because of improved outcomes and decreased periods of hospitalization. Resulting market forces have created a solid foundation for the implementation of robotic surgery into surgical practice. Given proper surgeon experience and an efficient system, robotic-assisted procedures have been cost comparable to open surgical alternatives. Surgeon training and experience is closely linked to the efficiency of a new robotics program. Formally trained robotic surgeons have better patient outcomes and shorter operative times. Training in robotics has shown no negative impact on patient outcomes or mentor learning curves. SUMMARY: Individual economic factors of local healthcare settings must be evaluated when planning for a new robotics program. The high cost of the robotic surgical platform is best offset with a large surgical volume. A mature, experienced surgeon is integral to the success of a new robotics program.

Obese African-Americans with prostate cancer (T1c and a prostate-specific antigen, PSA, level of <10 ng/mL) have higher-risk pathological features and a greater risk of PSA recurrence than non-African-Americans.

OBJECTIVE: to analyse the relationship between African American (AA) race and obesity in men with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: in all, 4196 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy from 1988 to 2008 were identified in the Duke Prostate Center database. A subset of 389 (AA 20.9% and non-AA 79.1%) patients with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥30 kg/m(2) , T1c disease and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of <10 ng/mL were stratified by race and analysed. Age at surgery, race, surgical margin status, pathological tumour stage (pT2, pT3/4), pathological Gleason sum (<7, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, >7), extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion and tumour percentage were assessed by univariate analysis followed by Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: in the entire cohort, 143 (38.1%) AA men were obese, compared to 509 (25.0%) of the non-AA men. AA men had a significantly higher tumour percentage (15% vs 10%, P= 0.002), and a greater proportion of pT3/4 disease (45.1% vs 26.2%, P= 0.039), pathological Gleason sum ≥ 7 (70.7% vs 50.5%, P= 0.003), positive ECE (37.8% vs 23.1%, P= 0.007), and positive surgical margin (52.4% vs 36.8%, P= 0.010) than non-AA men. AA men had a greater risk of PSA recurrence on Kaplan Meier (P= 0.004) and Cox regression analysis (P= 0.040, hazard ratio 1.72) CONCLUSION: a greater proportion of AA men was obese in this cohort. Obese AA with impalpable cancer and a PSA level of <10 ng/mL have a higher risk of pathological features than obese non-AA men, as well as a higher risk of PSA recurrence. Obesity might be responsible for the racial disparity seen in prostate cancer.

Posterior reconstruction before anastomosis improves the anastomosis time during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to evaluate posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and determine whether this technique decreased anastomotic time of a surgeon in training to perform vesicourethral reconstruction. METHODS: We reviewed the first 25 robot-assisted prostatectomies performed by 2 urology surgeons in training (surgeon 1 and surgeon 2). The patient populations were matched for age, Gleason score, clinical stage, and PSA. Whereas surgeon 1 performed the vesicourethral anastomosis without posterior reconstruction, surgeon 2 reapproximated Denonvilliers' fascia of the posterior bladder to the rhabdosphincter. Time for each surgeon to complete the anastomosis and clinical factors was compared. RESULTS: Surgeon 1 had a median anastomosis time of 25 minutes (range, 17 to 48), whereas surgeon 2 had a median anastomosis time of 15 minutes (range, 10 to 30) (P<0.001). Biopsy Gleason score, pathological tumor stage, perineural invasion, median age at the time of surgery, PSA, prostate weight, and estimated blood loss were not significantly different between surgeons (P>0.05). Pathological Gleason score (P=0.045) and total console time (surgeon 1-216 minutes, surgeon 2-176 minutes; P=0.002) were significantly different between surgeons. CONCLUSION: Posterior reconstruction prior to anastomosis decreases anastomosis time for robotic surgeons in training.

Tumor volume, tumor percentage involvement, or prostate volume: which is predictive of prostate-specific antigen recurrence?

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of tumor volume (TV), tumor percentage involvement (TPI), and prostate volume (PV) on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence (PSAR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: A cohort of 3528 patients receiving RP between 1988 and 2008 was retrieved from the Duke Prostate Center. Patients were stratified by TV (< 3, 3-6, > 6 cm(3)), TPI (< 10%, 10%-20%, > 20%), and PV (< 35, 35-45, > 45 cm(3)) and their effects on PSAR evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Clinicopathologic variables included in univariate analysis were age at surgery, race, year of surgery, PSA, pathologic Gleason score, pathologic tumor stage, margin status, extracapsular extension, and seminal vesicle invasion. The effects of TV, TPI, and PV (as continuous and categorical variables) on PSAR were compared using Cox analysis. RESULTS: TPI, TV, and PV were predictive of PSAR (P <.05) in Kaplan-Meier analysis. In multivariate analysis as continuous variables, TPI and PV were predictive of PSAR (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.16 and HR = 0.65, P <.05). As categorical variables, TPI > 20% and PV 10-35 cm(3) were predictive of PSAR (HR = 1.45 and OR = 1.25, P <.05). TV was not predictive of PSAR in either analysis. Pathologic Gleason score > or = 7, PSA, positive margins, seminal vesicle invasion, and tumor stage T3/T4 were found to be predictors of PSAR (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: TV, TPI, and PV were predictive of PSAR in univariate analysis, but in multivariate analysis, only TPI and PV were predictive of PSAR. TPI and PV should be considered when evaluating, assessing, and counseling patients regarding PSAR risk.

Public survey and survival data do not support recommendations to discontinue prostate-specific antigen screening in men at age 75.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation to discontinue prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening at age 75. METHODS: Public survey: A cohort of 340 patients was surveyed at our PSA screening clinic and stratified by awareness of the recommendation and education level. Age (< 75, >or= 75), race, health insurance status, knowledge of prostate cancer, and opinion on screening discontinuation at age 75 was evaluated between groups. Disease risk and survival analysis: A cohort of 4196 men who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1988 and 2008 was stratified into age groups: < 65, 65-74, and >or= 75. Associations between clinicopathologic variables, disease risk, and survival were compared between age groups using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Approximately 78% of men surveyed disagreed with the USPSTF recommendation. The number of men who disagreed was not significantly different between awareness groups (P = .962). Awareness of new screening guidelines showed a significant difference (P = .006) between education groups. Age >or= 75 years was predictive of high-risk disease based on D'Amico's criteria (odds ratio = 2.72, P = .003). Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses showed an association of men aged >or= 75 years with higher rate of PSA recurrence, distant metastasis, and disease specific death compared with the age groups of < 65 and 65-74 (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Men presenting to our PSA screening clinic disagreed with discontinuation of screening at age 75. Men aged >or= 75 years had higher risk disease and poorer survival. The USPSTF recommendation was supported neither by public opinion nor disease risk and survival results.

Men older than 70 years have higher risk prostate cancer and poorer survival in the early and late prostate specific antigen eras.

PURPOSE: We clarified whether men older than 70 years have a higher risk of prostate cancer and poorer survival in the early and late prostate specific antigen eras. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 4,561 men who underwent radical prostatectomy were stratified into 3 age groups (younger than 60, 60 to 70 and older than 70 years), and early and late prostate specific antigen eras based on the year of surgery (before 2000 and 2000 or later). Race, body mass index, prostate specific antigen, prostate weight, tumor volume, pathological Gleason sum, pathological tumor stage, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion and surgical margin status were submitted for univariate and multivariable analyses against the previously mentioned groups. Survivals (prostate specific antigen recurrence, distant metastasis and disease specific death) were compared among the 3 age groups using univariate and multivariable methods. RESULTS: Compared with younger age groups (younger than 60, 60 to 70 years) men older than 70 years had a higher proportion of pathological tumor stage 3/4 (33.0 vs 44.3 vs 52.1%, p <0.001), pathological Gleason sum greater than 7 (9.5% vs 13.4% vs 17.2%, p <0.001) and larger tumor volume (3.7 vs 4.7 vs 5.2 cc, p <0.001). Pathological Gleason sum in men older than 70 years did not differ between the early and late prostate specific antigen eras (p = 0.071). Men older than 70 years had a higher risk of prostate specific antigen recurrence, distant metastasis and disease specific death on univariate (p <0.05) but not multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Men older than 70 years had higher risk disease and poorer survival in the early and late prostate specific antigen eras. Pathological Gleason sums did not change between the 2 eras. Patient age was an important variable in prostate specific antigen screening, biopsy, treatment and prognosis.

Effect of age and pathologic Gleason score on PSA recurrence: analysis of 2911 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To clarify the relationship between age and pathologic Gleason score and their effect on prostate-specific antigen recurrence (PSAR). METHODS: The data from a cohort of 2911 men who had undergone radical prostatectomy from 1988 to 2006 were retrieved from the Duke Prostate Center database. Patient age was divided into 3 groups: <60, 60-64, and >or=65 years. The pathologic Gleason score was divided into 5 groups: 7. PSAR was defined as the prostate-specific antigen level increasing to >0.2 ng/mL >30 days after radical prostatectomy. The associations between age and pathologic Gleason score on PSAR and the time to PSAR were analyzed using parametric, nonparametric, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox regression techniques. RESULTS: Patient age and interval to PSAR had no significant association (P > .05). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a significant difference in PSAR among age groups. The pathologic Gleason scores of 3 + 3, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, and >7 were significant in determining the incidence of PSAR. Age was not significant for PSAR in patients with a pathologic Gleason score of 7, a statistically significant difference was observed among the age groups. Men <60 years old with a pathologic Gleason score >7 had a lower incidence of PSAR than did older men with a similar pathologic Gleason score. A pathologic Gleason score of >or=6 was significant in predicting PSAR. CONCLUSIONS: Age alone was an independent factor in predicting PSAR, but not in predicting the interval to PSAR. The pathologic Gleason score remained a predictor of PSAR, and patient age should be considered in patients with a pathologic Gleason score >7.

Delayed prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy: how to identify and what are their clinical outcomes?

OBJECTIVES: To identify factors that predict delayed (> 5 years) prostate-specific antigen recurrence (PSAR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) and to analyze the associated clinical outcomes. METHODS: A cohort of 4561 men who underwent RP between 1988 and 2008 was retrieved from the Duke University Prostate Center database. Among them, 1207 (26.5%) had PSAR and were included in this study. The cohort was then divided into 2 groups; PSAR before 5 years (early PSAR) and PSAR after 5 years (delayed PSAR), and Kaplan Meier analysis was performed. Univariate and logistic regression analysis was carried out to determine significant predictors of delayed PSAR, using factors such as race, age, body mass index, PSA, surgical margin status, pathologic Gleason sum, pathologic tumor stage, and prostate weight. RESULTS: There was a marginal difference between the early and delayed PSAR groups with regard to metastasis-free survival (P = .062). A significant difference in disease-specific survival was found between the 2 groups (P = .025). Patients with pathologic Gleason sums < 7 were more likely to have delayed PSAR as compared to those with pathologic Gleason sums > 7 (OR = 2.38). Patients with a PSA < 10 ng/mL were more likely to have delayed PSAR in comparison to those with PSA > 20 ng/mL (OR = 2.38). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 90% of PSAR occurred within 5 years after RP. Lower pathologic Gleason sums and lower PSA at diagnosis were associated with delayed PSAR. Patients with delayed PSAR have a disease-specific survival advantage as compared to men with early PSAR.

Factors predicting prostatic biopsy Gleason sum under grading.

PURPOSE: We determined clinical factors affecting the under grading of biopsy Gleason sum compared with prostatectomy pathology and developed a model predicting the probability of under grading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of 1,701 patients treated for prostate cancer at our institution between 1988 and 2007 with complete biopsy and pathological data available. Patients with a biopsy Gleason sum of 7 or less were included in our analysis. Cases were categorized as under graded or not under graded by comparing biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason sums. Logistic regression was used to determine the predictors of under grading based on clinical variables (race, age at diagnosis, body mass index, prostate weight, diagnostic prostate specific antigen, biopsy positive-to-total core ratio, maximal cancer percent in positive cores and time from diagnosis to surgery). A nomogram was developed to calculate the probability of under grading. Results were validated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Under grading occurred in 46.6% of our cohort. Significant variables predicting under grading were age at diagnosis, biopsy Gleason sum, diagnostic prostate specific antigen, prostate weight, biopsy positive-to-total core ratio and maximal percent of cancer in cores (p <0.05). Nomogram predictive accuracy was 72.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of Gleason sum under grading can be predicted to a satisfactory level using our nomogram. Predicting under grading would improve patient consulting and identify those who should consider repeat biopsy, ultimately enhancing the accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis.