Primary laparoscopic RPLND for pure seminona metastasis: feasibility of supine and lateral approaches

ABSTRACT Introduction Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (RPLND) is well established as a primary treatment, especially for high-risk stage I and stage IIA/B nonseminomatous tumors, but its value in seminomatous tumors is underreported (1). Classically, seminomas with isolated retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy are treated with external beam radiation therapy or systemic chemotherapy. Although these modalities are effective, they are associated with significant long-term morbidity (2, 3). Some retrospective studies have demonstrated the potential of RPLND as a first-line treatment for stage IIa seminoma, and two very recent prospective trials, still with interim results: SEMS TRIAL and PRIMETEST(3-7). The RPLND robotic technique has been previously described in the post-chemotherapy scenario, however, surgical videos of primary laparoscopic approach are lacking, especially in seminomatous disease (8). Materials and Methods We present two cases of primary videolaparoscopic RPLND, using different approaches.Case 1: Thirty four years-old, with prior right orchiectomy for mixed tumor. After 8 months he presented an two cm enlarged interaortocaval lymph node. Percutaneous biopsy showed pure seminoma metastasis.Case 2: Thirty three years-old, with previous left orchiectomy for stage I pure seminoma, without risk factors. After nine months, the patient had a three cm enlarged para-aortic lymph node. Results The surgical time ranged from 150 to 210 minutes, with a maximum bleeding of 300 mL and hospital discharge in 48 hours. In one of the cases, we identified a significant desmoplastic reaction, with firm adhesions to the great vessels, requiring vascular sutures, however, no major complication occurred. Pathological anatomy confirmed pure seminoma lymph node metastases in both cases. Conclusion Laparoscopic primary RPLND proved to be technically feasible, with less postoperative pain and early hospital discharge. We understand that more studies should be performed to confirm our oncological results.

Primary laparoscopic RPLND for pure seminona metastasis: feasibility of supine and lateral approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (RPLND) is well established as a primary treatment, especially for high-risk stage I and stage IIA/B nonseminomatous tumors, but its value in seminomatous tumors is underreported (1). Classically, seminomas with isolated retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy are treated with external beam radiation therapy or systemic chemotherapy. Although these modalities are effective, they are associated with significant long-term morbidity (2, 3). Some retrospective studies have demonstrated the potential of RPLND as a first-line treatment for stage IIa seminoma, and two very recent prospective trials, still with interim results: SEMS TRIAL and PRIMETEST(3-7). The RPLND robotic technique has been previously described in the post-chemotherapy scenario, however, surgical videos of primary laparoscopic approach are lacking, especially in seminomatous disease (8). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present two cases of primary videolaparoscopic RPLND, using different approaches. Case 1: Thirty four years-old, with prior right orchiectomy for mixed tumor. After 8 months he presented an two cm enlarged interaortocaval lymph node. Percutaneous biopsy showed pure seminoma metastasis. Case 2: Thirty three years-old, with previous left orchiectomy for stage I pure seminoma, without risk factors. After nine months, the patient had a three cm enlarged para-aortic lymph node. RESULTS: The surgical time ranged from 150 to 210 minutes, with a maximum bleeding of 300 mL and hospital discharge in 48 hours. In one of the cases, we identified a significant desmoplastic reaction, with firm adhesions to the great vessels, requiring vascular sutures, however, no major complication occurred. Pathological anatomy confirmed pure seminoma lymph node metastases in both cases. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic primary RPLND proved to be technically feasible, with less postoperative pain and early hospital discharge. We understand that more studies should be performed to confirm our oncological results.

Prognostic Impact of Loss of SETD2 in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic impact of immunohistochemical expression of SETD2 in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 662 patients with primary or metastatic ccRCC were evaluated. Two genitourinary pathologist reviewed all of the cases for uniform reclassification and determined the selection of the most representative tumor areas for construction of the tissue microarray (TMA). RESULTS: SETD2 nuclear staining showed that 101 areas (15.3%) had negative expression, and 561 areas (84,7%) had positive expression of SETD2. The protein expression of SETD2 was associated with clinical stage (P < .001), pathological stage (P < .001), tumor size (P < .001), perinephric fat invasion (P < .001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status (P = .004), surgery type (P < .001), International Society of Urologic Pathologists grade (P < .001), and tumor necrosis (P < .001). SETD2 influenced disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS). DSS rates in patients with positive and negative expression of SETD2 were 90.2% and 58.4%, respectively (P < .001). OS rates in patients with positive and negative expression of SETD2 were 87% and 55.4%, respectively (P < .001). In a multivariate Cox analysis, low SETD2 expression was an independent predictor of DSS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.690; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0582.700; P = .031) and OS (HR, 1.641; 95% CI, 1.039-2.593; P = .037). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the negative expression of SETD2 was associated with a worse prognosis, and it was an independent predictor of survival in patients with ccRCC. We believe that the protein expression of SETD2 is an important biomarker in the management of patients with ccRCC.

Loss of BAP1 expression in metastatic tumor tissue is an event of poor prognosis in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic impact of the protein expression of both PBRM1 and BAP1 in metastatic tissue of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all 124 consecutive cases of metastatic ccRCC, who underwent metastasectomy or biopsy of metastatic tumor tissue between 2007 and 2016 were selected from the medical records of our institution. Additionally, 38 paired cases with tissue from the primary tumor involving radical or partial nephrectomy for ccRCC were also selected. All cases were reviewed for uniform reclassification and the most representative tumor areas were selected for the construction of a tissue microarray. RESULTS: PBRM1 nuclear staining of the 124-immunostained metastases of ccRCC specimens showed that 98 (79.0%) had negative expression and 26 (21.0%) positive expression of PBRM1. Regarding BAP1 expression, we observed that 77 (62.1%) specimens were negative and 47 (37.9%) showed positive nuclear staining. When we compared the expression of both markers on primary tumor and tumor metastasis, we found disagreement in half of the cases. Five-year overall survival rates in patients with positive expression and negative expression of BAP1 were 53.2% and 35.1%, respectively (P = 0.004). Five-year progression-free survival rates in patients with positive expression and negative expression of BAP1 were 14.9% and 3.9%, respectively (P = 0.003). Conversely, PBRM1 expression did not significantly influence either overall survival or progression-free survival rates. In multivariate analysis, negative expression of BAP1 tumors also presented higher risks of death (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.913, P = 0.041) and disease progression (HR = 1.656, P = 0.021). CONCLUSION: The use of prognostic biomarkers identified in the primary tumor tissue might be not reliable in the metastatic disease scenario. Patients with metastatic ccRCC that present loss of BAP1 expression in metastatic tissue demonstrated poor survival rates and represent a relevant risk group for tumor recurrence and death.