Pulmonary metastases in urogenital cancers: Surgical treatment and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Metastasis is remaining one of the major problems in cancer treatment. Like many other malignancies, urogenital tumors originating from kidney, prostate, testes, and bladder tend to metastasize to the lungs. The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the operative results and prognosis of pulmonary metastasectomy in patients with primary urogenital tumors. METHODS: This study was approved by the local ethical committee. We retrospectively analyzed the surgical and oncological results of patients who underwent lung resections for urogenital cancer metastases in our department between 2002 and 2018. Demographic data and clinicopathological features were extracted from the medical records. Survival outcomes according to cancer subtypes and early postoperative results of VATS and thoracotomy were analyzed. RESULTS: 22 out of 126 patients referred for pulmonary metastasectomy to our department had metastases from urogenital tumors. These patients consisted of 17 males and five females. Their metastasis originated from renal cell carcinoma (RCC; n=9), bladder tumor (n=7), testis tumors (n=4), and prostate cancer (n=2). There was no intraoperative complication. Postoperative complications were seen in 2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although pulmonary metastasectomy in various types of tumors is well known and documented, the data is limited for metastases of urogenital cancers in the literature. Despite the limitations of this study, we aim to document our promising results of pulmonary metastasectomy in patients with primary urogenital tumors and wanted to emphasize the role of minimally invasive approaches.

Genitourinary tumors.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) has made many notable contributions to the scientific understanding and care of patients with common urologic cancers. Many of the advances represented paradigm shifts in management and established new standards of care. This review highlights the surgical procedures and treatment strategies originated and pioneered by urologic surgeons and colleagues at MSK during the past 50 years.

Value of Geriatric Assessment in Patients With Genitourinary Carcinoma.

Objectives: This work aims to evaluatecomprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) tools to better guide patients with urogenital carcinomas perioperatively and, consequently, to intensify or reduce hospital resource use. Methods: After informed consent, 111patients were included, all aged more than 65 years, with oncological surgery (with proof of a malignancy), a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of at least 23 points, and a prospective life expectancy of more than 2 months. Patients were divided into 2 groups: prostate cancer (n = 88) and distal urinary tract cancer (n = 29). Further CGA tools were Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (iADL), Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The relationships between CGA and complications, hospital duration, death rate, and baseline characteristics were analyzed. Results: In comparison with the patients with prostate cancer, those with kidney/distal urinary tract cancer had higher CCI scores (median, 3 vs 2; P <.001), MMSE scores (29 vs 28; P = .031), complication rates (55.2% vs 22.0%; P = .001), and hospital duration (16 vs 10 days; P <.001), as well as more deaths in the group (8 vs 0). Comorbidities (6 vs 2; P <.001), Physical Status Classification System (ASA state [3 vs 2; P <.001]), and median age (74 vs 71 years; P =.008) were all higher in the kidney/distal urinary tract group, and they had fewer problems with postoperative ADL items, which were significantly lower than those of the prostate group (P = .043). Intra- and intergroup comparisons of preoperative and 1-year ADL/iADL values did not differ significantly. Conclusion: These study results underscore the importance of CGA in patients with genitourinary carcinoma; most patients have high regenerative potential. Patients with kidney/distal urinary tract cancers are older, have more comorbidities, and have more postoperative impairments than patients with prostate cancer.

Hospital volume is associated with cost and outcomes variation in 2,942 pelvic reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: Complex pelvic reconstruction is challenging for plastic and reconstructive surgeons following surgical resection of the lower gastrointestinal or genitourinary tract. Complication rates and hospital costs are variable and may be linked to the hospital case volume of pelvic reconstructions performed. A comprehensive examination of these factors has yet to be performed. METHODS: Data were retrieved for patients undergoing pedicled flap reconstruction after pelvic resections in the American National Inpatient Sample database between 2010 and 2014. Patients were then separated into three groups based on hospital case volume for pelvic reconstruction. Multivariate logistic regression and gamma regression with log-link function were used to analyze associations between hospital case volume, surgical outcomes, and cost. RESULTS: In total, 2,942 patients underwent pelvic flap reconstruction with surgical complications occurring in 1,466 patients (49.8%). Total median cost was $38,469.40. Pelvic reconstructions performed at high-volume hospitals were significantly associated with fewer surgical complications (low: 51.4%, medium: 52.8%, high: 34.8%; p < 0.001) and increased costs (low: $35,645.14, medium: $38,714.92, high: $44,967.29; p < 0.001). After regression adjustment, high hospital volume was the strongest independently associated factor for decreased surgical complications (Exp[ß], 0.454; 95% Confidence Interval, 0.346-0.596; p < 0.001) and increased hospital cost (Exp[ß], 1.351; 95% Confidence Interval, 1.285-1.421; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing pelvic flap reconstruction after oncologic resections experience high complication rates. High case volume hospitals were independently associated with significantly fewer surgical complications but increased hospital costs. Reconstructive surgeons may approach these challenging patients with greater awareness of these associations to improve outcomes and address cost drivers.

Management of urologic cancers during the pandemic and potential impact of treatment deferrals on outcomes.

The COVID-19 pandemic-related constraints on healthcare access have raised concerns about adverse outcomes from delayed treatment, including the risk of cancer progression and other complications. Further, concerns were raised about a potentially significant backlog of patients in need of cancer care due to the pandemic-related delays in healthcare, further exacerbating any potential adverse outcomes. Delayed access to surgery is particularly relevant to urologic oncology since one-third of new cancers in men (20% overall) arise from the genitourinary (GU) tract and surgery is often the primary treatment. Herein, we summarize the prepandemic literature on deferred surgery for GU cancers and risk of disease progression. The aforementioned data on delayed surgery were gathered in the context of systemic delays present in certain healthcare systems, or occasionally, due to planned deferral in suboptimal surgical candidates. These data provide indirect, but sufficient insight to develop triage schemas for prioritization of uro-oncological cases. Herein, we outline the extent to which the pandemic-related triage guidelines had influenced urologic practice in various regions. To study the adverse outcomes in the pandemic-era, a survey of urologic oncologists was conducted regarding modifications in their initial management of urologic cancers and any delay-related adverse outcomes. While the adverse effects directly from COVID-19 related delays will become apparent in the coming years, the results showing short-term outcomes are quite instructive. Since cancer care was assigned a higher priority at most centers, this strategy may have avoided significant delays in care and limited the anticipated negative impact of pandemic-related constraints.

Performing gynecologic cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey: A multicenter retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the perioperative outcomes of 200 patients with gynecologic cancer who underwent surgery during the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the safety of surgical approach. METHODS: Data of patients operated between March 10 and May 20, 2020, were collected retrospectively. Data were statistically analyzed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics for Windows v. SP21.0. RESULTS: Data of 200 patients were included. Their mean age was 56 years. Of the patients, 54% (n=108), 27.5% (n=55), 12.5% (n=25), and 2% (n=4) were diagnosed as having endometrial, ovarian, cervical, and vulvar cancer, respectively. Of them, 98% underwent non-emergent surgery. A minimally invasive surgical approach was used in 18%. Stage 1 cancer was found in 68% of patients. Surgeons reported COVID-related changes in 10% of the cases. The rate of postoperative complications was 12%. Only two patients had cough and suspected pneumonic lesions on thoracic computed tomography postoperatively, but neither was positive for COVID-19 on polymerase chain reaction testing. CONCLUSION: Based on the present findings, it is thought that gynecologic cancer surgery should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic while adhering to the measures. Postponement or non-surgical management should only be considered in patients with documented infection. Gynecologic cancer surgery should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic while adhering to measures. Only 1% of patients developed COVID-19-related symptoms during the postoperative follow-up period.

A Snapshot from the Department of Urology in Bergamo Evaluating the Timeline of the SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak: Which Patients Are We Missing?

The province of Bergamo in Italy and in particular Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital was one of the first areas to be hit by the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and experience firsthand all the different phases of the crisis. We describe the timeline of the changes in overall urological workload during the outbreak period from lockdown to the slow reopening of activities. We sought to compare the 2020 hospital scenario with normality in the same period in 2019, highlighting the rationale behind decision-making when guidelines were not yet available. While we focus on the changes in surgical volumes for both elective (oncological and noncancer) and urgent cases, we have still to confront the risk of untreated and underdiagnosed patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: We present a snapshot of changes in urology during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in our hospital in Bergamo, Italy. The effect of medical lockdown on outcomes for untreated or underdiagnosed patients is still unknown.

Prioritising Urological Surgery in the COVID-19 Era: A Global Reflection on Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Determining whether members follow guidelines, including guidelines prepared to help direct practice management during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, is an important goal for medical associations. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether practice of urologists is in line with guidelines for the management of common urological conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic produced by leading (inter)national urological associations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Self-selected urologists completed a voluntary survey available online from March 27 to April 11, 2020 and distributed globally by the Société Internationale d'Urologie. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Responses to two survey questions on the (1) management of 14 common urological procedures and (2) priority scoring of 10 common urological procedures were evaluated by practice setting and geographical region using chi-square and one-way analysis of variance analyses, respectively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There were 2494 respondents from 76 countries. Oncological conditions were prioritised over benign conditions, and benign conditions were deferred when feasible and safe. Oncological conditions with the greatest malignant potential were prioritised over less aggressive cancers. Respondents from Europe were least likely to postpone and most likely to prioritise conditions identified by guidelines as being of the highest priority. Respondents' priority scoring of urological procedures closely matched the priorities assigned by guidelines. The main limitation of this study is that respondents were self-selected, and access to the survey was limited by language and technology barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritisation and management of urological procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic are in line with current guidelines. The greatest agreement was reported in Europe. Observed differences may be related to limited resources in some settings. PATIENT SUMMARY: When deciding how best to treat patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, urologists are taking into account both expert recommendations and the availability of important local resources.

COVID-19 pandemic and uro-oncology follow-up: A "virtual" multidisciplinary team strategy and patients' satisfaction assessment.

COVID-19 pandemic strongly modified the organizations of our clinical practice. Strict containment measures have been adopted to limit the disease diffusion. In particular, hospital face-to-face post discharge and follow up visits have been reduced. Although cancelling or deferring appointments seems to be a pragmatic approach, this solution may have a devasting long-term impact on health medical care and on patients. In this context, telemedicine and remote consultations may have the potential to provide healthcare minimizing virus exposure. In this paper we describe how Multidisciplinary team (MDT) reorganized genitourinary cancer care delivery at our Institute (AO SS Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo, Alessandria), taking advantage of telematic means. Furthermore, we present our preliminary results regarding patients' satisfaction.

[Recommendations CCAFU on the management of cancers of the urogenital system during an epidemic with Coronavirus COVID-19]. / Recommandations CCAFU sur la prise en charge des cancers de l'appareil urogénital en période d'épidémie au Coronavirus COVID-19.

AIM: The French population is facing the COVID-19 pandemic and the health system have been reoriented in emergency for the care of patients with coronavirus. The management of cancers of the urinary and male genital tracts must be adapted to this context. MATERIAL AND METHOD: An expert opinion documented by a literature review was formulated by the Cancerology Committee of the French Association of Urology (CCAFU). RESULTS: The medical and surgical management of patients with any cancers of the urinary and male genital tracts must be adapted by modifying the consultation methods, by prioritizing interventions according to the intrinsic prognosis of cancers, taking into account the patient's comorbidities. The protection of urologists from COVID-19 must be considered. CONCLUSION: The CCAFU issues an expert opinion on the measure to be taken to adapt the management of cancers of the male urinary and genital tract to the context of pandemic by COVID-19.

Complex surgery and perioperative systemic therapy for genitourinary cancer of the retroperitoneum.

Objective: The purpose of the present guideline is to recommend surgical or systemic treatment for metastatic testicular cancer; T3b or T4, or node-positive, and metastatic renal cell cancer (rcc); and T3, T4, or node-positive upper tract urothelial (utuc) cancer. Methods: Draft recommendations were formulated based on evidence obtained through a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, comparative retrospective studies, and guideline endorsement. The draft recommendations underwent an internal review by clinical and methodology experts, and an external review by clinical practitioners. Results: The primary literature search yielded eight guidelines, five systematic reviews, and twenty-seven primary studies that met the eligibility criteria. Conclusions: Cytoreductive nephrectomy should no longer be considered the standard of care in patients with T3b or T4, or node-positive, and metastatic rcc. Eligible patients should be treated with systemic therapy and have their primary tumour removed only after review at a multidisciplinary case conference (mcc). Adjuvant sunitinib after surgery is not recommended. Patients with venous tumour thrombus should be considered for surgical intervention. Patients with T3, T4, or node-positive utuc should have their tumour removed without delay. Decisions concerning lymph node dissection should be done at a mcc and be based on stage, expertise, and imaging. Adjuvant systemic treatment is recommended for resected high-risk utuc. Patients with metastasis-positive testicular cancer with residual tumour after systemic treatment should be treated at specialized centres. For all complex retroperitoneal surgeries, the evidence shows that higher-volume centres are associated with lower rates of procedure-related mortality, and patients should be referred to higher-volume centres for surgical resection.

Effect of Chewing Gum on Gastrointestinal Function Recovery After Surgery of Gynecological Cancer Patients at Rajavithi Hospital: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of postoperative gum-chewing compare with routine postoperative care on the recovery of gastrointestinal function after comprehensive surgical staging for gynecological cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 82 patients who underwent comprehensive surgical staging for gynecological cancer at Rajavithi Hospital between October 1st, 2018 and June 30th, 2019 were randomly allocated into two groups: Gum-chewing group (n=40) and control group (n=42). In the gum-chewing group, patients were assigned to chew sugar-free gum for 30 minutes starting from the first postoperative morning then every 8 hours until the first passage of flatus. In the control group, patients have received routine postoperative care. The primary endpoint was time to first flatus after surgery. The secondary endpoints were time to first bowel sound, time to first defecation, time to first walk, postoperative analgesia and anti-emetic drug requirement, ileus symptoms, length of a hospital stay, and potential adverse events of gum-chewing, including dry mount, choking, and aspiration. RESULT: Chewing gum was statistically significant in reducing time to first flatus compared with routine postoperative care (median 24.7 (range 2.2-86.5) vs 35.4 (range 7.2-80.9) hours, p=0.025). The length of a hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the gum-chewing group (median 3.0 (range 1.0-8.8) vs 3.5 (range 1.8-50.0) days, p=0.023). There were no significant differences in time to first bowel sound, time to first defecation, time to first walk, postoperative analgesia and anti-emetic drug requirement, and ileus symptoms between both two groups. No adverse events related to postoperative gum-chewing were observed. CONCLUSION: Gum-chewing was associated with early recovery of gastrointestinal function in patients undergoing surgery for gynecological cancer. It is an inexpensive and physiologic intervention that appears to be reasonably safe and should be recommended as an adjunct in postoperative care of gynecological cancer surgery.

Pelvic Exenteration for Anal and Urogenital Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Experience and Outcomes from an Exenteration Unit Over 12 Years.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration has increasingly been shown to improve disease-free and overall survival for patients with locally advanced pelvic malignancies. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the second most common pelvic malignancy requiring exenteration. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the clinical and oncological outcomes from patients treated with pelvic exenteration for anal and urogenital SCC from a single, high-volume unit. METHODS: A review of a prospectively maintained database from 1991 to 2018 at a high-volume specialised institution was performed. Primary endpoints included R0 resection rates, local recurrence and overall survival (OS) rates. RESULTS: From January 1999 to July 2018, 361 patients underwent pelvic exenteration of which 31 patients were identified with SCC (15 anal SCC, 16 urogenital SCC). The majority of patients were females (n = 24, 77.4%). Median age was 59 (range 35-81). Twenty-seven patients underwent resection with curative intent with an R0 resection rate of 81.5%. Four patients underwent a palliative procedure [R1 = 3 (8%), R2 = 1 (3.3%)]. Mean hospital length of stay was 32 days (range 8-122 days). Disease-free survival was significantly increased in anal SCC with no significant difference in OS compared to urogenital SCC (p = 0.03, p = 0.447 respectively). Advanced pathological T stage was associated with decreased OS (p = 0.023). In the curative intent group the disease-free survival and OS rate was 59.3% and 70% at 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Complete R0 resection is achievable in a high proportion of patients. Urogenital SCC is associated with significantly worse disease-free survival, and advanced T-stage was a significant prognostic factor for OS.

Evolution of pelvic exenteration surgery- resectional trends and survival outcomes over three decades.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the changes in exenterative surgery over three decades analysing oncological outcomes and whether changes in surgical approach have led to improved patient outcomes. BACKGROUND: Advances in surgical technology, perioperative care and pattern of disease recurrence have coincided with an evolutionary change in exenterative surgery. METHODS: A review of a prospectively maintained databases of pelvic exenteration surgery from 1988 to 2018  at two high volume specialised institutions. The total cohort was divided into three major time points (1988-2004, 2005-2010 and 2011 to 2018) to allow comparative analysis. Primary endpoints were overall survival in primary and recurrent disease at each time point. Secondary endpoints included anastomotic leak, blood transfusion, ileus, wound infection rates and evolution of case complexity. Data were analysed using R with a p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Six hundred and seventy patients underwent exenterative surgery. In 2011-2018 there was an increase in resection of recurrent malignancy with a continuous increase in GI malignancies resected over each time period(p < 0.001,<0.01) and a reduction in gynaecological malignancy(p < 0.001). A significant increase in sacrectomy, pelvic sidewall resection and ileal conduit reconstruction was observed (p < 0.01,<0.001).In 2005-2010 patients had increased rates of ileus and anastomotic leak(p < 0.05). Patients undergoing resection for primary disease had improved overall survival at time points 1988-2004 and 2011-2018 compared to those with recurrent disease(p = 0.007,<0.001). Overall survival was significantly improved in patients with primary versus recurrent disease(p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: There has been a significant improvement in survival in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration surgery from primary disease. Case complexity has increased without significant morbidity.

[Mucosal melanoma primary and metastatic cases with urogenital localization in our department]. / Urogenitalis lokalizációjú mucosamelanoma primer és áttétes esetei klinikánkon.

INTRODUCTION: Both primary and metastatic cases of mucosal melanoma in urogenital localization are rare tumors. Only 4-5% of all primary melanomas do not arise from the skin. Extracutaneous melanomas have a complex clinical presentation, but these aggressive tumors have a poor prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHOD: In our department, we found 7 patients with malignant melanoma of the genitourinary tract in the past few years. The 7 cases were: primary amelanotic melanoma of the female urethra, a primary melanoma of the bladder, two primary melanomas of the penis, a metastatic melanoma of the urethra and another to the testis and a metastatic melanoma of the bladder with melanuria. We retrospectively analyzed the available data to describe the presentation, management, and clinical outcome of the patients. RESULTS: In the three inoperative cases, palliative, urologic surgical procedures and systemic antitumor therapy were performed. Two of the four primary urogenital tumors were localized to the penis. In one case, local recurrence developed after surgical treatment, but with a radical, repeated surgery, the patient has been asymptomatic for a year and a half. In the other, neglected case, the penis melanoma spread through the urethra and the inguinal lymph nodes two years after radical surgery and inguinal block dissection. In the female primary urethral melanoma case, the first histological study reported a primary mesenchymal tumor, and the recurrent tumor that occurred one and a half years later showed melanoma diagnosis. Radical surgery performed because of urethral involvement resulted in a 5-year asymptomatic state, followed by local recurrence and distant metastasis. In the fourth case of a primary bladder melanoma, the rapid progression of the disease and the BRAF positivity of the tumor suggested that not the firstly diagnosed bladder melanoma was the primary tumor. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of urinary tract melanoma is very rare and its discovery happens often in a disseminated state, so the expected prognosis of the cases is also poor. The most important factors for increasing therapeutic efficacy are early diagnosis and radical surgical intervention. Tumors appearing in different localizations require different urological surgical approaches. The literature recommendations for treatment are not uniform. Their prognosis is worse compared to the cutaneous melanoma, which may be due to clinical and pathological diagnostic difficulties. The latest targeted and immunotherapeutic agents can significantly improve the survival of metastatic patients. Orv Hetil. 2019; 160(10): 378-385.

Surgical Experience With Genital and Perineal Extramammary Paget's Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our surgical experience for the treatment and management of extramammary Paget's disease (EMPD). METHODS: Our surgical approach involves excising a 2-cm margin of normal appearing skin around the EMPD-suspicious lesion. Prior to excision, the tissue is oriented and demarcated into predefined segments in coordination with a pathologist. Frozen sections are performed when necessary to guide additional excision. Xenograft or wet-to-dry dressings are applied depending on size and location of the wound while the specimen is expeditiously reviewed over the following 24-48 hours. If positive margins remain, further excision of the corresponding skin segment is performed. Delayed complex wound closure +/- split thickness skin grafting is performed once negative margins are confirmed. RESULTS: Ten EMPD patients were referred to two academic centers between 2014 and 2018. Two patients had positive lymph nodes at diagnosis and underwent palliative surgery and died within 12 and 29 months. The remaining 8 patients underwent a median of 1 surgery (range 0-3) with referring providers before undergoing a median of 3 surgeries (range 2-5) at our institutions to achieve negative surgical margins and wound reconstruction (7 split thickness skin grafts, 1 secondary closure). At mean follow-up of 15 months, 1 patient recurred, required further excision, and remains disease free. CONCLUSION: EMPD is a rare malignancy with poorly described treatment methodologies. Due to its multifocal distribution and asymmetric spread, obtaining negative margins can be challenging. Our systematic approach to obtaining wide margins and documenting excised skin has enabled us to achieve negative margins for this challenging malignancy.