Urinary tract infection and antibiotic use around ureteral stent insertion for urolithiasis.

Urolithiasis is the main indication for a ureteral JJ stent. Our aim was to determine the incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) after a JJ stent for urolithiasis, with an emphasis on antibiotic use. Prospective, multicenter, cohort study over a 4-month period including all of the patients with urolithiasis requiring JJ stent insertion. The clinical and microbiological data and therapeutic information were recorded until removal of the JJ stent. Two hundred twenty-three patients at five French private hospitals were included. A urine culture was performed for 187 patients (84%) prior to insertion of a JJ stent, 36 (19%) of which were positive. One hundred thirty patients (58%) received an antibiotic therapy during surgery: 74 (33%) prophylaxis and 56 (25%) empirical antibiotic therapy, comprising 17 different regimens. The rate of prophylaxis varied according to the center, from 0 to 70%. A total of 208 patients were followed-up until removal of the first stent. The rate of UTIs was 6.3% (13/208); 8.1% of the patients who did not receive a prophylaxis had a UTI versus 1.4% of those who did receive a prophylaxis (p = 0.057). Seven empirical antibiotic regimens were used to treat these 13 patients. Another large panel of antibiotic prescriptions was observed at the time of JJ stent removal. The incidence of a UTI after JJ stent insertion for urolithiasis was 6.3%, in part due to a lack of prophylaxis. An unwarranted diversity of antibiotic use was observed at each step of care.

Partial nephrectomy versus ablative therapy for the treatment of renal tumors in an imperative setting.

PURPOSE: To compare partial nephrectomy (PN) and percutaneous ablative therapy (AT) for renal tumor in imperative indication of nephron-sparing technique (NST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2000 and 2015, 284 consecutive patients with a kidney tumor in an imperative indication of NST were retrospectively included in a multicenter study. PN [open (n = 146), laparoscopic (n = 9), or robotic approach (n = 17)] and AT [radiofrequency ablation (n = 104) or cryoablation (n = 8)] were performed for solitary kidney (n = 146), bilateral tumor (n = 78), or chronic kidney disease (CKD) (n = 60). RESULTS: Patients in the PN group had larger tumors and a higher RENAL score. There were no differences between the two groups with respect to age, reasons for imperative indication, and preoperative eGFR. Patients in the AT group had a higher ASA and CCI. PN had worse outcomes than AT in terms of transfusion rate, length of stay, and complication rate. Local radiological recurrence-free survival was better for PN, but metastatic recurrence was similar. Percentage of eGFR decrease was similar in the two groups. Temporary or permanent dialysis was not significantly different. On multivariate analysis, PN and AT had a similar eGFR change when adjusted for tumor complexity, reason of imperative indication and CCI. CONCLUSION: In imperative indication of nephron-sparing treatment for a kidney tumor, either PN or AT can be proposed. PN offers the ability to manage larger and more complex tumors while providing a better local control and a similar renal function loss.

The use of partial nephrectomy: results from a contemporary national prospective multicenter study.

PURPOSE: Despite benefits in functional renal outcome and favorable oncological efficacy, previous studies show marked underuse of partial nephrectomy (PN). We investigated national utilization of partial and radical nephrectomy (RN) using a contemporary, prospective population-based cohort. METHODS: Between June and December 2010, 1,237 patients were treated by PN or RN for renal cell carcinoma in 56 French centers. Data were prospectively collected, and statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 667 (53.9 %) and 570 patients (46.1 %) underwent RN and PN, respectively. In case of PN, surgical approach was an open PN in 63.3 % of cases, a laparoscopic PN in 21.0 % of cases and a robot-assisted PN in 15.7 % of cases. PN was used in T1a, T1b, T2 and T3 tumors in 395 (76.7 %), 131 (38.2 %), 29 (14.7 %) and 7 (4.6 %), respectively. Median ischemia time was 16 min [0-60], and mean blood loss was 280.4 ml (±339.9). Tumor characteristics and operative features were significantly different according to the surgical approach. Warm ischemia time was significantly higher in case of laparoscopic or robot-assisted procedure (p < 0.001). There was no statistical significant difference in blood loss and transfusion rate according to surgical approach. Postoperative medical and surgical complications occurred in 8.2 and 10.0 % of PN, respectively, with no significant difference according to surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: Partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma is commonly used in this French centers sample. Mini-invasive approaches represent also a significant part of all partial nephrectomies with no difference in terms of complication rates.

National prospective study on the use of local haemostatic agents during partial nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of local haemostatic agents (HAs) in a prospective multicentre large series of partial nephrectomies (PNs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective National Observational Registry on the Practices of Haemostasis in Partial Nephrectomy (NEPHRON): the study was conducted in 54 French urological centres from 1 June to 31 December 2010. In all, 570 consecutive patients undergoing a PN were enrolled in this study in a prospective manner. The data was collected prospectively via an electronic case-report form: five different sheets were included for preoperative, perioperative, postoperative and follow-up data respectively. Information related to haemostasis was analysed. RESULTS: The median patient age was 60 years and the mean (range) tumour size was 3.68 (0.19-15) cm. An HA was primarily used in 71.4% of patients, with a statistically significant difference among surgical approaches (P = 0.024). In 91.8% of cases, a single use of a HA was sufficient for achieving haemostasis. The HA was used either alone (13.9%) or in association with sutures (80.3%). One or more additional haemostatic action(s) was needed in 12.3% of the cases. When comparing patients who received a HA with those who did not receive a HA, there was no statistical difference between the groups for tumour size (P = 0.542), collecting system drainage (P = 0.538), hospital stay (P = 0.508), operation time (P = 0.169), blood loss (P = 0.387) or transfusion rate (P = 0.713). CONCLUSION: HAs are widely used by urologists during PN. Progress is needed for standardising HA application, especially for the timing of application. For the time being, the role of the HA in nephron-sparing surgery is still to be evaluated.

[Management of side effects of targeted therapies in renal cancer: cutaneous side effects]. / Gestion des effets secondaires des thérapies ciblées dans le cancer du rein : thérapies ciblées et effets secondaires dermatologiques.

Targeted therapies used (angiogenesis inhibitors and mTOR inhibitors) in advanced renal cell carcinoma have a constellation of reaction affecting the skin, hair and nails. This guideline describes the incidence, clinical presentation and treatment of dermatologic side effects that develop with the use of targeted therapies (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, bevacizumab, everolimus, temsirolimus).

Clinical activity of sunitinib rechallenge in metastatic renal cell carcinoma-Results of the REchallenge with SUnitinib in MEtastatic RCC (RESUME) Study.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of sunitinib rechallenge in the third-line or later setting in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational study comprised 61 mRCC patients at 19 centres in France who received sunitinib rechallenge between January 2006 and May 2013. Patients received first-line sunitinib, ≥1 different targeted therapies, and then sunitinib rechallenge. Patient/disease characteristics, tolerability, treatment modalities, and outcomes of therapeutic lines were recorded. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) in sunitinib rechallenge. RESULTS: Analyses included 52 patients; median age was 59 years, 75% were male, and 98% had clear-cell mRCC and prior nephrectomy. At sunitinib rechallenge versus first-line, patients had poorer performance (Karnofsky performance status 90-100: 30% versus 81%) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre prognostic risk (poor risk: 18% versus 3%). Overall, 20%, 65%, 12%, and 4% received sunitinib rechallenge as third-, fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-line therapy, respectively, at 14.6 months (median) after stopping initial treatment. With first-line sunitinib and rechallenge, median PFS was 18.4 and 7.9 months, respectively; objective response rate was 54% and 15%. Two of eight rechallenge responders had not achieved first-line response. Median overall survival was 55.9 months. The sunitinib rechallenge safety profile was as expected, with no new adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib rechallenge is a feasible treatment option with potential clinical benefit for mRCC patients. Disease progression with first-line sunitinib may not be associated with complete or irreversible resistance to therapy.

[Contribution of the latest generation CT in preoperative assessment of kidney cancer]. / Apport du scanner de dernière génération dans le bilan pré-opératoire du cancer du rein.

Technological progress in medical imaging runs in parallel to progress in computers, with an ever-increasing image acquisition rate and increasingly fine image reconstruction. Following the appearance, several years ago, of spiral acquisition CT, the multiplication of detectors (multi-array CT) has opened up new possibilities for investigation, especially in the field of renal tumours, where CT is now the first-line investigation due to the information obtained for characterization, vascular anatomical relations, and staging. The development of partial surgery (in which the detection of satellite lesions is essential) and minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery will be able to take full advantage of this progress in imaging by anticipating operative difficulties (number of tumours, situation and branches of arteries and veins or their collaterals, venous thrombus, relations with the urinary tract). Volume acquisition allows representation of these elements in the various dimensions, facilitating interpretation of the images.

[Extended total nephrectomy with laparoscopy in localized renal carcinoma. Report of 25 cases compared with 32 conventional surgical cases]. / Néphrectomies totales élargies par laparoscopie pour carcinome rénal localisé. A propos de 25 cas comparés à 32 chirurgies conventionnelles.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits obtained during the learning phase of laparoscopic nephrectomy (LN) for clinical stage cT1 and cT2 renal cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively compared our first 25 cases of LN (13 right, 12 left) with 32 nephrectomies performed by Conventional Surgery (CS) (17 right, 15 left) between May 2000 and December 2001. The LN group comprised 18 men and 7 women with a mean age of 63.8 years. The CS group comprised 18 men and 14 women with a mean age of 67.7 years. Preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative and histological parameters were compared by analysis of the variance or nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test for quantitative variables and Chi-square test for qualitative data. RESULTS: Preoperative and histological parameters, blood loss, quantity and duration of analgesics and the complication rate were similar in the two groups. Resection was complete in every case. The mean duration of radical nephrectomy was significantly shorter by CS (p < 0.001). Return of bowel sounds was more rapid (p = 0.002) and patients were discharged from hospital earlier (p = 0.004) after LN. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic nephrectomy for cancer must be performed by an operator experienced in laparoscopy. During the learning phase, this procedure provided benefits in terms of return of bowel sounds and length of hospital stay, which should encourage teams performing laparoscopy to perform radical nephrectomy by laparoscopy.