De Novo Urological Malignancies After Renal Transplantation: An Asian 30-Year Experience.

BACKGROUND: As the incidence of urological malignancies after renal transplantation (RT) is observed to be greater than in the general population, a better understanding of them is important. We present our experience with urological tumors in RT recipients at our transplant center, and analyze their incidence, management and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 2177 RT recipients on follow-up at our center between 1990 and 2022 was conducted for de novo genitourinary malignancy. Patients diagnosed with malignancy before transplantation were excluded. Clinicopathological data at diagnosis and follow-up were collected and analyzed. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to evaluate overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS v.24 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). RESULTS: The overall incidence of Urological malignancies was 3.9%, with 89 cancers diagnosed in 85 patients. Renal cell carcinoma was most common (n = 61, 68.5%), followed by prostate cancer (n = 10, 11.2%), urothelial carcinoma (n = 10, 11.2%), squamous cell carcinoma of the penis/scrotum (n = 7, 7.9%), and testicular cancer (n = 1, 1.1%). Mean duration between transplantation and diagnosis of malignancy was 9.9 (0.4-20.7) years. At a median follow-up of 4.6 (018.2) years, 27 deaths were seen; 7(25.9%) were due to urological malignancy. CSS rates were 86% and 78% at five and ten years, respectively, after diagnosis. CONCLUSION: We present one of the largest series of de novo urological malignancies observed over an extended 30-year follow-up of RT recipients, demonstrating an elevated risk in line with other studies. Regular surveillance for malignancies is advised, in order to ensure early diagnosis and management.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacotherapy versus prostatic urethral lift as initial therapy for patients with moderate benign prostatic hyperplasia.

AIM: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an upfront minimally invasive surgical procedure, the prostatic urethral lift (PUL), as an initial treatment for patients with moderate benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), against current first-line pharmacotherapy with combination medical therapy. METHOD: A micro-simulation model was developed using TreeAge Pro to compare two treatment strategies - initial treatment with combination medical therapy (alpha-blocker + 5-ARI) versus an upfront prostatic urethral lift procedure. The impact on disease progression, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was analyzed. A Markov model and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to estimate the costs and effects of the different strategies. The cost-effectiveness of the strategies at different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds was then examined. RESULTS: Incremental costs (versus no prostatic urethral lift) were S$13,600 (1 year) and S$8,700 (5 years). Incremental QALYs were 0.07 (1 year) and 0.22 (5 years). An upfront PUL procedure was more expensive but also more effective than pharmacotherapy, with an incremental cost per QALY gain of approximately S$39,400. It is a cost-effective treatment option at the willingness-to-pay threshold of S$50,000. CONCLUSION: Prostatic urethral lift is a cost-effective initial treatment option for men with moderate symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Urological outcomes following pelvic exenteration for advanced pelvic cancer are not inferior to those following radical cystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) for locally advanced pelvic malignancy requires a multi-disciplinary approach and is associated with significant morbidity. Urinary reconstruction forms a major component of this procedure. The aim of the study is to review the urological outcomes following PE in a newly established pelvic oncology unit, to compare with those following radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer. METHODS: Patients were identified from prospectively maintained PE and bladder cancer databases, inclusive of all cases performed between January 2012 and December 2016. Those without urinary reconstructions and follow-up durations of less than 3 months were excluded. The outcomes of PE and RC cases were compared, stratifying surgical complications using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: There were 22 PE cases and 27 RC cases. The median age at surgery was 56 and 65 years, with a median follow-up of 11.7 and 19.8 months, in the PE and RC groups, respectively. Urinary reconstructions comprised n = 20 (91%) conduit diversions and n = 2 (9%) ureteral reimplantations in the PE group, and n = 5 (19%) orthotopic bladder substitutes and n = 22 (81%) ileal conduits in the RC group. The 30-day urological complication rate was 23% in the PE group (n = 4 Clavien-Dindo Grade 1-2, and n = 1 Grade 3) versus 11% in the RC group (n = 1 Grade 1-2, and n = 2 Grade 3), P = 0.801. There were no Grade 4-5 complications in this series. CONCLUSION: The urological outcomes following PE in complex pelvic oncology are reasonable and not inferior to those after primary RC alone.