[French ccAFU guidelines - update 2020-2022: management of kidney cancer]. / Recommandations françaises du Comité de cancérologie de l'AFU ­ actualisation 2020­2022 : prise en charge du cancer du rein.

OBJECTIVE: - To update the French guidelines on kidney cancer. METHODS: - A systematic review of the literature between 2015 and 2020 was performed. The most relevant articles regarding the diagnosis, the classification, surgical treatment, medical treatment and follow-up of kidney cancer were retrieved and included in the new guidelines. The guidelines were updated with corresponding levels of evidence. RESULTS: - Thoraco-abdominal CT scan with injection is the best radiological exam for the diagnosis of kidney cancer. MRI and contrast ultra-sound can be useful in some cases. Percutaneous biopsy is recommended when histological results will affect clinical decision. Renal tumours must be classified according to pTNM 2017 classification and ISUP grade. Metastatic kidney cancers must be classified according to IMDC criteria. Partial nephrectomy is the recommended treatment for T1a tumours and can be done through an open, laparoscopic or robotic access. T1b tumours can be treated by partial or total nephrectomy according to tumour complexity. Radical nephrectomy is the recommended treatment of advanced localized tumours. There is no recommended adjuvant treatment. In metastatic patients: cyto-reductive nephrectomy can be offered in case of good prognosis; medical treatment must be counseled first in case of intermediate or bad prognosis. Surgical or local treatment of metastases should be considered in case of solitary lesion or oligo-metastases. First line recommended drugs in metastatic patients include the associations axitinib/pembrolizumab and nivolumab/ipilimumab. Cystic tumours must be classified according to Bosniak Classification. Surgical excision should be offered to patients with Bosniak III and IV lesions. It is recommended to follow patients clinically and with imaging according to tumour aggressiveness. CONCLUSION: - These updated recommendations should assist French speaking urologists for their management of kidney cancers.

Long-term oncological outcomes of cystic renal cell carcinoma according to the Bosniak classification.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic role of the Bosniak classification on the long-term oncological outcomes of cystic renal cell carcinomas. MATERIAL AND METHOD: In a national multicentric retrospective study, we included patients treated surgically for localized cystic RCC from 2000 to 2010. Patients with a follow-up of less than 4 years, benign tumors, and ablative treatments were excluded. The primary outcome was disease-free survival. RESULTS: 152 patients met the inclusion criteria: Bosniak II (6%), III (53%), IV (41%), with a median follow-up of 61 (12-179) months. Characteristics of the population and the tumors were [median, (min-max)] age 57 (25-84) years old, tumor size 43 mm (20-280), RENAL score 7 (4-12), PADUA score 8 (5-14). Treatments were 55% partial nephrectomy, 45% radical nephrectomy, 74% open surgery, and 26% laparoscopy. In pathological report, cystic RCC were mainly of low grade (1-2, 77%) and low stage (pT1, 81%). The two main histological subtypes were conventional (56%) and papillary (23%) RCC. Staging at presentation and histological characteristics were similar between Bosniak III and IV, except for high grade which was more common in Bosniak IV (12 vs 36%, p < 0.01). The Bosniak classification was not predictive of the recurrence, as 5- and 10-year disease-free survival were similar in Bosniak III and IV (92% vs 92% and 84% vs 83%, p = 0.60). CONCLUSION: The Bosniak classification is predictive of the risk of malignancy but not of the oncological prognosis. Regardless of the initial Bosniak categories, almost all cystic RCCs were of low stage/grade and had low long-term recurrence rate.

RETRACTED: Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l'AFU ­ Actualisation 2018­2020 : prise en charge du cancer du reinFrench ccAFU guidelines ­ Update 2018­2020: Management of kidney cancer / Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l'AFU ­ Actualisation 2018­2020 : prise en charge du cancer du rein.

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). Cet article est retiré de la publication à la demande des auteurs car ils ont apporté des modifications significatives sur des points scientifiques après la publication de la première version des recommandations. Le nouvel article est disponible à cette adresse: DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.004. C'est cette nouvelle version qui doit être utilisée pour citer l'article. This article has been retracted at the request of the authors, as it is not based on the definitive version of the text because some scientific data has been corrected since the first issue was published. The replacement has been published at the DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.004. That newer version of the text should be used when citing the article.

[French ccAFU guidelines - Update 2018-2020: Management of kidney cancer]. / Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l'AFU ­ Actualisation 2018­2020 : prise en charge du cancer du rein.

OBJECTIVE: To update the French guidelines on kidney cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature between 2015 and 2018 was performed. The most relevant articles regarding the diagnosis, the classification, surgical treatment, medical treatment and follow-up of kidney cancer were retrieved and included in the new guidelines. The guidelines were updated with corresponding levels of evidence. RESULTS: Thoraco-abdominal CT scan with injection is the best radiological exam for the diagnosis of kidney cancer. MRI and contrast ultrasound can be useful in some cases. Percutaneous biopsy is recommended when histological results will affect clinical decision. Renal tumours must be classified according to pTNM 2017 classification and ISUP grade. Metastatic kidney cancers must be classified according to IMDC criteria. Partial nephrectomy is the recommended treatment for T1a tumours and can be done through an open, laparoscopic or robotic access. T1b tumours can be treated by partial or total nephrectomy according to tumour complexity. Radical nephrectomy is the recommended treatment of advanced localized tumours. In metastatic patients: cytoreductive nephrectomy is recommended in case of good prognosis; medical treatment must be offered first in case of intermediate or bad prognosis. Surgical or local treatment of metastases should be considered in case of solitary lesion or oligo-metastases. First-line recommended drugs in metastatic patients include sunitinib, pazopanib, and the association nivolumab/ipilimumab. Cabozantinib can be offered in option in intermediate and bad prognostic patients. Cystic tumours must be classified according to Bosniak Classification. Surgical excision should be offered to patients with Bosniak III and IV lesions. It is recommended to follow patients clinically and with imaging according to tumour aggressiveness. CONCLUSION: These updated recommendations should assist French speaking urologists for their management of kidney cancers.

[CCAFU french national guidelines 2016-2018 on renal cancer]. / Recommandations en onco-urologie 2016-2018 du CCAFU : Cancer du rein.

The previous guidelines from the Cancer Committee of the Association Française d'Urologie were published in 2013. We wanted this new version to be simple, clear and straightforward. All significant recent publications on kidney cancer have been included. The main changes compared to 2013 are the following: © 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Cancer-specific survival after radical nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: proposal and multi-institutional validation of a post-operative nomogram.

BACKGROUND: Owing to the scarcity of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UUT-UC) it is often necessary for investigators to pool data. A patient-specific survival nomogram based on such data is needed to predict cancer-specific survival (CSS) post nephroureterectomy (NU). Herein, we propose and validate a nomogram to predict CSS post NU. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one French institutions contributed data on 1120 patients treated with NU for UUT-UC. A total of 667 had full data for nomogram development. Study population was divided into the nomogram development cohort (397) and external validation cohort (270). Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for univariate and multivariate analyses and to build a nomogram. A reduced model selection was performed using a backward step-down selection process, and Harrell's concordance index (c-index) was used for quantifying the nomogram accuracy. Internal validation was performed by bootstrapping and the reduced nomogram model was calibrated. RESULTS: Of the 397 patients in the nomogram development cohort, 91 (22.9%) died during follow-up, of which 66 (72.5%) died as a consequence of UUT-UC. The actuarial CSS probability at 5 years was 0.76 (95% CI, 71.62-80.94). On multivariate analysis, T stage (P<0.0001), N status (P=0.014), grade (P=0.026), age (P=0.005) and location (P=0.022) were associated with CSS. The reduced nomogram model had an accuracy of 0.78. We propose a nomogram to predict 3 and 5-year CSS post NU for UUT-UC. CONCLUSION: We have devised and validated an accurate nomogram (78%), superior to any single clinical variable or current model, for predicting 5-year CSS post NU for UUT-UC.

[Pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer: Should it be realized by laparoscopy?]. / Le curage ilio-obturateur dans le cancer de la prostate doit-il être réalisé par voie coelioscopique ?

AIM: Laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy in localized prostatic cancer is performed since the 1990s, lessens the postoperative complications and respects carcinologic's principles (No. lymph nodes removed and lymph nodes metastasis). In order to verify that these objectives are achieved, we compared our results of pelvic lymphadenectomy by laparotomy and by laparoscopy for the past 12 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1997 and June 2008, 36 (23.8%) patients underwent open pelvic lymphadenectomy and 76.16% (115 cases) laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy. We did a retrospective and comparative analysis of data including the preoperative characteristics, per- and postoperative complication as well pathologic results. RESULTS: Preoperative data were comparable between both groups. The comparison of the peroperative data showed an increased bleeding volume in the open group (105.6±420.9mL; 12.1±96.1mL: P=0.001) and longer operative time in the laparoscopic group (103.7±83.9min; 132.8±40.9min: P=0.006). Postoperative complications were similar. Pathologic results showed a significantly more important number of lymph nodes removed in the open group (7.2±3.5; 5.7±3.2: P=0.022), but the positive rate similar in both groups (13.9%; 22.6%: P=0.258). In order to remove "the learning curve effect", we compared 36 open pelvic lymphadenectomy to the last 36 laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy. In the laparoscopic group the patients showed an upper Gleason score (6.3±1.1; 7±1: P=0.005); but there was no difference for the operative time, number of lymph nodes removed and the complications rates. CONCLUSIONS: After training, laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy was similar to open pelvic lymphadenectomy.