The volume and thickness of preprostatic fat on MRIs are not associated with prostate cancer aggressiveness in men undergoing radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Periprostatic fat has a metabolic activity on the prostate via cytokines that act paracrine on several signaling pathways including tumorigenesis. We investigated whether there was an association between preprostatic fat abundance and prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study including patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in our center from the prospective RESCAP database. Preoperative MRIs were re-read and different measurements of preprostatic fat (PPF) were performed. The maximum thickness (PPFmax) and the minimum thickness (PPFmin) were measured on a median T2 sagittal section. The total volume of preprostatic fat (PPFV) and volume normalized by prostate volume (NPPFV) were calculated semi-automatically by segmentation on continuous axial sections of 3mm. The association of these parameters with the aggressiveness criteria of PCa (ISUP 3-5 on biopsies and on operative specimen, intermediate or high-risk disease according to D'AMICO, PSA>10, upgrading risk at radical prostatectomy) was measured as well as the association between normal, overweight, and obese BMI classes and the aggressiveness criteria used. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one men were included in this study. In both the univariate analysis and the multivariate analysis, none of the preprostatic fat measurements (PPFmax, PPFmin, PPFV and NPPFV) were associated with PCa aggressiveness criteria. There was also no association between BMI class and tumor aggressiveness. CONCLUSION: In this study, there is no association between the abundance of preprostatic fat and PCa aggressiveness according to the periprostatic fat measurements achieved. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

[Impact of learning curve in renal transplantation]. / Impact de la courbe d'apprentissage dans la transplantation rénale.

OBJECTIVES: Renal transplantation is performed only in university hospital centres, in accredited transplanting centres. The aim of this study is to analyse the learning curve of this operation and its impact on the graft survival. PATIENTS-METHODS: Monocentric retrospective study in which 3 groups have been defined: Juniors 1, Juniors 2 and Seniors corresponding respectively to the first thirty transplantations and to the last thirty transplantations of 5 clinical leaders, and 30 transplantation graft of referent seniors. Data have been registered in a database. Operation times, lukewarm ischemic times and postoperative complications have been compared within the 3 groups. RESULTS: A clear difference of operation time has been noted within the 3 groups with an average time of 202 minutes for Juniors 1, 173 minutes for Juniors 2 and 140 minutes for Seniors (P<0.0001). Likewise, concerning lukewarm ischemic time and vascular anastomosis time respectively with an average time of 72, 59 and 40 min (P<0.0001). Vascular complications occurred in 20% of cases in Juniors 1, 44.3% of cases in Juniors 2 and 17% of cases in Seniors (P=0.65). There were no significant differences of survival without urinary complications: 20% of complications for Juniors 1, 10% for Juniors 2 and 17% for Seniors (P=0.63). Similarly results have been obtained with analysing complications following Clavien's order. CONCLUSION: This study reveals that renal transplantations operated by young surgeons require longer operation and lukeward ischemic time but without significant repercussions on the surgical complication rate and the global survival. This stresses on the importance of surgical training during medicine internship.