Role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET)-computed tomography (CT) in the staging of bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether to use (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) scans in the preoperative staging of bladder cancer (BC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 233 patients with muscle-invasive BC (MIBC) or high-risk non-MIBC being considered for radical cystectomy (RC) between 2005 and 2011 had FDG-PET and computed tomography (CT) of the chest, abdomen and pelvis to assess for pelvic lymph node (LN) involvement or distant metastases. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting pelvic LN involvement was determined by comparing the results of the scans to the histopathology reports in patients undergoing RC. These parameters for distant metastases were determined from biopsy results or follow-up imaging. In patients who did not undergo RC, follow-up imaging was used to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity. Patients were excluded from analysis if they either had neoadjuvant chemotherapy or had <10 LNs removed at lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: The PET scan was able to detect metastatic disease outside of the pelvis with a sensitivity of 54% compared with 41% for the staging CT (N = 207). Both scans had similar specificities of 97% and 98%. There were 13 PET avid lesions not visualised on the corresponding staging CT scans. These proved to be metastatic BC (six patients), a synchronous primary colonic cancer (one), colonic adenomas (one), basal cell tumour of the parotid gland (one) and inflammatory lesions (four). The sensitivity and specificity of the CT scans for pelvic LN involvement was 45% and 98%, respectively (N = 93). Using a combination of the PET and CT scan, the sensitivity for detecting metastatic disease in LNs increased to 69% with a 3% reduction in specificity to 95%. CONCLUSIONS: PET when used in conjunction with a standard CT scan provides a small improvement in preoperative staging of BC. However, this advantage is not significant enough to justify the additional cost. Hence we recommend use of dual imaging only in highly selected patients.

Incidental renal stones in potential live kidney donors: prevalence, assessment and donation, including role of ex vivo ureteroscopy.

UNLABELLED: WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Previously, donors with asymptomatic stones found incidentally on CT were not considered ideal donor candidates because of the presumed risk of morbidity to both the donor and recipient. Increasingly, studies show that these risks are low. This study aims to evaluate the long-term safety of using ex vivo ureteroscopy to remove the stones from the donor kidney on the bench before donation. Outcomes so far suggest that this technique can safely render a kidney stone-free before transplantation. This has led to 20 more transplants in our institution than would otherwise be possible. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of asymptomatic renal stones in our potential donor population. To assess the safety and success of ex vivo ureteroscopy (ExURS) to remove stones from explanted donor kidneys before transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 377 computed tomography (CT) angiograms of potential kidney donors between October 2004 and May 2007 to assess the prevalence of asymptomatic renal stones in our donor population. Between October 2005 and October 2011, kidneys from suitable donors underwent ExURS. Stones were removed using basket extraction or were fragmented with holmium laser on bench before transplantation. Immediate and long-term complications of the transplanted recipients were recorded. Donors were followed with yearly ultrasonography of the remaining kidney in addition to standard follow-up protocol. RESULTS: Review of 377 CT angiograms between October 2004 to May 2007 showed a 5% prevalence of asymptomatic renal stones. Out of 55 potential donors (19 identified between October 2004 to May 2007 and a further 36 identified since May 2007), 20 donors with stones proceeded to donation, with stone size ranging from 2 to 12 mm. Of the patients, 17 proceeded to ExURS. Stones were removed in 10 patients; five with basket retrieval, four with laser fragmentation and one with both laser fragmentation and basket retrieval. There were no early or late allograft stone-related complications and no evidence of stones on follow-up imaging at a mean (range) of 10 (1-24) months. There has been no reported stone recurrence in any of the donors to date and no stone on ultrasonography of eight donors with >1-year follow-up (mean 26 months, range 12-49 months). CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic renal stones are present in 5% of our donors. ExURS can be safely used to remove stones in these kidneys before transplantation, without the risk of subjecting the donor to an additional stone-removing procedure. Continued long-term follow-up of donors and recipients is still required to ensure the safety of this approach.

Assessing the feasibility of a one-stop approach to diagnosis for urological patients.

INTRODUCTION: Conventional publicly funded out-patient services in many specialties are characterised by delays, fragmented diagnostic processes, and overloaded clinics. This is bad for patients as it is clinically dangerous; bad for managers who spend hours managing the failure; bad for doctors who respond by overloading clinics; and bad for purchasers who have to fund the multiple out-patient visits needed. Sound clinical and financial reasons exist for introducing more efficient diagnostic processes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 330 consecutive patients referred to the urology department of Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust were invited to attend one of nine one-stop clinics staffed by consultant urologists with specialist registrars, nurses, and clerical staff. Pre-clinic blood and urine tests were ordered based on the referral letter. Clinics had facilities to perform cystoscopy, ultrasound, and urinary flow studies. Correspondence was generated in real time, and a copy given to the patient. RESULTS: Overall, 257 patients attended the clinics. Twenty-three patients cancelled appointments and 50 patients did not attend. Pre-clinic tests were requested in 133 patients and were completed by 86% of the patients who attended. Of patients, 42% were diagnosed and discharged; 28% were listed for surgery, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), or referred to another specialty. About 30% of patients needed further out-patient review; in approximately two-thirds to complete a diagnosis and one-third to review the results of therapy initiated. An estimated 350 appointments and 550 patient visits to hospital were saved. CONCLUSIONS: A one-stop method of consultation is efficient across a range of urological presenting complaints, and dramatically reduces the need for follow-up consultations. It has potential to: (i) reduce delays to being seen in out-patients; (ii) lead to more cost-effective care; and (iii) increase safety and patient satisfaction. It should become the standard of care in urology, and is probably applicable in many other disciplines.