Urinary Diversion for Severe Urinary Adverse Events of Prostate Radiation: Results from a Multi-Institutional Study.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the short and long-term surgical outcomes of urinary diversion done for urinary adverse events arising from prostate radiation therapy. We hypothesized that patient characteristics are associated with complications after urinary diversion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 100 men who underwent urinary diversion (urinary conduit or continent catheterizable pouch) due to urinary adverse events after prostate radiotherapy from 2007 to 2016 from 9 academic centers in the United States. Outcome measurements included predictors of short and long-term complications, and readmission after urinary diversion of patients who had prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. The data were summarized using descriptive statistics and univariate associations with complications were identified with logistic regression controlling for center. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 71 years and median time from radiotherapy to urinary diversion was 8 years. Overall 81 (81%) patients had combined modality therapy (radical prostatectomy plus radiotherapy or various combinations of radiotherapy). Grade 3a or greater Clavien-Dindo complications occurred in 31 (35%) men, including 4 deaths (4.5%). Normal weight men had more short-term complications compared to overweight (OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.3-23.1, p=0.02) and obese men (OR 6.3, 95% CI 1.6-31.1, p=0.009). Hospital readmission within 6 weeks of surgery occurred for 35 (38%) men. Surgery was needed to treat long-term complications after urinary diversion in 19 (22%) patients with a median followup of 16.3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary diversion after prostate radiotherapy has a considerable short and long-term surgical complication rate. Urinary diversion most often cannot be avoided in these patients but appreciation of the risks allows for informed shared decision making between surgeons and patients.

Radiation-induced complex anterior urinary fistulation for prostate cancer: a retrospective multicenter study from the Trauma and Urologic Reconstruction Network of Surgeons (TURNS).

PURPOSE: To characterize anterior urinary fistulae following radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: Over 10 years, 31 men were identified to have an anterior urinary fistula. A retrospective database was created to evaluate patient demographics, presentation, diagnostic procedures, operative interventions, outcomes, and complications. Comparisons between men who underwent cystectomy versus bladder-sparing surgeries were performed. RESULTS: At a median age of 73 (interquartile range (IQR) 68.5, 79) years, presenting symptoms included as follows: pubic pain (19/31, 61%), urine drainage via fistula (10/31, 32%), or a superficial wound infection (6/31, 19%). Recent instrumentation prior to diagnosis of anterior urinary fistula was reported by 18/31 (58%) at a median of 14.9 months (IQR 7.9, 103.8) after manipulation. Anterior fistula formation was either isolated to the pubic symphysis (19/31, 61%) or the thigh (12/31, 38%). Nineteen men underwent a cystectomy, whereas 12 men underwent a fistula repair. Excluding grades 1 and 2, 30- and 90-day postoperative complications were limited to four and two men, respectively, all of whom had a grade 3 complication. At 6-month follow-up, 26/31 (84%) men reported their pain had resolved. There was one fistula recurrence managed with subsequent cystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Complex anterior urinary fistulae to the pubic symphysis and thigh are devastating yet treatable conditions. Universally, these men have a history of radiotherapy and repeated endoscopic interventions. Surgical intervention with either cystectomy or primary repair was highly successful.

Explosive growth of a renal tumor during active surveillance.

The incidence of small renal masses (≤ 4 cm) has increased over the past three decades. Partial nephrectomy remains the standard for treatment of such lesions, but increased attention is being given to patients who may benefit from active surveillance, given the low risk of metastatic spread and traditionally slow growth rates. Patients with significant comorbidities and the elderly are often considered optimal candidates for surveillance. We present an 86-year-old female undergoing active surveillance for a 1.4 cm lesion that grew in diameter approximately 0.5 cm per year over 3 years, followed by explosive growth to 7 cm in diameter with a retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombus over the subsequent 13 months.

Variations in the open market costs for prostate cancer surgery: a survey of US hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To examine variation in the open market cost of a radical prostatectomy (RP) procedure in the US hospitals for an uninsured patient, as many proposals for health care reform highlight the importance of individuals actively participating in selecting care. However, reports suggest that obtaining procedure prices remains challenging and highly variable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used 2011-2012 US News and World Report rankings to identify a cohort of 100 hospitals making an effort to include an equal distribution of both academic and private centers, city size, and geographic region. Each hospital was called and the essence of the script included a caller stating he was a healthy, uninsured 55-year-old man recently diagnosed with Gleason 3 + 4 prostatic adenocarcinoma with no metastases. Facility, surgeon, and anesthesia fees were solicited. RESULTS: Seventy hospitals provided facility prices. Facility estimates averaged $34,720 (±20,335; range, $10,100-$135,000), which was statistically higher at academics centers. No significant differences were seen by region, population, or hospital ranking. Surgeon and anesthesia fees were provided by 10%, averaging $8280 (±$4282; range, $4028-$18,720). Thirty-three hospitals provided discounted fees for prompt payment averaging 34% (±16%; range, 10%-80%). CONCLUSION: There is wide variation in pricing for RP, with higher rates found in academic centers. Wide variation in facility costs were observed, and nearly all were unable to provide surgeon and/or anesthesia fees. Currently, it appears to be unacceptably difficult for men with prostate cancer without insurance to obtain prices for an RP procedure.