Longitudinal follow-up and performance validation of an mRNA-based urine test (Xpert® Bladder Cancer Monitor ) for surveillance in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the Xpert Bladder Cancer Monitor (Xpert; Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) test as a predictor of tumour recurrence in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 429) undergoing surveillance for NMIBC underwent Xpert, cytology, and UroVysion testing. Patients with a positive Xpert and a negative cystoscopy result (positive-negative [PN] group, n = 66) and a control group of double negative patients (negative Xpert and cystoscopy results [NN] group) were followed for 12 months (±90 days). RESULTS: Histology-confirmed recurrences were detected in 58 patients (13.5%). Xpert had an overall sensitivity of 60.3% and a specificity of 76.5%. The sensitivity for high-grade (HG) cancer was 87% with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99%. Urine cytology showed an overall sensitivity of 23.2% (47.6% sensitivity for HG tumours) and a specificity of 88.3%. In the PN group, 32% (n = 21) developed a recurrence within 12 months, 11 of which were HG tumours. In the NN control group, 14% (n = 9) developed a recurrence and only two were HG tumours. The hazard ratio for developing recurrence in the PN group was 2.68 for all tumours and 6.84 for HG cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The Xpert test has a high sensitivity for detecting the recurrence of cancer and a high NPV for excluding HG cancer. In addition, the data suggest that patients with a positive Xpert assay in the setting of negative cystoscopy are at high risk for recurrence and need close surveillance.

Incorporation of hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy into an academic training program: an assessment of the utility of a 3-month minifellowship.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the amount of training necessary for a midcareer urologic surgeon to incorporate hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) renal surgery into an academic practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A urologist (JAB) without laparoscopic surgical experience in his fifth year of practice completed a 3-month minifellowship at a high-volume center primarily to learn HAL nephrectomy (HALN), during which he performed 15 HALNs (and 2 HAL nephroureterectomies) and assisted during 5 HALNs. Surgical outcomes and resident surgical participation on nephrectomy cases at the home medical center during the 6 months prior to (phase 1) and after (phase 2) the fellowship were evaluated. RESULTS: During phase 1, 12 open nephrectomies were performed in a mean operative time of 265 (10-387) minutes. During phase 2, 16 HALNs were initiated and 2 (13%) combined cases were converted to open at the discretion of general surgeon. The mean operative time was 288 (226-355) minutes. Ten (10) and 5 patients from each cohort had concomitant procedures performed. The mean tumor size was 8.7 (2-15) and 7.1 (2.5-15) cm. Three (3) patients from each cohort were anemic preoperatively (hemoglobin < or =10 mg/dL). Ten (10) (83%) and 4 (25%) patients from each cohort received transfusions. There were 3 and 2 intraoperative and postoperative cohort complications, respectively. Residents were the operative surgeon on all cohort 1 and two thirds of cohort 2 cases. Chief residents completed the entirety of their third and fourth HALNs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A 3-month fellowship is an effective tool for a midcareer urologist to rapidly gain significant HALN experience. Twenty-two (22) cases (17 as surgeon) allowed for the immediate incorporation of this procedure into a complex academic practice without any interruption of residency training.

Assessment of patient concern and adequacy of informed consent regarding infertility resulting from prostate cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To address in a questionnaire-based study the frequency at which fertility is a concern for men when they consider their prostate cancer treatment options. A secondary aim was to assess the rate at which men were informed of the fertility implications of prostate cancer treatment by their physician before their selection of a treatment option. METHODS: Two questionnaires were used. One questionnaire was distributed to men with localized prostate cancer who had undergone treatment within the past year. These questions addressed whether continence, erectile function, and fertility were discussed with them by their physician during the prostate cancer treatment selection process. The second questionnaire was distributed to men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer and queried their level of concern about the effects of prostate cancer treatment on sexual function, urinary function, and fertility. RESULTS: All patients receiving the first questionnaire stated that they were informed of the incontinence and impotence side effects of prostate cancer treatments, but only 8.7% stated that they were informed of the effect that prostate cancer treatments would have on their future fertility. Of the patients completing the second questionnaire, 53.7% responded that incontinence was the side effect of prostate cancer treatment that caused them the most concern, 42.6% stated that erectile dysfunction was the most concerning, and 3.7% listed fertility as the major concern. CONCLUSIONS: Urologists should consider approaching the topic of infertility when discussing the pros and cons of various prostate cancer therapies with their younger patients.