Initial Clinical Experience With a Novel Robotically Assisted Platform for Combined Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the technical feasibility of performing a combined robotically assisted mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and flexible ureteroscopy (URS) procedure by a single urologist using the MONARCH Platform, Urology (Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Redwood City, California). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective, first-in-human clinical trial, 13 patients underwent robotically-assisted PCNL for renal calculi at the University of California-Irvine, Department of Urology. Successful completion of the procedure was assessed as the primary endpoint. Postoperative adverse events were monitored for 30 days following the completion of the procedure. Stone ablation efficiency was evaluated on postoperative day 30 with low-dose 2-3 mm slice CT scans. Patients were classified according to the maximum length of their residual stone fragments as either absolute stone-free (Grade A), < 2 mm remnants (Grade B), or 2.1-4.0 mm remnants (Grade C). RESULTS: The combined robotic mini-PCNL and URS procedure was successfully completed in 12 of 13 procedures. No robotic device-related adverse events occurred. Preoperative stone burden was quantified by both maximum linear measurement (median 32.8 mm) as well as by CT-based volume (median 1645.9 mm3). Using the unique robotically assisted targeting system, percutaneous access was gained directly through the center of the renal papilla in a single pass in all cases. Median operative time was 187 minutes (range: 83-383 minutes). On postoperative day 30, a 98.7% (range: 72.9%-100.0%) volume reduction was achieved, with 5 Grade A (38.5%), 1 Grade B (7.7%), and 2 Grade C (15.4%). Three patients experienced complications (2 grade 1 and one grade 2 Clavien-Dindo). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary investigation demonstrates the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of a unique robotic-assisted combined mini-PCNL and URS platform.

Malignant mesothelioma: facts, myths, and hypotheses.

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a neoplasm arising from mesothelial cells lining the pleural, peritoneal, and pericardial cavities. Over 20 million people in the US are at risk of developing MM due to asbestos exposure. MM mortality rates are estimated to increase by 5-10% per year in most industrialized countries until about 2020. The incidence of MM in men has continued to rise during the past 50 years, while the incidence in women appears largely unchanged. It is estimated that about 50-80% of pleural MM in men and 20-30% in women developed in individuals whose history indicates asbestos exposure(s) above that expected from most background settings. While rare for women, about 30% of peritoneal mesothelioma in men has been associated with exposure to asbestos. Erionite is a potent carcinogenic mineral fiber capable of causing both pleural and peritoneal MM. Since erionite is considerably less widespread than asbestos, the number of MM cases associated with erionite exposure is smaller. Asbestos induces DNA alterations mostly by inducing mesothelial cells and reactive macrophages to secrete mutagenic oxygen and nitrogen species. In addition, asbestos carcinogenesis is linked to the chronic inflammatory process caused by the deposition of a sufficient number of asbestos fibers and the consequent release of pro-inflammatory molecules, especially HMGB-1, the master switch that starts the inflammatory process, and TNF-alpha by macrophages and mesothelial cells. Genetic predisposition, radiation exposure and viral infection are co-factors that can alone or together with asbestos and erionite cause MM. J. Cell. Physiol. 227: 44-58, 2012. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Outcomes of Anatomic Lung Resection for Cancer Are Better When Performed by Cardiothoracic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Anatomic lung resection (ALR) outcomes are superior for cardiothoracic surgeons (CTSs) by analysis of Medicare; National Inpatient Sample; South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics; and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results databases. Similar findings have been reported for all noncardiac thoracic procedures using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Our aim was to further delineate outcome differences between CTSs and general surgeons (GSs) specifically for ALR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 15,574 nonemergent, nonpediatric ALR for lung cancer was conducted using the ACS-NSQIP 2013 to 2017 database. Included procedures were all ALR for lung cancer. Surgeons were classified as CTSs or GSs. Other specialties were excluded. Preoperative characteristics and 30-day outcomes were compared by bivariate (chi-square test) and multivariate analysis. Multivariate analysis was conducted by multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: CTSs performed 14,172 (91.0%) of included procedures, and GSs performed 1402 (9.0%). A thoracoscopic approach was utilized at a similar rate (49.08% for CTSs vs 49.71% for GSs; P = .747). The extent of resection differed in a statistically, but not clinically, significant fashion. CTS patients had a higher rate of preoperative dyspnea (22.66% for CTSs vs 17.62% for GSs; P < .001). Procedures performed by CTSs had a lower risk-adjusted odds ratio of overall morbidity, pulmonary morbidity, sepsis or septic shock, bleeding requiring transfusion, and length of stay greater than the median (5 days). CONCLUSIONS: ALR outcomes are superior for CTSs when compared with GSs. This is consistent with prior studies looking at this specific subset of patients and studies looking at a different subset of patients using the ACS-NSQIP database.

Assessing the Development of Multidisciplinary Care: Experience of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program.

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) began in 2007 with a goal of expanding cancer research and delivering quality care in communities. The NCCCP Quality of Care (QoC) Subcommittee was charged with developing and improving the quality of multidisciplinary care. An assessment tool with nine key elements relevant to MDC structure and operations was developed. METHODS: Fourteen NCCCP sites reported multidisciplinary care assessments for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer in June 2010, June 2011, and June 2012 using an online reporting tool. Each site evaluated their level of maturity (level 1 = no multidisciplinary care, level 5 = highly integrated multidisciplinary care) in nine elements integral to multidisciplinary care. Thematic analysis of open-ended qualitative responses was also conducted. RESULTS: The proportion of sites that reported level 3 or greater on the assessment tool was tabulated at each time point. For all tumor types, sites that reached this level increased in six elements: case planning, clinical trials, integration of care coordination, physician engagement, quality improvement, and treatment team integration. Factors that enabled improvement included increasing organizational support, ensuring appropriate physician participation, increasing patient navigation, increasing participation in national quality initiatives, targeting genetics referrals, engaging primary care providers, and integrating clinical trial staff. CONCLUSIONS: Maturation of multidisciplinary care reflected focused work of the NCCCP QoC Subcommittee. Working group efforts in patient navigation, genetics, and physician conditions of participation were evident in improved multidisciplinary care performance for three common malignancies. This work provides a blueprint for health systems that wish to incorporate prospective multidisciplinary care into their cancer programs.