Consensus on Screening, Diagnosis, and Staging Tools for Prostate Cancer in Developing Countries: A Report From the First Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC).

PURPOSE: To generate and present the survey results on critical issues relevant to screening, diagnosis, and staging tools for prostate cancer (PCa) focused on developing countries. METHODS: A total of 36 of 300 questions concern the main areas of interest of this paper: (1) screening, (2) diagnosis, and (3) staging for various risk levels of PCa in developing countries. A panel of 99 international multidisciplinary cancer experts voted on these questions to create recommendations for screening, diagnosing, and staging tools for PCa in areas of limited resources discussed in this manuscript. RESULTS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. Each question was deemed consensus if 75% or more of the full panel had selected a particular answer. These answers are based on panelist opinion not a literature review or meta-analysis. For questions that refer to an area of limited resources, the recommendations consider cost-effectiveness and the possible therapies with easier and greater access. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two nonanswers. The results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSION: The voting results and recommendations presented in this document can be used by physicians to support the screening, diagnosis, and staging of PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data; however, as guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and staging of PCa in developing countries have not been developed, this document will serve as a point of reference when confronted with this disease.

Consensus on Prostate Cancer Treatment of Localized Disease With Very Low, Low, and Intermediate Risk: A Report From the First Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC).

PURPOSE: A group of international urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on prostate cancer (PCa) in developing countries. The results are reviewed and summarized, and recommendations on consensus statements for very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk PCa focused on developing countries were developed. METHODS: A panel of experts developed more than 300 survey questions of which 66 questions concern the principal areas of interest of this paper: very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in developing countries. A larger panel of 99 international multidisciplinary cancer experts voted on these questions to create the recommendations for treatment and follow-up for very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk PCa in areas of limited resources discussed in this manuscript. RESULTS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. Each question was deemed consensus if 75% or more of the full panel had selected a particular answer. These answers are based on panelist opinion not a literature review or meta-analysis. For questions that refer to an area of limited resources, the recommendations consider cost-effectiveness and the possible therapies with easier and greater access. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two nonanswers. The results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSION: The voting results and recommendations presented in this document can be used by physicians to support management for very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data; however, as guidelines for treatment for very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in developing countries have not been developed, this document will serve as a point of reference when confronted with this disease.

First Brazilian Consensus of Advanced Prostate Cancer: Recommendations for Clinical Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer still represents a major cause of morbidity, and still about 20% of men with the disease are diagnosed or will progress to the advanced stage without the possibility of curative treatment. Despite the recent advances in scientific and technological knowledge and the availability of new therapies, there is still considerable heterogeneity in the therapeutic approaches for metastatic prostate cancer. OBJECTIVES: This article presents a summary of the I Brazilian Consensus on Advanced Prostate Cancer, conducted by the Brazilian Society of Urology and Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experts were selected by the medical societies involved. Forty issues regarding controversial issues in advanced disease were previously elaborated. The panel met for consensus, with a threshold established for 2/3 of the participants. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of advanced prostate cancer is complex, due to the existence of a large number of therapies, with different response profiles and toxicities. The panel addressed recommendations on preferred choice of therapies, indicators that would justify their change, and indicated some strategies for better sequencing of treatment in order to maximize the potential for disease control with the available therapeutic arsenal. The lack of consensus on some topics clearly indicates the absence of strong evidence for some decisions.

Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Prolonged warm ischemia time and increased intra-abdominal pressure caused by pneumoperitoneum during a laparoscopic donor nephrectomy could enhance renal ischemia reperfusion injury. For this reason, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy may be associated with a slower graft function recovery. However, an adequate protective response may balance the ischemia reperfusion damage. This study investigated whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy modified the protective response of renal tissue during kidney transplantation. METHODS: Patients undergoing live renal transplantation were prospectively analyzed and divided into two groups based on the donor nephrectomy approach used: 1) the control group, recipients of open donor nephrectomy (n = 29), and 2) the study group, recipients of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (n = 26). Graft biopsies were obtained at two time points: T-1 = after warm ischemia time and T+1 = 45 minutes after kidney reperfusion. The samples were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for the Bcl-2 and HO-1 proteins and by real-time polymerase chain reaction for the mRNA expression of Bcl-2, HO-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor. RESULTS: The area under the curve for creatinine and delayed graft function were similar in both the laparoscopic and open groups. There was no difference in the protective gene expression between the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy groups. The protein expression of HO-1 and Bcl-2 were similar between the open and laparoscopic groups. Furthermore, the gene expression of B-cell lymphoma 2 correlated with the warm ischemia time in the open group (p = 0.047) and that of vascular endothelial growth factor with the area under the curve for creatinine in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The postoperative renal function and protective factor expression were similar between laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy. These findings ensure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy utilization in renal transplantation.

Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE: Prolonged warm ischemia time and increased intra-abdominal pressure caused by pneumoperitoneum during a laparoscopic donor nephrectomy could enhance renal ischemia reperfusion injury. For this reason, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy may be associated with a slower graft function recovery. However, an adequate protective response may balance the ischemia reperfusion damage. This study investigated whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy modified the protective response of renal tissue during kidney transplantation. METHODS: Patients undergoing live renal transplantation were prospectively analyzed and divided into two groups based on the donor nephrectomy approach used: 1) the control group, recipients of open donor nephrectomy (n = 29), and 2) the study group, recipients of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (n = 26). Graft biopsies were obtained at two time points: T-1 = after warm ischemia time and T+1 = 45 minutes after kidney reperfusion. The samples were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for the Bcl-2 and HO-1 proteins and by real-time polymerase chain reaction for the mRNA expression of Bcl-2, HO-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor. RESULTS: The area under the curve for creatinine and delayed graft function were similar in both the laparoscopic and open groups. There was no difference in the protective gene expression between the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy groups. The protein expression of HO-1 and Bcl-2 were similar between the open and laparoscopic groups. Furthermore, the gene expression of B-cell lymphoma 2 correlated with the warm ischemia time in the open group (p = 0.047) and that of vascular endothelial growth factor with the area under the curve for creatinine in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The postoperative renal function and protective factor expression were similar between laparoscopic ...

Early outcomes of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with multiple renal arteries.

PURPOSE: We evaluated our experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in patients with multiple renal arteries, comparing operative outcomes and early graft function with patients with a single renal artery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2003 to February 2009, 130 patients underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at our institution, 108 (83 %) with a single renal artery and 22 (17 %) with multiple arteries. Donor and recipient outcomes for single artery and multiple arteries allografts were compared. RESULTS: The LDN operative time was similar between the single artery and multiple arteries groups (162 vs 163 min, respectively, p = 0.87). Allografts with multiple arteries had significantly longer warm ischemia time (3.9 vs 4.9 min, p = 0.05) and cold ischemia time (72 vs 94 min, p < 0.001) than those with single artery. The conversion rate was similar between single and multiple arteries groups (6 % vs 4.5 %, respectively, p = 0.7). Multiple arteries grafts had a non statistically significant higher rate of poor graft function when compared to single artery grafts (23 % vs 12 %, respectively, p = 0.18). Five patients in the single artery group (4.6 %) and one patient in the multiple arteries group (4.5 %) needed dialysis during the first postoperative week. Overall, recipient complication rates were similar between single and multiple arteries groups (12.9 % vs 18.1 %, respectively, p = 0.51). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with multiple arteries was associated with a non statistically significant higher rate of poor early graft function. The procedure appears to be safe in patients with multiple arteries, with similar complications rates. Multiple arteries should not be a contraindication for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Early outcomes of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with multiple renal arteries

PURPOSE: We evaluated our experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in patients with multiple renal arteries, comparing operative outcomes and early graft function with patients with a single renal artery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2003 to February 2009, 130 patients underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at our institution, 108 (83%) with a single renal artery and 22 (17%) with multiple arteries. Donor and recipient outcomes for single artery and multiple arteries allografts were compared. RESULTS: The LDN operative time was similar between the single artery and multiple arteries groups (162 vs 163 min, respectively, p = 0.87). Allografts with multiple arteries had significantly longer warm ischemia time (3.9 vs 4.9 min, p = 0.05) and cold ischemia time (72 vs 94 min, p < 0.001) than those with single artery. The conversion rate was similar between single and multiple arteries groups (6% vs 4.5%, respectively, p = 0.7). Multiple arteries grafts had a non statistically significant higher rate of poor graft function when compared to single artery grafts (23% vs 12%, respectively, p = 0.18). Five patients in the single artery group (4.6%) and one patient in the multiple arteries group (4.5%) needed dialysis during the first postoperative week. Overall, recipient complication rates were similar between single and multiple arteries groups (12.9% vs 18.1%, respectively, p = 0.51). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with multiple arteries was associated with a non statistically significant higher rate of poor early graft function. The procedure appears to be safe in patients with multiple arteries, with similar complications rates. Multiple arteries should not be a contraindication for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.