Bowel preparation and peri-operative management for radical cystectomy in Turkey: Turkish Urooncology Association multicenter survey.

PURPOSE: To investigate the preferences and practice patterns of urooncologic surgeons in Turkey on bowel preparation and peri-operative management for radical cystectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted by Turkish Urooncology Association as a multicenter survey. Participants were asked to fill in questionnaires dispensed at annual oncologic meeting or using internet access to the website of Urooncology Association. The questionnaire consisted of multiple choice or open-ended questions related to frequency of cystectomy, surgical technique and type of diversion, bowel preparation protocol, nasogastric tube applications, antibiotic prophylaxis, and deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Collected data from the survey were presented descriptively. RESULTS: Forty-four questionnaires from 44 surgeons of different centers were evaluated. All participants answered that they always perform bowel preparation before cystectomy. Four participants reported that they had an experience of cystectomy without bowel preparation. Bowel preparation methods included long conservative methods, short enema protocols, and Golytely, but there were significant differences in application of each method. Of participants, 88.6% perform diversion by themselves whereas others ask help from a general surgeon. Antibiotic prophylaxis is preferred mostly by 2 agents using third-generation cephalosporins and metronidazole for a period of 5 days or more in the majority. Type, duration, and dosage of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis differed among participants. CONCLUSION: There are significant individual differences in peri-operative management of radical cystectomy, which render deficient and sometimes inadequate patient care. There is a need to establish standard protocols for bowel preparation and adequate peri-operative management for radical cystectomy.

Complexed prostate specific antigen density is better than the other PSA derivatives for detection of prostate cancer in men with total PSA between 2.5 and 20 ng/ml: results of a prospective multicenter study.

PURPOSE: This prospective, multicenter study was initiated to evaluate the diagnostic performance of PSA, free/total PSA (f/tPSA) and complexed PSA (cPSA) with volume-based parameters for early detection of prostate cancer in patients with PSA between 2.5 and 20 ng/ml. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 408 subjects with serum PSA values between 2.5 and 20 ng/ml regardless of digital rectal examination (DRE) were included in to the study. The diagnostic validity, sensitivity, specificity and cut-off values were evaluated by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: Of 408 patients 77 (18.9%) were positive for prostate cancer. Digital rectal examination was non-suspicious in 86% (351/408) of the patients. Area under curve (AUC) values for cPSA were better than PSA and f/tPSA in patients with PSA values of 2.5-10 ng/ml and 4-10 ng/ml, as well as the whole group. Furthermore, on ROC curve analysis cPSAD was the best predictor of prostate cancer for all PSA ranges regardless of the DRE findings except PSA values between 2.5 and 4 ng/ml. The cut-off value of cPSAD at 90% sensitivity was 0.06 ng/ml/cm(3) with a 35.3% specificity saving 126 unnecessary biopsies in the whole group. CONCLUSION: cPSA might be a better initial test than PSA for prostate cancer detection and measurement of cPSA alone and its derivatives obviate the need for additional fPSA testing.