Simplified PADUA Renal (SPARE) Nephrometry Scoring System: External Validation, Interobserver Variability, and Comparison with RENAL and PADUA in a Single-center Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Series.

BACKGROUND: The RENAL (radius [R], exophytic/endophytic [E], nearness to collecting system/sinus [N], anterior/posterior [A], and location relative to polar lines [L]) and the PADUA (preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical classification) scores help in quantifying tumor complexity. However, nephrometry scoring systems have low interobserver variability. To simplify and improve score reproducibility, a new Simplified PADUA Renal (SPARE) scoring system was introduced. OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the SPARE nephrometry scoring system and to determine its interobserver variability. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 202 patients were included in the analysis. We performed a retrospective analysis of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) cases for a single renal mass performed at a single academic institution during the period 2008-2018. For each renal mass, PADUA, RENAL, and SPARE nephrometry scores were calculated. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Three urology residents (URs), two urology attendings (UAs), two radiology residents (RRs), and one radiology attending (RA) retrospectively reviewed computed tomography scans blinded to clinical outcomes. The accuracy of the SPARE nephrometry score in the prediction of any complication (Clavien grade ≥1) was compared with other scoring systems in a univariable and a multivariate fashion. The area under the curve (AUC) and kappa statistics were used to assess interobserver variability of the SPARE score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The SPARE score was not inferior to the PADUA and RENAL scores (AUC 0.61, 0.59, and 0.57, respectively, p = 0.43). Patients with intermediate to high SPARE scores had longer operative time (158 vs 135 min, p = 0.10) and a higher rate of complications (28% vs 14%, p = 0.012). Univariable analysis predicting overall complications showed that RRs performed slightly better than URs and UAs using the SPARE score. Interobserver agreement was 84% between an RA and an RR (kappa 0.42), 85% between an RA and a UA (kappa 0.39), and 85% between an RA and a UR (kappa 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm that the SPARE nephrometry scoring system is a reproducible and easy tool offering overall fair interobserver agreement regardless of years of training or type of practice, while maintaining the predictive capabilities of more established nephrometry scores. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, a novel and simple classification system was assessed using a sample of cases from our institution to define surgical complexity renal masses detected on radiological imaging. Our findings suggest that this tool can be useful in clinical practice to facilitate the characterization of renal masses and predict the complications of surgical treatment.

Robotic-assisted surgery for the treatment of urologic cancers: recent advances.

INTRODUCTION: As the medical field is moving toward personalized and tailored approaches, we entered the era of precision surgery for the management of genitourinary cancers1. This is facilitated by the implementation of new technologies, among which robotic surgery stands out for the significant impact in the surgical field over the last two decades. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the latest evidence on robotic surgery for the treatment of urologic cancers, including prostate, kidney, bladder, testis, and penile cancer. Functional and oncologic outcomes, new surgical techniques, new imaging modalities, and new robotic platforms are discussed. EXPERT OPINION: Robotic surgery had a growing role in the management of genitourinary cancers over the past 10 years. Despite a lack of high-quality evidence comparing the effectiveness of robotic to open surgery, the robotic approach allowed a larger adoption of a minimally invasive surgical approach, translating into lower surgical morbidity and shorter hospital stay. New robotic platforms might allow to explore novel surgical approaches, and new technologies might facilitate surgical navigation and intraoperative identification of anatomical structures, allowing a more tailored and precise surgery. It is an exciting time for robotic surgery, and upcoming technological advances will offer better outcomes to urologic cancer patients.

Oncologic Outcomes in Young Adults With Kidney Cancer Treated During the Targeted Therapy Era.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of young adults with kidney cancer treated during the targeted therapy era and evaluate the impact of young age on survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records from 445 patients younger than 55 years with kidney cancer at a single institution from 2006 to 2017. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine the impact of clinical and pathologic variables on all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 104 (23%) patients 40 years or younger were compared with 341 (77%) patients who were 41 to 55 years old. Younger patients presented with more advanced stages of the disease, including metastasis at diagnosis, positive lymph nodes, venous tumor thrombus and had more non-clear cell tumors (54% vs. 30%; P < .001). Young adults had significantly worse OS at 2 and 5 years (67% vs. 82% and 53% vs. 69%, respectively). Younger patients with metastatic disease received targeted agents less often compared with the older group (64% vs. 75%). There was no difference in recurrence-free survival across patients with localized disease. Independent prognostic factors associated with increased mortality were metastasis at diagnosis, pT2 or greater, and age younger than 40 years (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.6; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Patients younger than 40 years with kidney tumors treated during the targeted therapy era have worse OS compared with older adults. Young age is an independent predictor of mortality.

Robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. When and how?

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature evaluating the role of the extended pelvic lymph node dissectione PLND during robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in the management of PCa patients, as well as the preoperative clinic pathologic factors that predict lymph node metastases (LNM). The technique and current outcomes of robotic ePLND will be presented. METHODS: Medline®/Pubmed® were searched up to august 2018 to find comparative studies of different anatomic limits of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during RARP, open or pure laparoscopic surgery that reported number of nodes retrieved, oncologic outcomes and complications. The search was complemented to identify studies that evaluated diagnostic images and factors that predict LNM. Overall, 44 articles were included for full text review. RESULTS: There is not an imaging technique with an acceptable performance to select patients for PLND, the decision to perform a PLND is based on clinical characteristics described on validated nomograms. Median lymph node yield at RARP range from 5 to 21 depending on the extent of PLND, positivity rate of LN as high as 37% depending on the risk stratification of patients. Robot-assisted can be carried out to any extent with lymph node yields and safety concerns comparable to the open approach. CONCLUSION: Extended pelvic lymph node dissection is recommended to be performed at the time of RARP in intermediate and high-risk patients and cannot be replaced by other modalities. A benefit in terms of oncologic outcomes remains to be established. The robot assisted approach offers shorter length of hospital stay, lower transfusion rates and comparable outcomes compared to other surgical approaches.

ARTICULO SOLO EN INGLES.OBJETIVO: Revisar la literatura que evalúa  el papel de la linfadenectomía pélvica extendida  (LPe) durante la prostatectomía radical asistida por robot  (PRAR) en el manejo de pacientes con cáncer de próstata,  así como los factores clínico-patológicos preoperatorios  que predicen las metástasis ganglionares. Presentamos la técnica de LPe y sus resultados actuales.MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica en Medline®/Pubmed® hasta agosto 2018 para encontrar estudios comparativos de los diferentes límites anatómicos de la linfadenectomía pélvica duranteprostatectomía radical asistida por robot, abierta olaparoscópica que comunicaran número de ganglios,resultados oncológicos y complicaciones. La búsquedafue complementada para identificar estudios que evaluaran imágenes diagnósticas y factores predictivos demetástasis ganglionares. Finalmente, se incluyeron 44artículos. RESULTADOS: No hay una técnica de imagen que tengauna resolución aceptable para seleccionar pacientespara linfadenectomía. La decisión de practicar linfadenectomíase basa en las características clínicas descritasen nomogramas validados. La mediana del númerode ganglios obtenidos oscila entre 5 y 21 dependiendode la extensión de la linfadenectomía, y la tasa de gangliospositivos es tan alta como el 37% dependiendo dela estratificación del riesgo de los pacientes. La cirugíaasistida por robot puede realizarse con cualquier extensióncon un número de ganglios obtenidos y aspectosde seguridad comparables con el abordaje abierto. CONCLUSION: Se recomienda realizar la linfadenectomíapélvica extendida en el momento de la PRAR enpacientes de riesgo intermedio y alto y no puede reemplazarsepor otras modalidades. Sigue por establecerseun beneficio en términos de resultados oncológicos. Elabordaje asistido por robot ofrece estancias hospitalariasmás cortas, menores tasas de transfusión y resultadoscomparables en comparación con otros abordajesquirúrgicos.

Robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer, when and how? / Linfadenectomía pélvica extendida en cáncer de próstata. ¿Cuándo y cómo?

Objective: To review the literature evaluating the role of the extended pelvic lymph node dissection ePLND during robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in the management of PCa patients, as well as the preoperative clinic pathologic factors that predict lymph node metastases (LNM). The technique and current outcomes of robotic ePLND will be presented. Methods: Medline(R)/Pubmed(R) were searched up to august 2018 to find comparative studies of different anatomic limits of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during RARP, open or pure laparoscopic surgery that reported number of nodes retrieved, oncologic outcomes and complications. The search was complemented to identify studies that evaluated diagnostic images and factors that predict LNM. Overall, 44 articles were included for full text review. Results: There is not an imaging technique with an acceptable performance to select patients for PLND, the decision to perform a PLND is based on clinical characteristics described on validated nomograms. Median lymph node yield at RARP range from 5 to 21 depending on the extent of PLND, positivity rate of LN as high as 37% depending on the risk stratification of patients. Robot-assisted can be carried out to any extent with lymph node yields and safety concerns comparable to the open approach. CONCLUSION: Extended pelvic lymph node dissection is recommended to be performed at the time of RARP in intermediate and high-risk patients and cannot be replaced by other modalities. A benefit in terms of oncologic outcomes remains to be established. The robot assisted approach offers shorter length of hospital stay, lower transfusion rates and comparable outcomes compared to other surgical approaches

Objetivo: Revisar la literatura que evalúa el papel de la linfadenectomía pélvica extendida (LPe) durante la prostatectomía radical asistida por robot (PRAR) en el manejo de pacientes con cáncer de próstata, así como los factores clínico-patológicos preoperatorios que predicen las metástasis ganglionares. Presentamos la técnica de LPe y sus resultados actuales. Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica en Medline(R)/Pubmed(R) hasta agosto 2018 para encontrar estudios comparativos de los diferentes límites anatómicos de la linfadenectomía pélvica durante prostatectomía radical asistida por robot, abierta o laparoscópica que comunicaran número de ganglios, resultados oncológicos y complicaciones. La búsqueda fue complementada para identificar estudios que evaluaran imágenes diagnósticas y factores predictivos de metástasis ganglionares. Finalmente, se incluyeron 44 artículos. Resultados: No hay una técnica de imagen que tenga una resolución aceptable para seleccionar pacientes para linfadenectomía. La decisión de practicar linfadenectomía se basa en las características clínicas descritas en nomogramas validados. La mediana del número de ganglios obtenidos oscila entre 5 y 21 dependiendo de la extensión de la linfadenectomía, y la tasa de ganglios positivos es tan alta como el 37% dependiendo de la estratificación del riesgo de los pacientes. La cirugía asistida por robot puede realizarse con cualquier extensión con un número de ganglios obtenidos y aspectos de seguridad comparables con el abordaje abierto. Conclusión: Se recomienda realizar la linfadenectomía pélvica extendida en el momento de la PRAR en pacientes de riesgo intermedio y alto y no puede reemplazarse por otras modalidades. Sigue por establecerse un beneficio en términos de resultados oncológicos. El abordaje asistido por robot ofrece estancias hospitalarias más cortas, menores tasas de transfusión y resultados comparables en comparación con otros abordajes quirúrgicos