[Systemic treatment of bladder cancer]. / Blasenkarzinomsystemtherapie.

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens represent the standard of care in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. However, many patients are ineligible for cisplatin due to comorbidities or performance status. Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) has become a well-established treatment alternative in metastatic bladder cancer. The following review discusses current literature and guideline recommendations based on two case studies, in order to provide practical know-how about therapy sequences and treatment processes.

Miniaturized percutaneous Nephrolithotomy without antibiotic prophylaxis: a single institution experience.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of sparing routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients without preoperative urinary tract infection (UTI) undergoing a miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective, monocentric study was conducted to evaluate the outcome of a modified perioperative antibiotic management strategy according to the principles of antibiotic stewardship (ABS). From December 2015 patients undergoing mPCNL for kidney stone with preoperative unremarkable urine culture no longer received an antibiotic prophylaxis (NoPAP). The NoPAP group was compared to mPCNL patients who received standard antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in the two years before. Analysis focused on postoperative complications. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify potential risk factors. RESULTS: Postoperative fever occurred in 8% of the NoPAP and 9% of the PAP patients (p = 0.764). Clavien 1-3 complications did not differ between groups with 33% in the NoPAP and 41% in the PAP (p = 0.511). No Clavien 4-5 complications were seen. A (partial) staghorn stone (HR 5.587; p = 0.019) and an infectious stone component (HR 6.313; p = 0.003) were identified as significant risk factors for postoperative fever. By sparing routine antibiotic prophylaxis the overall antibiotic usage was reduced from 100% (PAP) to 9% (NoPAP). CONCLUSION: Patients with negative preoperative UC, a none-staghorn stone and no history of recurrent UTI or infectious stones may not need routine antibiotic prophylaxis prior to mPCNL. A prospective validation is warranted.

[Shock wave lithotripsy in Germany: Results of a nationwide survey]. / Stoßwellenlithotripsie in Deutschland: Ergebnisse einer deutschlandweiten Umfrage.

BACKGROUND: Following its introduction in the 1980s extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) became the gold standard for therapy of ureteral and renal calculi. The research data published during the last decade suggest a paradigm shift to endourological techniques. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare whether the suggested loss of status for SWL corresponds with actual real-life treatment in Germany. A further aim was to assess the quality of SWL therapy in German hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The board of the German Society for Shock Wave Lithotripsy (DGSWL) sent a questionnaire to 306 urological departments in Germany, which encompassed medical, technical and organizational topics in the therapy of ureteral and renal calculi. A total of 99 (33%) questionnaires were returned. CONCLUSION: With the exception of a few departments, non-invasive SWL still plays a major role in the treatment of urolithiasis and a loss of the gold standard status is not in sight. The performance of SWL in German hospitals is carried out at a high level of quality. To maintain and optimize this status a structured SWL training and adherence to clinical practice guidelines are needed.

Incidence and risk factors of renal hematoma: a prospective study of 1,300 SWL treatments.

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the gold standard for the treatment of upper urinary tract stones. Despite being relatively non-invasive, SWL can cause renal hematoma (RHT). The aim of this study was to determine incidence and risk factors for RHT following SWL. 857 patients were included in a prospectively maintained database. The observation period spans from 2007 to 2012. 1,324 procedures were performed due to kidney stones. Treatment protocol included power ramping and shock wave frequency of 60-90 per minute as well as an ultrasound check within 3 days of SWL for all patients. Patients with RHT were analyzed, and treatment characteristics were compared with the complete population in a non-statistical manner due to the low event count. RHTs after SWL, sized between 2.6 × 0.6 cm and 17 × 15 cm, were verified in seven patients (0.53%). In four patients, the RHT was asymptomatic. Three patients developed pain after SWL treatment due to a RHT. In one patient surgical intervention was necessary due to a symptomatic RHT, the kidney was preserved. The risk of RHT following SWL treatment of kidney stones is about 0.5%. Clinically relevant or symptomatic RHTs occur in 0.23%, RHTs requiring surgical intervention are extremely rare. Older age and vascular comorbidities appear to be risk factors for the development of RHT. The technical characteristics of SWL treatment and intake of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid due to an imperative cardiologic indication do not appear to influence the risk. Prospective studies are warranted.