Accuracy of Elastic Fusion of Prostate Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images under Routine Conditions: A Prospective Multi-Operator Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate in unselected patients imaged under routine conditions the co-registration accuracy of elastic fusion between magnetic resonance (MR) and ultrasound (US) images obtained by the Koelis Urostation™. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively included 15 consecutive patients referred for placement of intraprostatic fiducials before radiotherapy and who gave written informed consent by signing the Institutional Review Board-approved forms. Three fiducials were placed in the prostate under US guidance in standardized positions (right apex, left mid-gland, right base) using the Koelis Urostation™. Patients then underwent prostate MR imaging. Four operators outlined the prostate on MR and US images and an elastic fusion was retrospectively performed. Fiducials were used to measure the overall target registration error (TRE3D), the error along the antero-posterior (TREAP), right-left (TRERL) and head-feet (TREHF) directions, and within the plane orthogonal to the virtual biopsy track (TRE2D). RESULTS: Median TRE3D and TRE2D were 3.8-5.6 mm, and 2.5-3.6 mm, respectively. TRE3D was significantly influenced by the operator (p = 0.013), fiducial location (p = 0.001) and 3D axis orientation (p<0.0001). The worst results were obtained by the least experienced operator. TRE3D was smaller in mid-gland and base than in apex (average difference: -1.21 mm (95% confidence interval (95%CI): -2.03; -0.4) and -1.56 mm (95%CI: -2.44; -0.69) respectively). TREAP and TREHF were larger than TRERL (average difference: +1.29 mm (95%CI: +0.87; +1.71) and +0.59 mm (95%CI: +0.1; +0.95) respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Registration error values were reasonable for clinical practice. The co-registration accuracy was significantly influenced by the operator's experience, and significantly poorer in the antero-posterior direction and at the apex.

Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Nephrectomy for Big Tumors (≥ 10 cm): A Retrospective Multicentric Study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic nephrectomy for big tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from 116 patients were retrospectively collected from 16 tertiary centres. Clinical and operative parameters, tumor characteristics, pre- and postoperative parameters, and renal function before and after surgery were analyzed. RESULTS: Mean age and body mass index were 61 years and 27.8 kg/m(2), respectively. Males represented 63.8% of patients, and 54.4% presented symptoms at diagnosis. Median tumor size was 11 cm, and 75% of the cases were performed by expert surgeons. Median operative time and blood loss were 180 minutes and 200 mL respectively. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 20.7% of cases. Intraoperative complications related to massive hemorrhage occurred in 16.4% of patients, resulting in open conversion in 62.5%. Major postoperative complications occurred in only 10 patients (8.6%). In univariate analysis, intraoperative complications, age, and blood loss were predictive factors of conversion to open surgery. Positive surgical margins occurred in 6 patients (5.2%). None of them presented a local recurrence. Predictive factors of recurrence or progression were lymph node invasion, metastases, and Furhman grade. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic nephrectomy for tumors > 10 cm can be performed safely. Complication rate and positive surgical margins are similar to open surgery. In experienced hands, the benefit of a mini invasive surgery remains evident.

Decreased Radiation Exposure and Increased Efficacy in Extracorporeal Lithotripsy Using a New Ultrasound Stone Locking System.

PURPOSE: To compare fluoroscopy duration, radiation dose, and efficacy of two ultrasound stone localization systems during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Monocentric prospective data were obtained from patients consecutively treated for renal stones using the Sonolith(®) i-sys (EDAP TMS) lithotripter, with fluoroscopy combined with ultrasound localization using an "outline" Automatic Ultrasound Positioning Support (AUPS) (group A), or the "free-line" Visio-Track (VT) (EDAP-TMS) hand-held three-dimensional ultrasound stone locking system (group B). Efficacy rate was defined as the within-groups proportion stone free or with partial stone fragmentation not needing additional procedures. Statistical analysis used Pearson chi-square tests for categoric variables, nonparametric Mann-Whitney tests for continuous variables, and linear regression for operator learning curve with VT. Continuous variables were reported as median (range) values. RESULTS: Patients in group A (n=73) and group B (n=81) were comparable in baseline characteristics (age, kidney stone size, others) and in SWL application (duration, number of shocks, energy [Joules]). During SWL, the median (range) duration (seconds) of radiation exposure was 159.5 (0-690) in group A and 3.5 (0-478) in group B (P<0.001) and irradiation dose (mGy.cm(2)), 10598 (0-54843) in group A and 163 (0-13926) in group B (P<0.001). Fluoroscopy time significantly decreased with operator experience using VT. The efficacy rate was 54.5% in group A and 79.5% in group B (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: VT significantly reduced fluoroscopy use during SWL and the duration and dose of patient exposure to ionizing radiation. Stone treatment efficacy was significantly greater with VT mainly because of a better real-time monitoring of the stone.

Complications after artificial urinary sphincter implantation in patients with or without prior radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare complications after implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in patients with or without prior radiotherapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2000 and December 2011, 160 patients underwent AMS 800 AUS implantation in our institution. We excluded neurological and traumatic causes, implantation on ileal conduit diversion, penoscrotal urethral cuff position and those lost to follow-up. In all, 122 patients were included in the study, 61 with prior RT and 61 without prior RT. All patients underwent the same surgical technique by two different surgeons. All AUS were implanted with a bulbar urethral cuff position. The mean (range) follow-up was 37.25 (1-126) months. RESULTS: In the patients without prior RT and those with prior RT, revision rates were 32.8% vs 29.5%, respectively (P = 0.59). The median time to first revision was 11.7 months. Early complications were similar in the two groups (4.9% vs 6.5%, P = 1). Erosion rates were not significantly different (4.9% vs 13.1%, P = 0.13). However, infection and explantation were more prevalent in patients with prior RT [two (3.2%) vs 10 (16.3%), P = 0.018 and three (4.9%) vs 12 (19.6%), P = 0.016, respectively]. Finally, continence rates were not significantly different [75.4% (without prior RT) vs 63.9% (with prior RT), P = 0.23]. CONCLUSION: AUS is the 'gold standard' treatment of male urinary incontinence after re-education failure in patients with or without prior RT. Our experience showed similar functional outcomes in both groups but a higher rate of major complications in the group with prior RT.

The role of American Society of Anesthesiologists scores in predicting urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract outcome after radical nephroureterectomy: results from a national multi-institutional collaborative study.

UNLABELLED: Study Type--Prognosis (cohort) Level of Evidence 2b. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UUT-UC) is a rare disease, usually treated by nephroureterectomy, occurring in a population with a median age of 70 years and with frequent tobacco use and other comorbidities. We know that the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score has prognostic value in urological oncology but this has not been assessed in UUT-UC. Using a multi-institutional French database, we have shown that the 5-year cancer-specific survival differed significantly between ASA 1, ASA 2 and ASA 3 patients (83.8%, 76.9% and 70.6%, respectively; P = 0.01). ASA status had a significant impact on cancer-specific survival in univariate and multivariate analyses, with a threefold higher risk of mortality at 5 years for ASA 3 compared with ASA 1 patients (P = 0.04). OBJECTIVE: • To evaluate the impact of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores on the survival of patients treated with radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UUT-UC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: • A retrospective multi-institutional cohort study of the French collaborative national database of UUT-UC treated by RNU in 20 centres from 1995 to 2010. • The influence of age, gender and ASA score on survival was assessed using a univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis with pathological features used as covariables. RESULTS: • Overall, 554 patients were included. The median follow-up was 26 months (10-48 months), and the median age was 69.5 years (61-76 years). In total, 114 (20.6%) patients were classified as ASA 1, 326 (58.8%) as ASA 2 and 114 (20.6%) as ASA 3. • The 5-year recurrence-free survival (P = 0.21) and metastasis-free survival (P = 0.22) were not significantly different between ASA 1 (52.8% and 76%), ASA 2 (51.9% and 75.3%) and ASA 3 patients (44.1% and 68.2%, respectively). • The 5-year cancer-specific survival differed significantly between ASA 1, ASA 2 and ASA 3 patients (83.8%, 76.9% and 70.6%, respectively; P = 0.01). • ASA status had a significant impact on cancer-specific survival in univariate and multivariate analyses, with a threefold higher risk of mortality at 5 years for ASA 3 compared with ASA 1 patients (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: • ASA classification correlates significantly with cancer-specific survival after RNU for UUT-UC. • It is a further pre-operative clinical variable that can be incorporated into future risk prediction tools for UUT-UC to improve their accuracy.

Comparison of oncological outcomes after segmental ureterectomy or radical nephroureterectomy in urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract: results from a large French multicentre study.

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinomas (UUT-UCs) are rare tumours. Because of the aggressive pattern of UC, radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) with bladder cuff removal remains the 'gold-standard' treatment. However, conservative strategies, such as segmental ureterectomy (SU) or endourological management, have also been developed in patients with imperative indications. Some teams are now advocating the use of conservative management more commonly in cases of elective indications of UUT-UCs. Due to the paucity of cases of UUT-UC, only limited data are available on the oncological outcomes afforded by conservative management. We retrospectively investigated the oncological outcomes after SU and RNU in a large multi-institutional database. Overall, 52 patients were treated with SU and 416 with RNU. There was no statistical difference between the RNU and SU groups for the 5-year probability of cancer-specific survival, recurrence-free survival and metastasis-free survival. The type of surgery was not a significant prognostic factor in univariate analysis. The results were the same in a subgroup analysis of only unifocal tumours of the distal ureter with a diameter of <2 cm and of low stage (≤T2). Our results suggest that oncological outcomes after conservative treatment with SU are comparable to RNU for the management of UUT-UC in select cases. OBJECTIVE: To compare recurrence-free survival (RFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) after segmental ureterectomy (SU) vs radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for urothelial carcinoma (UC) of the upper urinary tract (UUT-UC) located in the ureter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional retrospective review of patients with UUT-UC who had undergone RNU or SU between 1995 and 2010. Type of surgery, Tumour-Node-Metastasis status, tumour grade, lymphovascular invasion and positive surgical margin were tested as prognostic factors for survival. RESULTS: In all, 52 patients were treated with SU and 416 with RNU. The median (range) follow-up was 26 (10-48) months. The 5-year probability of CSS, RFS and MFS for SU and RNU were 87.9% and 86.3%, respectively (P = 0.99); 37% and 47.9%, respectively (P = 0.48); 81.9% and 85.4%, respectively (P = 0.51). In univariable analysis, type of surgery (SU vs RNU) failed to affect CSS, RFS and MFS (P = 0.94, 0.42 and 0.53, respectively). In multivariable analyses, pT stage and pN stage achieved independent predictor status for CSS (P = 0.005 and 0.007, respectively); the positive surgical margin and pT stage were independent prognostic factors of RFS and MFS (P = 0.001, 0.04, 0.009 and 0.001, respectively). The main limitation of the study is its retrospective design, which is due to the rarity of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term oncological outcomes after conservative treatment with SU are comparable to RNU for the management of UUT-UC in select cases and should be considered an option. In every other case, RNU still represents the 'gold standard' for the treatment of UUT-UC.

Assessment of oncologic control obtained after open versus laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinomas (UUT-UCs): results from a large French multicenter collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the postsurgical survival of UUT-UC patients treated with ONU and LNU. METHODS: Using a multi-institutional, national, retrospective database, we identified patients with UUT-UC who underwent radical nephroureterectomy by open access (ONU) or by the minimally invasive alternative (LNU). Survival curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariate Cox model was used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and disease recurrence. RESULTS: Overall, 609 patients were included (ONU = 459 and LNU = 150). The median age was 69.8 years (range 61.9-76), and the male-to-female ratio was 2:1. Postoperative complications occurred in 80 patients, with no significant difference between ONU and LNU on the whole (P = 0.64). The median follow-up was 27 months. There was no difference between the 2 procedures in the 5-year CSS or 5-year RFS. Moreover, the 5-year CSS (P = 0.053) and 5-year RFS (P = 0.9) for cases with locally advanced disease (pT3/pT4) were similar between ONU and LNU. In the multivariate analysis, the surgical procedure used was not found to be associated with survival. The main limitation of the study is its retrospective design, which is the result of the rarity of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that oncological outcomes for LNU are inferior to those for open surgery, provided that the appropriate precautionary measures are taken.