Molecular aspects of bladder cancer / Aspectos moleculares do câncer de bexiga

One of the most important objectives of genetic markers of cancer will be the possible identification of individuals at greatest risk in order to allow better management and prognosis. Many urological tumors were associated to various types of gene alterations with a great number of genes involved in the process, hindering gene therapy. This treatment uses specific techniques and one or several genes are manipulated in the laboratory in order to induce molecular alterations that may block the oncogenic process. The article addresses these issues emphasizing the importance of the new molecular biology techniques.

Um dos mais importantes objetivos dos marcadores genéticos para o câncer será a possível identificação do indivíduo com maior risco de doença, permitindo melhor conduta e prognóstico. Nos casos dos tumores urológicos, vários tumores têm sido relacionados a vários tipos de alterações genéticas, com um grande número de genes envolvidos, que dificulta muito a terapia gênica que é o processo no qual, por meio de técnicas específicas, gene ou genes são manipulados em laboratório para provocar alterações moleculares capazes de bloquear o processo oncogênico. O presente artigo aborda essas questões enfatizando a importância do advento das novas técnicas de biologia molecular.

Molecular aspects of bladder cancer.

One of the most important objectives of genetic markers of cancer will be the possible identification of individuals at greatest risk in order to allow better management and prognosis. Many urological tumors were associated to various types of gene alterations with a great number of genes involved in the process, hindering gene therapy. This treatment uses specific techniques and one or several genes are manipulated in the laboratory in order to induce molecular alterations that may block the oncogenic process. The article addresses these issues emphasizing the importance of the new molecular biology techniques.

Comparative analysis of radical prostatectomy techniques using perineal or suprapubic approach in the treatment of localized prostate cancer / Análise comparativa das técnicas de prostatectomia radical perineal e suprapúbica na abordagem do câncer de próstata localizado

Objective: To compare the results of radical prostatectomy by perineal and suprapubic approaches as to operative time, procedure costs, and surgical site complications. Methods: The medical records of localized prostate cancer patients (PSA less than or equal to 10 ng/ml and Gleason score less than or equal to 6) were analyzed. Fifty-five patients were submitted to radical prostatectomy by perineal approach and 54 via suprapubic approach. Results: There were statistical differences between groups as to operative time (p < 0.05); for perineal approach it was in average 114 minutes (SD ± 0.03) and for suprapubic approach, an average of 167 minutes (SD ± 0.041). Prostatectomy via perineal approach resulted in 11 cases of surgical complications, and suprapubic approach, 3 cases. Conclusions: Radical prostatectomy via perineal approach took less time at a lower cost as compared to the suprapubic approach. However, there were more complications in patients submitted to perineal approach, mainly rectal lesions.

Objetivo: Comparar os resultados da prostatectomia radical por acesso perineal e por via suprapúbica quanto ao tempo operatório, custo de realização do procedimento e complicações do sítio cirúrgico. Métodos: Foram analisados os prontuários de pacientes com câncer de próstata localizados (PSA menor ou igual a 10 ng/ml e escore de Gleason menor ou igual a 6) sendo 55 submetidos à técnica de prostatectomia perineal e 54 à técnica suprapúbica (PRSP). Resultados: Houve diferença estatística entre os grupos quanto ao tempo operatório (p < 0,05). O tempo médio para a realização de todo o ato operatório por acesso perineal foi 114 minutos em média (DP ± 0,03) e de 167 minutos em média (DP ± 0,041) quando empregado o acesso suprapúbico. O índice de complicações cirúrgicas decorrentes das prostatectomias realizadas foi de 11 casos na prostatectomia radical perineal e de 3 casos submetidos à técnica suprapúbica. Conclusões: A prostatectomia radical pelo acesso perineal foi realizada em menor tempo com menor custo do procedimento quando comparada à operação realizada pelo acesso suprapúbico. Entretanto, relacionou-se a maior incidência de complicações em comparação ao acesso suprapúbico, principalmente com relação à lesão retal.

Comparative analysis of radical prostatectomy techniques using perineal or suprapubic approach in the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of radical prostatectomy by perineal and suprapubic approaches as to operative time, procedure costs, and surgical site complications. METHODS: The medical records of localized prostate cancer patients (PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml and Gleason score ≤ 6) were analyzed. Fifty-five patients were submitted to radical prostatectomy by perineal approach and 54 via suprapubic approach. RESULTS: There were statistical differences between groups as to operative time (p < 0.05); for perineal approach it was in average 114 minutes (SD ± 0.03) and for suprapubic approach, an average of 167 minutes (SD ± 0.041). Prostatectomy via perineal approach resulted in 11 cases of surgical complications, and suprapubic approach, 3 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Radical prostatectomy via perineal approach took less time at a lower cost as compared to the suprapubic approach. However, there were more complications in patients submitted to perineal approach, mainly rectal lesions.