The prognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with testicular cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential prognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in testicular cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 80 patients with testicular cancer treated at our institution from 2005 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Age, tumor markers, stage and histotype at final pathology, eventual medical treatment, tumor recurrence and follow-up data were extracted. The NLR was retrospectively calculated from blood tests. Data were analyzed by medians comparison, linear correlation, univariate and multivariate Cox regression and survival curve analysis. RESULTS: Population's median age was 33 years and median follow-up was 40.5 months. Overall, the median NLR was significantly reduced after orchiectomy (2.2 [1.55-3.09] vs. 1.77 [1.34-2.46], M-W P<0.001). Post-orchiectomy NLR was higher in patients who had disease recurrence (2.51;IQ 1.84-3.74 vs 1.59; IQ 1.10-2.24; M-W P=0.001), regardless of disease's stage: HR=1,85 (95%CI 0,99-3,46) and HR=1,91 (95%CI 0,96-3,78) for stage disease I or stage II, respectively. After stratification of patients by post-orchiectomy NLR (optimal cut-off: 2.255), patients with lower NLR had significantly longer recurrence-free survival (107.7 months [95%CI 97,7-119,2] vs. 57.65 months [95%CI 48,2-81,1], P<0.001). Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, showed post-orchiectomy NLR, histotype at final pathology and disseminated disease at diagnosis as predictors of recurrence. CONCLUSION: NLR is a simple and wildly available biomarker. Higher post-orchiectomy NLR was found independently correlated to higher risk of recurrence, regardless of disease stage, which could potentially lead to a worse prognosis.

Perineal approach for rectourethral fistulae after radical laparoscopic prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our experience with the perineal approach to treat rectourethral fistulae (RUF) after radical laparoscopic prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study from 2012 to 2015 presenting 5 cases of RUF after radical laparoscopic prostatectomy. All cases required major abdominal surgery between the radical laparoscopic prostatectomy and the RUF treatment due to various complications. In no case was radiation therapy indicated prior to or after the repair. A perineal approach was performed in the 5 cases as the first option. One case required a second operation with a combined approach (abdominal and perineal) due to persistent fistulae. RESULTS: After a minimum of 12 months of follow-up, 5 cases had resolved the RUF. Two patients presented urinary incontinence, and one patient had an anastomotic stricture that required internal urethrotomy. The other patients had no long-term complications. CONCLUSION: The perineal approach provides a healthy surgical field in patients who undergo multiple operations, achieving high rates of resolution of the fistulae.

Abordaje perineal de fístulas rectouretrales tras prostatectomía radical laparoscópica / Perineal approach for rectourethral fistulae after radical laparoscopic prostatectomy

Objetivo: Describir nuestra experiencia con el abordaje perineal para el tratamiento de las fístulas rectouretrales (FRU) tras prostatectomía radical laparoscópica. Materiales y métodos: Realizamos un estudio retrospectivo desde el año 2012 al 2015 presentando 5 casos de FRU tras prostatectomía radical laparoscópica. Todos los casos requirieron cirugías abdominales mayores entre la prostatectomía radical laparoscópica y el tratamiento de la FRU a causa de complicaciones varias. En ningún caso se indicó radioterapia previa o posterior a la reparación. Se realizó abordaje perineal en los 5 casos como primera opción. Un caso requirió una segunda intervención con abordaje combinado (abdominal y perineal) por persistencia de la fístula. Resultados: Tras un mínimo de 12 meses de seguimiento en los 5 casos se ha resuelto la FRU. 2 pacientes presentaron incontinencia urinaria y uno estenosis de la anastomosis que requirió uretrotomía interna. El resto no ha mostrado complicaciones a largo plazo. Conclusión: El abordaje perineal permite un campo quirúrgico sano en pacientes multioperados, obteniendo altas tasas de resolución de la fístula

Objective: To describe our experience with the perineal approach to treat rectourethral fistulae (RUF) after radical laparoscopic prostatectomy. Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective study from 2012 to 2015 presenting 5 cases of RUF after radical laparoscopic prostatectomy. All cases required major abdominal surgery between the radical laparoscopic prostatectomy and the RUF treatment due to various complications. In no case was radiation therapy indicated prior to or after the repair. A perineal approach was performed in the 5 cases as the first option. One case required a second operation with a combined approach (abdominal and perineal) due to persistent fistulae. Results: After a minimum of 12 months of follow-up, 5 cases had resolved the RUF. Two patients presented urinary incontinence, and one patient had an anastomotic stricture that required internal urethrotomy. The other patients had no long-term complications. Conclusion: The perineal approach provides a healthy surgical field in patients who undergo multiple operations, achieving high rates of resolution of the fistulae