Diagnostic concordance between traditional and digital workflows. A study on 1427 prostate biopsies.

Objective: To evaluate intra-observer diagnostic reproducibility using traditional slides (TS) versus whole slide images (WSI). Methods: TS and WSI of 1427 prostatic biopsies (107 consecutive patients) were evaluated by a single pathologist. Agreement between readings was evaluated with Gwet's Agreement coefficient (AC) and Landis and Koch benchmark scale. Results: The positive/negative agreement between the readings was almost perfect (AC1= 0.962; 95% CI[0.949,0.974]), with method independent distribution of discrepancies. Among positive biopsies, 212 had identical Gleason score (GS) on TS and WSI and discordant GS in 69 cases (AC2 = 0.932; 95% CI[0.907, 0.956]). Concordant negative and positive patient classification was observed in 39 and 64 cases, respectively; two cases were assigned to the positive group on TS and 2 on WSI configuring an almost perfect agreement (AC1=0.929; 95% C1[0.860, 0.998]). ISUP Grade group (ISUP GG) agreement was evaluated in the 60 concordantly positive cases: in 45 cases it was identical on TS and WSI; in 10 biopsies the discrepancy implied a modification of the assigned ISUP GG of ≤ 1 class and in 5 the discrepancy implied a modification of 2 classes. Gwet's agreement coefficient was (95% CI [0.834, 0.962]), i.e.: almost perfect agreement. Conclusions: Our data show almost perfect agreement between digital and traditional diagnostic activity in a routine setting, confirming that digital pathology can be safely introduced into routine workflows.

Comparison of GreenLight 180-W XPS laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate: Outcomes of a single regional center.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the intermediate perioperative outcomes, rate of complications and functional data after XPS 180-W Greenlight photoselective laser vaporization (PVP) compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in a prospective non-randomized single centre study. METHODS: We analyzed a prospectively-maintained database collecting data on 100 patients undergoing surgical treatment of BPH (50 consecutive PVP and 50 consecutive TURP). All complications, recorded and graduated according to the Clavien Dindo system and the clinical, operative, perioperative variables were compared. The functional outcomes, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), max flow rate (Qmax) and Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), were recorded preoperatively and at 1 year of follow up. RESULTS: Age, prostate volume, use of anticoagulants or antiplatelets, ASA score and operative time were comparable in the two groups. The reduction in the hemoglobin levels (0.46 vs 1.8 g/dL), the catheterization time (1.2 vs 3.2 days), the hospital stay (1.7 vs 3.8 days) and rate of transfused patients (0 vs 8%), were significantly lower for PVP. Transient re-catherization (6 vs 26%) was significantly lower for PVP. The IPSS and Qmax at 1 year showed no significant difference. The rate of repeat TURP/PVP was higher in the TURP group (0 vs 10%). Reduction of PSA, that reflects the major reduction of prostate volume, was statistically greater in PVP group respect TURP group (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PVP has advantages in terms of perioperative safety and major complications than TURP. Functional outcomes at 1 year of follow-up were comparable.

Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Comparative Analysis of the Surgical Outcomes in a Single Regional Center.

BACKGROUND: To compare the surgical outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) performed via 3 different approaches: retropubic (RRP), laparoscopic-assisted (LRP), and robot-assisted (RARP), in a single non-academic regional center by a single surgeon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of patients undergoing RP from 2005 to 2014 were reviewed. The standard approach changed through the years: RRP (n = 380, years 2005 to 2008), LRP (n = 240, years 2009 to 2011), and RARP (n = 262, years 2012 to 2014). Our analysis included the last consecutive 100 RP for each surgical technique by a single surgeon. A logistic regression model adjusted for pre-and postoperative variables was done to evaluate whether transfusion, conversion, and post-operative complication rates were influenced by the approach. RESULTS: RARP was associated with significantly lower blood loss (400 vs. 600 and 600 ml, respectively), transfusion (6 vs. 21 and 21%, respectively), and shorter hospital stay (6 vs. 7 and 8 days, respectively), compared to LRP and RRP, and a lower conversion rate (1 vs. 12%) compared to LRP. Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounders confirmed that the risk of transfusion and conversion was significantly lower in the RARP group compared to the LRP and RRP groups. The RARP group was also associated with a significantly lower risk of complications compared to the RRP group and with a trend in favor of the RARP group compared to the LRP group. The 1-year continence rate was significantly higher in the RARP group compared to the RRP and LRP groups (80 vs. 72 and 68%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The surgical approach affected the operative outcomes in a regional setting. The advantages of RARP over RRP (complications, transfusion, conversion, hospital stay, 1-year continence) were over LRP as well, with the only exception being complications.

Early impact of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy on renal function as assessed by renal scintigraphy.

To measure the early impact of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) on renal function as assessed by renal scan (Tc 99m-DTPA), addressing the issue of risk factors for ischemic damage to the kidney. All patients undergoing RAPN for cT1 renal masses between June 2013 and May 2014 were included in this prospective study. Renal function as expressed by glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was assessed by Technetium 99m-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (Tc 99m-DTPA) renal scan preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 month in every patient. A multivariable analysis was used for the determination of independent factors predictive of GFR decrease of the operated kidney. Overall, 32 patients underwent RAPN in the time interval. Median tumor size, blood loss, and ischemia time were 4 cm, 200 mL, and 24 min, respectively. Two grade III complications occurred (postoperative bleeding in the renal fossa, urinoma). The GFR of the operated kidney decreased significantly from 51.7 ± 15.1 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) preoperatively to 40, 12 ± 12.4 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) 1 month postoperatively (p = 0.001) with a decrease of 22.4 %. On multivariable analysis, only tumor size (p = 0.05) was a predictor of GFR decrease of the operated kidney. Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy had a detectable impact on early renal function in a series of relatively large tumors and prevailing intermediate nephrometric risk. A mean decrease of 22 % of GFR as assessed by renal scan in the operated kidney was found at 1 month postoperatively. In multivariable analysis, tumor size only was a significant predictor of renal function loss.

Operative safety and oncologic outcome of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma >7 cm: a multicenter study of 222 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) >7 cm, addressing the issue of modality and risk factors for complications and open conversion, and to assess the oncologic outcome. METHODS: The data of 222 patients undergoing LRN for RCC >7 cm prospectively enrolled from 2002 to 2010 at 5 urologic centers were reviewed. Transperitoneal LRN was performed by 5 experienced laparoscopic surgeons. The Clavien-Dindo classification was used to assess complications. Multivariable analysis of factors predictive of conversions was performed. Oncologic outcomes for survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Median tumor size was 8.5 cm, operative time was 180 minutes, and blood loss was 280 mL. Forty-two patients (19%) received a blood transfusion. Six (2.7%) patients had grade III-IV complications: 2 with postoperative bleeding requiring abdominal re-exploration and 1 each with adrenal injury, splenic injury, wound diastasis, and respiratory insufficiency. Twelve patients (5.4%) were converted to open surgery. The diameter was 11.9 in converted groups and 8.5 cm in nonconverted groups (P = .001). Multivariable analysis revealed that pathologic stage was the only independent predictor of conversion (P = .002). The 5-year overall (OS), cancer-specific (CSS), and progression-free (PFS) survival was 74%, 78%, and 66%, respectively. The 5-year stage-adjusted CSS was 89% in pT2 and 40% in pT3 patients (P <.0001). Limitations of this study were its retrospective nature and the relatively short follow-up period for oncologic outcome. CONCLUSION: LRN for large RCC is a safe operation. Stage pT3 is a risk factor for open conversion and is associated to significantly lower cancer-specific survival compared with pT2 stage.