Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters








Language
Year range
1.
Int. braz. j. urol ; 49(5): 580-589, Sep.-Oct. 2023. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1506417

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Objective: To report outcomes from the largest multicenter series of penile cancer patients undergoing video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL). Materials and Methods: Retrospective multicenter analysis. Authors of 21 centers from the Penile Cancer Collaborative Coalition-Latin America (PeC-LA) were included. All centers performed the procedure following the same previously described standardized technique. Inclusion criteria included penile cancer patients with no palpable lymph nodes and intermediate/high-risk disease and those with non-fixed palpable lymph nodes less than 4 cm in diameter. Categorical variables are shown as percentages and frequencies whereas continuous variables as mean and range. Results: From 2006 to 2020, 210 VEIL procedures were performed in 105 patients. Mean age was 58 (45-68) years old. Mean operative time was 90 minutes (60-120). Mean lymph node yield was 10 nodes (6-16). Complication rate was 15.7%, including severe complications in 1.9% of procedures. Lymphatic and skin complications were noted in 8.6 and 4.8% of patients, respectively. Histopathological analysis revealed lymph node involvement in 26.7% of patients with non-palpable nodes. Inguinal recurrence was observed in 2.8% of patients. 10y- overall survival was 74.2% and 10-y cancer specific survival was 84.8%. CSS for pN0, pN1, pN2 and pN3 were 100%, 82.4%, 72.7% and 9.1%, respectively. Conclusion: VEIL seems to offer appropriate long term oncological control with minimal morbidity. In the absence of non-invasive stratification measures such as dynamic sentinel node biopsy, VEIL emerged as the alternative for the management of non-bulky lymph nodes in penile cancer.

2.
Int. braz. j. urol ; 39(3): 328-334, May/June/2013. tab
Article in English | LILACS | ID: lil-680090

ABSTRACT

Purpose Little is known about the effects of literacy levels on prostate cancer screening. This study evaluates the association between literacy, compliance with screening, and biopsy findings in a large Brazilian screening study. Materials and Methods We analyzed 17,571 men screened for PCa with digital rectal examination (DRE) and total and free prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from January 2004 to December 2007. Of those, 17,558 men had information regarding literate status. Full urological evaluation in a specialized cancer center was recommended in the case of: a) suspicious DRE, b) PSA > 4.0 ng/mL, or c) PSA 2.5-3.9 ng/mL and free/total PSA (f/tPSA) ratio < 15%. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (14 cores) was performed upon confirmation of these findings after the patient's consent. Patients' compliance with screening recommendations and biopsy results were evaluated according to literacy levels. Results an abnormal PSA, a suspicious DRE, or both were present in 73.2%, 19.7%, and 7.1% of those men who underwent biopsy, respectively. PCa was diagnosed in 652 men (3.7%). Previous PSAs or DREs were less common among illiterate men (p < 0.0001). Additionally, illiterate men were less prone to attend to further evaluations due to an abnormal PSA or DRE (p < 0.0001). PSA levels > 10 mg/mL (p = 0.03), clinical stage > T2a (p = 0.005), and biopsy Gleason > 7 (p = 0.02) were more common among illiterate men. Conclusions In a screened population, literacy levels were associated with prior PCa evaluations and with compliance with screening protocols. Illiterate men were at higher risk of being diagnosed with more advanced and aggressive PCa. .


Subject(s)
Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Health Literacy , Mass Screening/methods , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Biopsy , Brazil , Digital Rectal Examination , Educational Status , Neoplasm Grading , Predictive Value of Tests , Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Risk Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL