Practical approach to evaluating testicular status in infants and children.

OBJECTIVE: To review the differences between normal, retractile, ectopic, ascended, and undescended testes and to describe the optimal way to perform a testicular examination to distinguish one from the other, as well as to demonstrate that ultrasound imaging is not necessary and to clarify when to consider specialist referral. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: This paper is based on selected findings from a MEDLINE search on undescended testes and orchiopexy referrals, and on our experience at the Urology Clinic at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa, including review of referrals to our clinic for undescended testes and the resultant findings of normal variants versus surgical cases. The MeSH headings used in our MEDLINE search included undescended testicle, retractile testicle, ectopic testicle, ascended testicle, referral and consultation, and orchiopexy. MAIN MESSAGE: An undescended testis is defined as the true absence of one testis (or both testes) from normal scrotal position. Ectopic and ascended testes will likewise be absent from the scrotum, the latter having been present at one point in development. Differentiating among testicular examination findings is important, as descended and retractile testes are managed conservatively, while prompt surgical intervention should be offered for ascended, ectopic, and undescended testes. Uncertainty surrounding the diagnosis of an undescended testis causes anxiety, might lead to unwarranted imaging, and might increase the wait list for specialty assessment. For this reason, avoidance of ultrasound in the evaluation of undescended testes was included in the recent Choosing Wisely Canada campaign. We seek to clarify the physical examination findings in the evaluation of possible undescended testes, the suggested referral parameters, and the subsequent management. CONCLUSION: Undescended testes and their variants are common. As decision for referral is based on the primary care physician's physical examination findings, we clarify distinguishing between normal and abnormal findings on testicular examination to aid in appropriate referral for subspecialist evaluation. Consultation, if needed, should be sought at 6 months' corrected gestational age, or at detection if later than 6 months, without delay for ultrasound imaging, as surgical management is recommended for those patients with undescended, ectopic, or ascended testes.

Urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in a pediatric patient.

Urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in children and adolescents is rare. The World Health Organization database has recorded approximately 80 patients under age 16 that have been diagnosed with papillary bladder tumour since 1968.1 We are reporting on our case of urothelial carcinoma diagnosed in a 14-year-old male who presented with painless gross hematuria.

The impact of fellowship training on pathological outcomes following radical prostatectomy: a population based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common treatment for prostate cancer (PCa). Morbidity, mortality and pathological outcomes may be superior in academic institutions. One explanation may be the involvement of oncology fellowship trained urologists within academic institutions. The literature examining pathological outcomes often lacks individual surgeon data. The objective of this study was to compare pathological outcomes following RP between fellowship trained and non-fellowship trained urologists. METHODS: Population-based, retrospective chart review of men diagnosed with PCa between 2003 and 2008, the majority treated with open approach RP (>99%). Pathological outcomes were compared between oncology fellowship trained academic (FTA), non-fellowship trained academic (NFTA) and non-academic (NA) urologists. Relationships with pathological outcomes were examined utilizing multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 83.1% of eligible patients were included in our analysis resulting in 1075 patients. In multivariable analysis, surgeon group was an independent predictor of positive surgical margin (PSM) (p < 0.0001). NFTA and NA urologists were more likely to have PSM compared to FTA urologists (OR 2.50; 95% CI: 1.44-4.35 and OR 2.10; 95% CI: 1.53-2.88, respectively). However, the proportion of PSM between NFTA and NA urologists was not significant (p = 0.492). In addition, pathological stage (p = 0.0004), Gleason sum (p < 0.0001), and surgeon volume (p = 0.017) were associated with PSM. Limitations include retrospective design and lack of clinical and functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Uro-oncology fellowship trained surgeons had significantly lower rates of PSM than non-fellowship trained surgeons in this population based cohort. This study demonstrates the importance of surgeon-related variables on pathological outcomes and highlights the value of additional urologic oncology fellowship training.