Renal Cell Carcinoma and Kidney Transplantation: A Narrative Review.

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) are at increased risk of developing renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The cancer can be encountered at different steps in the transplant process. RCC found during work-up of a transplant candidate needs treatment and to limit the risk of recurrence usually a mandatory observation period before transplantation is recommended. An observation period may be omitted for candidates with incidentally discovered and excised small RCCs (<3 cm). Likewise, RCC in the donor organ may not always preclude usage if tumor is small (<2 to 4 cm) and removed with clear margins before transplantation. After transplantation, 90% of RCCs are detected in the native kidneys, particularly if acquired cystic kidney disease has developed during prolonged dialysis. Screening for RCC after transplantation has not been found cost-effective. Treatment of RCC in KTRs poses challenges with adjustments of immunosuppression and oncologic treatments. For localized RCC, excision or nephrectomy is often curative. For metastatic RCC, recent landmark trials in the nontransplanted population demonstrate that immunotherapy combinations improve survival. Dedicated trials in KTRs are lacking. Case series on immune checkpoint inhibitors in solid organ recipients with a range of cancer types indicate partial or complete tumor response in approximately one-third of the patients at the cost of rejection developing in ~40%.

Switching from laparoscopic radical prostatectomy to robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: comparing oncological outcomes and complications.

OBJECTIVES: To compare oncological outcomes and complication rates based on the Clavien classification between laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RALP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a prospective quality registry clinical data were consecutively entered for 544 LRP and 1081 RALP patients operated from 2003 to the end of 2012. Complications within 90 days postoperatively were assessed according to the Clavien classification and compared between LRP and RALP patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses of logistic regression were used to fit oncological outcomes and complication data. RESULTS: The mean operation time was 213 and 135 minutes in LRP and RALP patients, respectively. Pathological T3a stage (pT3a) in the RALP group was more frequent than in the LRP group, 32.4% versus 17.8%, respectively. For pT2 tumours, positive surgical margins (PSM) rate for LRP and RALP, was 20.3% vs 10.6%, respectively (p < .001). In the LRP group 74 patients (13.6%) reported 104 and in the RALP group 141 patients (13.0%) reported 177 complications (p = .75). Seventeen (3.1%) LRP patients and 15 (1.4%) RALP patients had Clavien grade IIIb complications (p = .017). Surgical reintervention was necessary in 14 patients (2.6%) and 17 patients (1.6%) in the LRP and RALP group, respectively (p = .04). CONCLUSION: Switching from LRP to RALP resulted in a much shorter operation time without compromising oncological outcome. There was no statistically significant difference in overall complication-rates between LRP and RALP. However, LRP patients had more serious complications and increased need for surgical reintervention compared to RALP patients.

Does preoperative magnetic resonance imaging reduce the rate of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in a randomised clinical trial?

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to help the surgeon tailor radical prostatectomy (RP) more accurately according to the location and extent of the tumour and thereby reduce the rate of positive surgical margins (PSMs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of performing MRI prior to RP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This single-institution randomised trial included 438 patients between December 2009 and June 2012 who were scheduled for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. The study was registered (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01347320). INTERVENTION: Patients were preoperatively randomly assigned to non-MRI or MRI groups. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary end point was the difference in the PSM rates between the two groups. Secondary end points were the rates of PSMs in clinical subgroups. Summary statistics were extracted from descriptive analyses, chi-square, or Fisher exact test, and logistic regression was used to analyse the data according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 216 patients were randomised to non-MRI; 222 were randomised to MRI. There were 49 cases (23%) of PSMs in the non-MRI group and 43 cases (19%) in the MRI group (p=0.4). The relative and absolute risk reduction was 15% and 4%, respectively. Patients with cT1 constituted 55% of the cohort, in which the rate of PSMs was 27% in the non-MRI group and 16% in the MRI group (p=0.035). The relative and absolute risk reduction was 41% and 11%, respectively. A limitation was suboptimal communication between the radiologist and urologist. CONCLUSIONS: MRI prior to RP did not reduce the overall risk for PSMs in this patient cohort. However, at subgroup analysis we observed a possible benefit of MRI in patients with cT1. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study could not demonstrate a definite benefit of performing magnetic resonance imaging before surgery for all patients. However, there was a possible improved result in patients in which physical examination could not detect the cancer.

A prospective study of transition from laparoscopic to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: quality of life outcomes after 36-month follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To compare quality of life (QOL) outcomes after conversion from laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) as the routine procedure for surgical treatment of localized cancer of the prostate (CaP). METHODS: In November 2007, we changed the routine operative technique for localized CaP from LRP to RALP. The last 210 consecutive patients operated with LRP were compared with the first 210 consecutive patients operated with RALP. The patients were mailed University of California Los Angeles-Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI) and Short Form Health Survey (SF)-12 questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 12, and 36-month follow-up. RESULTS: In the LRP group, 89.0%, 93.8%, 93.8%, and 88.1% of patients answered questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 12, and 36-month follow-up. The corresponding numbers in the RALP group were 92.4%, 94.3%, 85.7%, and 76.4%. At 36-month follow-up, 87.9% and 82.6% of LRP and RALP patients, respectively, had regained baseline urinary function score (ns). At 36-month follow-up, 57.3% and 61.3% of LRP and RALP patients, respectively, had regained baseline sexual function score (ns). Nerve-sparing surgical procedures mitigated the adverse effects on sexual function in both groups. Surgical method was not associated with urinary function and sexual function at 36 months. Better urinary function was associated with better general mental health. CONCLUSION: Introduction of RALP did not result in improvement of functional outcome. There was no difference regarding urologic function/bother score or sexual function/bother score at 36-month follow-up in patients treated with LRP or RALP.

Five-year progression-free survival in 577 patients operated on with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) was introduced in the Department of Urology, Oslo University Hospital, in 2002. The aim of this study was to report mid-term oncology results and survival data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From February 2002 to November 2007, 582 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer underwent LRP. Data were collected prospectively into a database. RESULTS: Mean and median follow-up after LRP was 30.3 months (± 15.5) and 36.0 months (range 3-72). Five patients (1%) were lost during follow-up. Two patients died of prostate cancer during the study period and 10 patients died of other causes. The overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was 29% and decreased to 13% for the last 100 patients. The overall PSA progression-free survival (PFS) was 85% at 3 years and 73% at 5 years. Gleason score in the tumour specimen, pT stage and surgical margins were statistical significant independent predictors of biochemical PFS. CONCLUSION: These oncology results and 5-year PFS data after LRP are in line with other reports.

Efficacy and safety of short-term genistein intervention in patients with localized prostate cancer prior to radical prostatectomy: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind Phase 2 clinical trial.

We conducted a placebo-controlled, block-randomized double-blind Phase 2 study to examine the effect of 30 mg synthetic genistein daily on serum and tissue biomarkers in patients with localized prostate cancer (CaP). Fifty-four study subjects were recruited and randomized to treatment with genistein (n = 23) or placebo (n = 24) for 3 to 6 wk prior to prostatectomy. Seven study subjects were noncompliant to the study protocol. Adverse events were few and mild. Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) decreased by 7.8% in the genistein arm and increased by 4.4% in the placebo arm (P = 0.051). The PSA level was reduced in tumor tissue compared to normal tissue in the placebo arm. In the genistein arm, the PSA level in tumor and normal tissue was comparable. Total cholesterol was significantly lower in the genistein arm (P = 0.013). There were no significant effects on thyroid or sex hormones. Plasma concentrations of total genistein were on average 100-fold higher in the genistein arm after treatment (P < 0.001). Genistein at a dose that can be easily obtained from a diet rich in soy reduced the level of serum PSA in patients with localized CaP, without any effects on hormones. It was well tolerated and had a beneficial effect on blood cholesterol.

Comparative study of pressure-flow parameters.

Methods for quantification of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) are still controversial. Parameters such as detrusor opening pressure (p(det.open)), maximum detrusor pressure (p(det.max)), minimum voiding pressure (p(det.min.void)), and detrusor pressure at maximum flow rate (P(det.Qmax)) separate obstructed from nonobstructed patients to some extent, but two nomograms, the Abrams-Griffiths nomogram and the linearized passive urethral resistance relation (LinPURR), are more accepted for this purpose, along with the urethral resistance algorithm. In this retrospective, methodologic study, we evaluated the properties of these parameters with regard to test-retest reproducibility and ability to detect a moderate (pharmacologic) and a pronounced (surgical) relief of bladder outlet obstruction. We studied the pressure-flow charts of 42 patients who underwent 24 weeks of androgen suppressive therapy, 42 corresponding patients who received placebo, and 30 patients who had prostate surgery. The patients performed repeat void pressure-flow examinations before and after treatment or placebo. The various parameters were compared. Among the bladder pressure parameters, P(det.Qmax) seemed to have some advantages, supporting the belief that it is the most relevant detrusor pressure parameter to include in nomograms to quantify BOO. In assessment of a large decrease in urethral resistance, such as after TURp, resistance parameters that are based on maximum flow rate as well as detrusor pressure are preferable.