BackgroundRetroperitoneal lymph node dissection has been advocated for the management of post-chemotherapy (PC-RPLND) residual masses of non-seminomatous germ cell tumors of the testis (NSGCT). There remains some debate as to the clinical benefit and associated morbidity. Our objective was to report our experience with PC-RPLND in NSGCT.MethodsWe have reviewed the clinical, pathologic and surgical parameters associated with PC-RPLND in a single institution. Between 1994 and 2008, three surgeons operated 73 patients with residual masses after cisplatin-based chemotherapy for a metastatic testicular cancer. Patients needed to have normal postchemotherapy serum tumor markers, no prior surgical attempts to resect retroperitoneal masses and resectable retroperitoneal tumor mass at surgery to be included in this analysisResultsMean age was 30.4 years old. Fifty-three percent had mixed germ cell tumors. The mean size of retroperitoneal metastasis was 6.3 and 4.0 cm, before and post-chemotherapy, respectively. In 56% of patients, the surgeon was able to perform a nerve sparing procedure. The overall complication rate was 27.4% and no patient died due to surgical complications. The pathologic review showed presence of fibrosis/necrosis, teratoma and viable tumor (non-teratoma) in 27 (37.0%), 30 (41.1%) and 16 (21.9%) patients, respectively. The subgroups presenting fibrosis and large tumors were more likely to have a surgical complication and had less nerve sparing procedures.ConclusionPC-RPLND is a relatively safe procedure. The presence of fibrosis and large residual masses are associated with surgical complications and non-nerve-sparing procedure.

The continuing growth of DPC-1 tumors despite the release of CyA and, for the first time, spreading to bones renders this refined model closer to the spontaneous canine and hormone-refractory phase of human PCa.

BackgroundOur aim in the present study was to evaluate surgical outcomes and complications of pelvic exenteration in the treatment of gynecologic malignancy and to compare surgery-related complications associated with different types of exenteration.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for the treatment of gynecologic cancer between January 2008 and August 2011. Patients were divided into two groups for comparison: total pelvic exenteration (TPE) and nontotal pelvic exenteration (NTE, including anterior pelvic exenteration (APE) posterior pelvic exenteration (PPE)). Outcomes are reported according to the modified Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications.ResultsTwenty-eight patients were included in the analysis. Eighteen had cervical cancer (64.3%). The prevalence of stage IIIB cervical cancer was 55%. Primary treatment with radiotherapy was performed in 53.3% of patients. Fifty percent of patients underwent TPE, 25% had APE and 25% underwent PPE. Patients who underwent TPE had worse outcomes, with a mean operative time of 367 minutes, use of blood transfusion in 93% of patients, ICU stay of 4.3 days and total hospital stay of 9.4 days. The overall mortality rate was 14.3%, and the surgical site infection rate was 25%. In the TPE group, 78.6% of patients experienced surgical complications. One-fourth of the total patient sample required reoperation, and the leading cause was urinary fistula (57.1%). Urinary leakage occurred in 22.7% of urinary reconstruction patients. Wet colostomy was the most common form of reconstruction with 10% of leakage.ConclusionsPostoperative urinary and infectious complications accounted for 75% of all causes of morbidity and mortality after pelvic exenteration. TPE is a more complex and morbid procedure than NTE.

Background To define a new coefficient to be used in the formula (Volume = L x H x W x Coefficient) that better estimates prostate volume using dimensions of fresh prostates from patients who had transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) imaging prior to prostatectomy. Methods The prostate was obtained from 153 patients, weighed and measured to obtain length (L), height (H), and width (W). The density was determined by water displacement to calculate volume. TRUS data were retrieved from patient charts. Linear regression analyses were performed to compare various prostate volume formulas, including the commonly used ellipsoid formula and newly introduced bullet-shaped formula. Results By relating measured prostate volumes from fresh prostates to TRUS-estimated prostate volumes, 0.66 was the best fitting coefficient in the (L x H x W x Coefficient) equation. This newfound coefficient combined with outlier removal yielded a linear equation with an R 2 of 0.64, compared to 0.55 and 0.60, for the ellipsoid and bullet, respectively. By comparing each of the measured vs. estimated dimensions, we observed that the mean prostate height and length were overestimated by 11.1 and 10.8% using ultrasound ( p < 0.05), respectively, while the mean width was similar ( p > 0.05). Overall, the ellipsoid formula underestimates prostate volumes by 18%, compared to an overestimation of 4.6 and 5.7% for the bullet formula and the formula using our coefficient, respectively. Conclusions This study defines, for the first time, a coefficient based on freshly resected prostates as a reference to estimate volumes by imaging. Our findings support a bullet rather than an ellipsoid prostate shape. Moreover, substituting the coefficient commonly used in the ellipsoid formula by our calculated coefficient in the equation estimating prostate volume by TRUS, provides a more accurate value of the true prostate volume.

Purpose: We assess the variations between post-graduate trainees (PGTs) and attending urologists in applying the Revised ClavienDindo Classification System (RCCS) to urological complications. Methods: Twenty postoperative complications were selected from urology service Quality Assurance meeting minutes spanning 1 year at a tertiary care centre. The cases were from adult and pediatric sites and included minor and major complications. After a briefing session to review the RCCS, the survey was administered to 16 attending urologists and 16 PGTs. Concordance rates between the two groups were calculated for each case and for the whole survey. Inter-rater agreement was calculated by kappa statistics. Results: There was good overall agreement rate of 81 % (range: 30-100) when both groups were compared. Thirteen of the 20 cases (65%) held an agreement rate above 80% (k = 0.753, p < 0.001) including 3 (15%) cases with 100% agreement. There were only 2 cases where the scores given by PGTs were significantly different from that given by attending urologists (p ≤ 0.03). There was no significant difference between both groups in terms of overall RCCS grades (p = 0.12). When all participants were compared as one group, there was good overall inter-rater agreement rate of 75% (k = 0.71). Although the percent of overall agreement rate among PGTs was higher than the attending urologists (82% [k = 0.79] vs. 69% [k = 0.64]), this was not significantly different (p = 0.68).