Abbreviations & Acronyms BMI = body mass index CCI = Charlson Comorbidity Index CI = confidence interval CIS = carcinoma in situ CSS = cancer-specific survival CT = computed tomography ECOG PS = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status HU = Hounsfield Unit IGF-1 = insulin-like growth factor-1 IQR = interquartile range LND = lymph node dissection LVI = lymphovascular invasion NAC = neoadjuvant chemotherapy OS = overall survival RC = radical cystectomy SMD = skeletal muscle density SMI = skeletal muscle index UC = urothelial carcinoma

BackgroundIt remains controversial as to whether active stone removal should be performed in patients with poor performance status because of their short life expectancy and perioperative risks. Our objectives were to evaluate treatment outcomes of active stone removal in patients with poor performance status and to compare life prognosis with those managed conservatively.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 74 patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 3 or 4 treated for upper urinary tract calculi at our four hospitals between January 2009 and March 2016. Patients were classified into either surgical treatment group or conservative management group based on the presence of active stone removal. Stone-free rate and perioperative complications in surgical treatment group were reviewed. In addition, we compared overall survival and stone-specific survival between the two groups. Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to investigate predictors of overall survival and stone-specific survival.ResultsFifty-two patients (70.3%) underwent active stone removal (surgical treatment group) by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (n = 6), ureteroscopy (n = 39), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (n = 6) or nephrectomy (n = 1). The overall stone-free rate was 78.8% and perioperative complication was observed in nine patients (17.3%). Conservative treatment was undergone by 22 patients (29.7%) (conservative management group). Two-year overall survival rates in surgical treatment and conservative management groups were 88.0% and 38.4%, respectively (p < 0.01) and two-year stone-specific survival rates in the two groups were 100.0% and 61.3%, respectively (p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, stone removal was not significant, but was considered a possible favorable predictor for overall survival (p = 0.07). Moreover, stone removal was the only independent predictor of stone-specific survival (p < 0.01).ConclusionsActive stone removal for patients with poor performance status could be performed safely and effectively. Compared to conservative management, surgical stone treatment achieved longer overall survival and stone-specific survival.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12894-017-0293-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We report a case of renal transplantation using a horseshoe kidney from a living, genetically unrelated donor. The recipient was a 60-year-old man with diabetic nephropathy, and the donor was the 63-year-old wife of the recipient with a horseshoe kidney free of complications. Computed tomography showed two renal arteries and one renal vein on the left side, and the isthmus was perfused by several accessory arteries and veins. To demarcate the boundary of the isthmus, the left renal artery was ligated and cannulated for in situ perfusion. Furthermore, the isthmus was clamped, and the boundary of the isthmus was confirmed. The kidney was divided at the left margin of the perfused boundary. The cut ends of the isthmus were closed by sutures. The left kidney was transplanted into the right iliac fossa of the recipient. Asymptomatic fluid collection occurred on the cut surface at the isthmus of the donor, and this fluid decreased in due course. On the other hand, the recipient experienced no surgical complication or rejection, while maintaining serum creatinine levels of 2.00–2.20 mg/dL over a 22-month follow-up period. Horseshoe kidneys may be used for transplantation in selected cases after a detailed preoperative evaluation.

The prognostic impact of lymphatic invasion in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PC) remains unclear. The aim of our single-institution prospective cohort study was to examine the impact of lymphatic invasion on biochemical recurrence (BCR) in patients with high-risk PC according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and extended lymph node dissection (eLND). A total of 183 patients were included who underwent RARP and eLND for NCCN high-risk PC between June 2014 and August 2019. Lymphatic invasion in resected specimens was observed in 47 patients (26%), whereas lymph node metastasis was observed in 17 patients (9%). During follow-up, BCR was observed in 48 patients (26%). The BCR rate in patients with lymphatic invasion was significantly higher than that in patients without lymphatic invasion (p < 0.01). According to multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, lymphatic invasion was a significant independent predictor of BCR in the overall patient group and was independently associated with BCR, even in patients without lymph node metastasis. In conclusion, evaluation of lymphatic invasion could be useful in predicting BCR in patients undergoing RARP and eLND for high-risk PC.

No abstract