BackgroundSurveillance after orchiectomy has recently been a management option in patients with stage I seminoma, while it remains controversial in those with stage I nonseminoma, and the risk factor associated with relapse is still a matter of concern in both entities. This study was performed to explore pathological risk factors for post-orchiectomy relapse in patients with stage I seminoma and nonseminoma, and to assess oncological outcomes in those managed with surveillance.MethodsIn this single institution study, 118 and 40 consecutive patients with stage I seminoma and nonseminoma were reviewed, respectively. Of the 118 patients with stage I seminoma, 56 and one received adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy, respectively, and 61 were managed with surveillance. Of the 40 men with stage I nonseminoma, 4 underwent adjuvant chemotherapy and 36 were managed with surveillance.ResultsNo patient had cause-specific death during the mean observation period of 104 and 99 months in men with seminoma and nonseminoma, respectively. In men with stage I seminoma, 1 (1.7%) receiving radiotherapy and 4 (6.6%) men managed with surveillance had disease relapse; the 10-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate was 93.4% in men managed with surveillance, and their RFS was not different from that in patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy (logrank P=0.15). Patients with tunica albuginea involvement showed a poorer RFS than those without (10-year RFS rate 80.0% vs. 94.1%), although the difference was of borderline significance (P=0.09). In men with stage I nonseminoma, 9 (22.5%) patients experienced relapse. Patients with lymphovascular invasion seemingly had a poorer RFS than those without; 40.0% and 18.7% of the patients with and without lymphovascular invasion had disease relapse, respectively, although the difference was not significant (logrank P=0.17).ConclusionIn both men with stage I seminoma and nonseminoma, surveillance after orchiectomy is a feasible option. However, disease extension through tunica albuginea might be a factor associated with disease relapse in patients with organ-confined seminoma, and those with stage I nonseminoma showing lymphovascular invasion may possibly be at high risk for disease relapse.

Objective: To evaluate the potential of the RENAL nephrometry score and the PADUA classification in the prediction of perioperative outcomes represented by intraoperative conversion to nephrectomy in patients with renal tumors for which nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) was attempted. Methods: Recent 100 open NSSs attempted for cT1 renal tumors at a single institution were studied retrospectively. Results: With the RENAL, the operation time and ischemia time were longer in the high complexity group (p = 0.01 and p = 0.03, respectively), and blood loss was seemingly greater in this group (394 vs. 220 and 167 ml, p = 0.09). Conversion to nephrectomy was more frequent in the high complexity (4 procedures, 33.3%) than in the low (0%) and moderate (1 procedures, 1.5%) groups (p < 0.01). Regarding the PADUA, the operation time, blood loss and ischemia time increased according to the complexity (p = 0.04, p = 0.02, and p = 0.02, respectively). Conversion to nephrectomy was more frequent in the high complexity (4 procedures, 22.2%) than in the low (0%) and moderate (1 procedure, 1.8%) groups (p < 0.01). In patients with achieved NSS, postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate was more impaired in the high complexity group in the PADUA (p = 0.02), although not significant in the RENAL (p = 0.11). Conclusions: Both the RENAL and PADUA are useful in the prediction of conversion to nephrectomy in addition to NSS-associated perioperative outcomes.

No abstract

Abstract:We present the case of a young lady who developed renal cell carcinomas (RCC) in the allograft and bilateral native kidneys metachronously within one year. She received a living donor kidney transplantation from her father. A solid tumor of 4 cm in diameter was uncovered first in the allograft kidney 103 months after transplantation, and was treated with graftectomy. Six months after graftectomy, a right renal tumor measuring 3.5 cm and left renal tumors emerged in the native kidneys. She underwent laparoscopic right and left radical nephrectomy in separate sessions. The pathological diagnosis in the allograft and right renal tumors was clear cell RCC with eosinophilic cytoplasm and that in the left kidney was clear cell carcinoma. Fluorescence in situ hybridization and human leukocyte antigen typing showed that each tumor was most probably primary disease. She was free of disease 18 months postoperatively. This is the first report on RCC arising both in the allograft and bilateral native kidneys.

No abstract