Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate our laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) series to determine whether any significant increases have occurred in operative morbidity when resecting large (7 cm or greater) renal masses. LRN is becoming the reference standard for treating suspicious renal masses not amenable to nephron-sparing surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 164 consecutive patients who had undergone laparoscopic radical nephrectomy performed for suspicious renal masses by two surgeons from February 2000 and December 2006. After institutional review board approval, we reviewed the patient charts to determine whether patients with 7-cm or larger lesions had significant differences in age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, operative time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, positive margin rate, postoperative creatinine, and hematocrit compared with patients with lesions smaller than 7 cm. RESULTS: The data from 164 patients were reviewed. Of these 164 patients, 124 had less than 7-cm masses and 40 had lesions 7 cm or larger. The mean tumor size in the less than 7-cm group was 4.2 cm (range 1.8 to 6.9) and was 9.2 cm (range 7 to 14) in the 7-cm or larger group. The patients with large tumors had a significantly longer operative time, greater estimated blood loss, and increase in postoperative serum creatinine than those with smaller tumors but all other perioperative variables were similar. Two conversions to open radical nephrectomy occurred in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data have clearly shown that larger tumors can safely be resected with transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy. Open nephrectomy for large tumors can be associated with increased morbidity and the use of LRN could minimize this increased risk. Urologists with laparoscopic experience should consider expanding their indication for LRN

The increasing use of routine CT scan, along with advances in imaging technology, have facilitated the early diagnosis of incidental renal masses. This has resulted in the reduction in the rate of metastatic disease diagnosis. Although surgery remains the mainstay in the treatment of renal tumors, the decreasing incidence of lymph node involvement has created controversy regarding the importance and the ideal extent of lymph node dissection, formerly considered mandatory at the time of radical nephrectomy. In this review, we critically assessed the role of lymph node dissection at the time of radical nephrectomy. To date, randomized trials have failed to show a benefit of lymph node dissection when broadly employed. This is likely due to the low prevalence of lymph node metastasis at the time of presentation, the unpredictable pattern of lymph node metastasis from renal tumors, and the continued downward stage migration of the disease. As a result, lymph node dissection for renal cancer is currently not recommended in the absence of gross lymphadenopathy. In high risk patients, lymph node dissection may be considered, but it remains controversial and more clinical evidence is warranted. Extended lymph node dissection is still recommended in individuals with isolated gross nodal disease or those with lymphadenopathy at the time of cytoreductive surgery prior to systemic therapy. A practical approach is summarized in an algorithm form

High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) is a premalignant lesion associated with increased risk of coexistent cancer or delayed progression to carcinoma. Extended biopsy schemes have improved the ability to rule out concurrent cancers, increased the detection of isolated HGPIN and removed the routine necessity for immediate repeat biopsy. As the natural history of HGPIN is poorly defined, and no non-invasive marker allows monitoring of progression to cancer, routine delayed interval biopsy should be considered in all patients. In this article, we present an overview of the existing literature on HGPIN and a proposed strategy for clinical management

Historically, adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy has been viewed as a palliative treatment option for patients with poor-prognosis non-metastatic prostate cancer. In addition, guidelines from bodies such as the European Association of Urology and American Society for Clinical Oncology do not specifically categorize adjuvant hormonal therapy as being curative in intent. We propose that adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy should now be classified as a treatment of curative intent in patients with poor-prognosis, non-metastatic prostate cancer. By applying a carefully considered definition of cure (based on long-term (10- to 15-year) disease-free survival curves) to the findings from randomized controlled clinical trials that have studied adjuvant hormonal treatments in non-metastatic prostate cancer, we challenged whether this viewpoint should now be considered redundant. According to our review of relevant studies and our definition of cure, goserelin appears to augment cure in a sizeable proportion of men with poor-prognosis non-metastatic prostate cancer when given adjuvant to radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Across several trials, the relevant survival curves for the goserelin-treated population became indefinitely flat after long-term follow-up. This indicates that these patients have a mortality risk comparable to the general population without prostate cancer. On the basis of the evidence presented within this review, we believe that, given it can control disease for a long period of time, adjuvant goserelin should be reclassified as a treatment of curative intent for patients with poor-prognosis non-metastatic prostate cancer