Search

Objective: Biochemical recurrence (BCR) after prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is undesirable. It is important to inform a patient about BCR in preoperative evaluation. We aimed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the (The Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment) CAPRA score used to predict this situation in our study. Material and Methods: The study included 348 patients who underwent Radical Prostatectony (RP) for localized PCa. Demographic, preoperative and postoperative data were collected. CAPRA score based on preoperative total PSA value, Gleason Score, clinical T stage, percentage of positive biopsy cores and age was calculated using these data. BCR was defined as a total PSA value >0.2 ng/dL for two consecutive times after RP. Follow-up periods, recurrence status and time of recurrence were recorded. Results: BCR positivity was detected in 60 (17.2%) of 348 patients. In univariate analyses, PSA level, lesion volume on MRI, ISUP grade, D'Amico risk classification, Seminal vesicule invasion (SVI) and CAPRA score were statistically significant in the groups. In multivariate analyses, PSA level, Neutrophile Lymphocyte Ratio, lesion dimension, intermediate risk according to D'amico classification, Extraprostatic extension (EPE) showed differences between both groups. The probability of biochemical progression-free in CAPRA risk groups shows a significant decrease in the probability of biochemical progression-free in the long term as risk increases in CAPRA risk groups: 91.4% in the low-risk group, 77.8% in the intermediate-risk group and only 61.7% in the high-risk group at 80-month follow-up. Conclusion: CAPRA scoring system should be supported by MpMRI findings and a new nomogram should be developed with these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. We aimed to determine the multifocality and detectability of prostate cancer (Pca) with 3‐Tesla (3T) multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Methods. The data of the patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in our institution between April 2020 and April 2021 were analyzed. Patients were included in the study at the stage of radical prostatectomy. Demographic and histopathological data were retrospectively collected, and then MRIs of eligible patients were re‐evaluated for the study. Suspicious regions of interest (ROIs) were evaluated by a radiologist with 4 years of experience in uroradiology and scored based on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) v2.1. The reader was blinded to the pathological outcomes of any biopsy specimen. Lesions with a PIRADS score ≥3 were considered positive and included in the study. All cases were evaluated histopathologically by a pathologist with ten years of experience in uropathology. We utilized the mapping method which provided exactly the same information as the whole‐mount histopathology along with processing the entire prostatectomy specimen. Results. A total of 142 histopathologic tumoral lesions were detected among 70 patients. In relation to postoperative histopathology, tumor multifocality was established in 78.6% (n = 55), and 52.1% (n = 74) of 142 foci recognized were clinically significant. By detecting a total of 67 lesions, mpMRI showed an overall sensitivity of 47%. Whilst the sensitivity was 73% (54/74) in clinically significant lesions, the sensitivity was only 17.6% (12/68) in clinically insignificant lesions. For the group with detected tumors, the mean prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) and PSA density were higher, there were more high‐grade lesions, and the rate of the extraprostatic extension was significantly greater (p < 0.05, respectively). According to the multivariate analysis, only tumor size and Gleason Score (GS) were independent predictors regarding the ability of mpMRI to detect tumor foci within the prostate (p < 0.0001). Conclusion. mpMRI exhibited an acceptable sensitivity in detecting high‐risk and large Pca foci. The diagnostic accuracy is observed to be markedly diminished in small, low GS, and nonindex tumors. A considerable percentage of missed lesions are clinically significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Reconstructive Urology is the property of Turkiye Klinikleri and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is the most commonly used method for kidney removal in kidney transplantation and, various incisions are used for kidney extraction. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of LDN operations using iliac fossa incision and Pfannenstiel incision.Material and Method: LDN cases performed in our institute between June 2016 and February 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with previous abdominal surgery, bleeding coagulation disorders, ectopic kidneys and patients who were converted to perioperative open surgery were excluded. Demographic data of the patients, operation times, warm ischemia times, complications were recorded and the patients were divided into two groups according to incision types.Results: After the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 203 patients were included in the study. Iliac fossa incision was used in 65% of the patients and the Pfannenstiel incision was used in in 35% of the patients to remove the donor's kidney. There was no difference in age, body mass index, gender, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores between the two groups. Operation time and warm ischemia time were significantly longer in the Pfannenstiel group (p=0.001 and p=0.016 respectively). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of bleeding amount, length of hospital stay, need for narcotic analgesic, visual analog scale scores and postoperative complications.Conclusion: Both types of incisions can be used successfully and safely for the extraction of the kidney in LDN. Although WIT and operation time has been observed to be longer when a Pfannenstiel incision is made, complications and analgesic use are not different between Pfannenstiel incisions and iliac fossa incisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is the most commonly used method for kidney removal in kidney transplantation and, various incisions are used for kidney extraction. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of LDN operations using iliac fossa incision and Pfannenstiel incision., Material and Method: LDN cases performed in our institute between June 2016 and February 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with previous abdominal surgery, bleeding coagulation disorders, ectopic kidneys, and patients who were converted to perioperative open surgery were excluded. Demographic data of the patients, operation times, warm ischemia times, complications were recorded and the patients were divided into two groups according to incision types., Results: After the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 203 patients were included in the study. Iliac fossa incision was used in 65% of the patients and the Pfannenstiel incision was used in 35% of the patients to remove the donor's kidney. There were no difference in age, body mass index, gender, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores between the two groups. Operation time and warm ischemia time were significantly longer in the Pfannenstiel group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.016 respectively). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of bleeding amount, length of hospital stay, need for narcotic analgesic, visual analog scale scores, and postoperative complications., Conclusion: Both types of incisions can be used successfully and safely for the extraction of the kidney in LDN. Although WIT and operation time has been observed to be longer when a Pfannenstiel incision is made, complications and analgesic use are not different between Pfannenstiel incisions and iliac fossa incisions.