Search

We report the reliability of computerized tomography urography and ureteroscopy in the diagnosis and management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma.From 2015 to November 2018 we prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed 244 cases of ureteroscopy with available preoperative computerized tomography urography. Computerized tomography urography was categorized as positive, suspicious, unlikely and negative. Correspondence between imaging, ureteroscopy and histology was analyzed. The therapeutic indication, based on 2020 EAU Guidelines and patient clinical data, was recorded before and after ureteroscopy. Cohen's Kappa was used for agreement analysis. Logistic regression was used for prediction of positive ureteroscopy.Ureteroscopy was positive for upper tract urothelial carcinoma in 107/115 (93%), 48/77 (62.3%), 15/27 (55.6%) and 12/25 (48%) cases with positive, suspicious, unlikely and negative computerized tomography urography, respectively. On cytohistology the result was confirmed in 164/182 (90.1%) cases. The positive predictive value of a filling defect, stenosis, thickening and hydronephrosis on computerized tomography urography was 87.7% (121/138 cases), 65.6% (21/32), 69.6% (64/92) and 79.7% (59/74), respectively. On multivariate analysis a filling defect (95% CI 2.76-11.5, OR 5.63, p0.0001) or hydronephrosis (1.04-6.18, OR 2.52, p=0.04) was associated with ureteroscopy outcome. Among cases with positive computerized tomography urography and ureteroscopy, the lesions differed in dimensions (20/107), number (14/107) and site (11/107), for a total of 45/107 (42.1%) cases. The indication of elective treatment changed after ureteroscopy in 37/76 (48.1%) cases (Kappa=0.31), as 17/28 (60.7%), 11/20 (55%) and 11/28 (39.2%) indications were confirmed for endoscopic management, ureterectomy and nephroureterectomy, respectively.The complementary use of computerized tomography urography and ureteroscopy in the diagnostic workup of upper tract urothelial carcinoma should be evaluated.

(1) Background: New pulse modulation (PM) technologies in Holmium:YAG lasers are available for urinary stone treatment, but little is known about them. We aim to systematically evaluate the published evidence in terms of their lithotripsy performance. (2) Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed (MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases). We included all relevant publications, including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparative and non-comparative studies, and in-vitro studies investigating Holmium:YAG lithotripsy performance employing any new PM. (3) Results: Initial search yielded 203 studies; 24 studies were included after selection: 15 in-vitro, 9 in-vivo. 10 In-vitro compared Moses with regular PM, 1 compared Quanta’s, 1 Dornier MedTech’s, 2 Moses with super Thulium Fiber Laser, and 1 compared Moses with Quanta PMs. Six out of seven comparative studies found a statistically significant difference in favor of new-generation PM technologies in terms of operative time and five out of six in fragmentation time; two studies evaluated retropulsion, both in favor of new-generation PM. There were no statistically significant differences regarding stone-free rate, lasing and operative time, and complications between Moses and regular PM when data were meta-analyzed. (4) Conclusions: Moses PM seems to have better lithotripsy performance than regular modes in in-vitro studies, but there are still some doubts about its in-vivo results. Little is known about the other PMs. Although some results favor Quanta PMs, further studies are needed.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The diagnosis and risk stratification of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) can be challenging. Urinary cytology (UC) has low sensitivity and CT scan is not ...

Introduction: We aimed to report the oncological outcomes of ESRD patients with histories of urological malignancies who were subsequently submitted to kidney transplantation (KT). Material and method: Retrospective study lead in the Puigvert Foundation (Barcelona) registry of 1,200 KT performed from 1988 to 2018. Eighty-five urological malignancies that were treated before KT in 81 patients were identified: 15 (18%) prostate cancers, 49 (58%) RCC, 19 (22%) urothelial carcinomas and 2 (2%) testicular cancers. Baseline characteristics, cancer staging, treatment and follow-up were registered as well as the chronology of the start of dialysis, inscription on the waiting list and kidney transplantation. Endpoints included were cancer recurrence, metastatic progression, cancer-specific death and overall survival. Results: In a median follow-up of 13.1 years (2.2-32), 16/85 (19%) cancer recurrences were reported, with 3 (4%) who progressed to metastasis and died of cancer. Median overall survival after cancer treatment was 25.3 years and cancer-specific survival was 95% at 25 years. Median time from cancer treatment to kidney transplantation was 4.8 years: 3.7 years in prostate cancer, 3.9 years in RCC and 8.8 years in bladder cancer. The median time from start of dialysis to kidney transplantation was 1.8 years in patients with histories of urological malignancy versus 0.5 year in the total cohort of 1,200 renal transplanted over the same period Conclusions: Well-selected patients with histories of urological malignancies greatly benefit from kidney transplantation with infrequent and late cancer recurrence. Waiting time could be optimized in low-risk prostate cancer and RCC, but more robust data are needed. (C) 2021 AEU. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.