Search

Ability to predict the risk of intraoperative adverse events (IOAEs) for patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN) can be of great clinical significance.To develop and internally validate a preoperative nomogram predicting IOAEs for robot-assisted PN (RAPN).In this observational study, data for demographic, preoperative, and postoperative variables for patients who underwent RAPN were extracted from the Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database.IOAEs were defined as the occurrence of intraoperative surgical complications, blood transfusion, or conversion to open surgery/radical nephrectomy. Backward stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of IOAEs. The nomogram was validated using bootstrapping, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and the goodness of fit. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to determine the clinical utility of the model.Among the 2114 patients in the study cohort, IOAEs were noted in 158 (7.5%). Multivariable analysis identified five variables as independent predictors of IOAEs: RENAL nephrometry score (odds ratio [OR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.25); clinical tumor size (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.001-1.024); PN indication as absolute versus elective (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.6-5.7) and relative versus elective (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.2-8); Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30); and multifocal tumors (OR 8.8, 95% CI 5.4-14.1). A nomogram was developed using these five variables. The model was internally valid on bootstrapping and goodness of fit. The AUC estimated was 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.80). DCA revealed that the model was clinically useful at threshold probabilities5%. Limitations include the lack of external validation and selection bias.We developed and internally validated a nomogram predicting IOAEs during RAPN.We developed a preoperative model than can predict complications that might occur during robotic surgery for partial removal of a kidney. Tests showed that our model is fairly accurate and it could be useful in identifying patients with kidney cancer for whom this type of surgery is suitable.

Background: This prospective single-arm study is designed to compare in parallel 68Ga-PSMA PET/TRUS (transrectal or transperineal) fusion biopsy (“experimental test”) with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy (“standard test”) in men with a high suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) after at least one negative biopsy. The primary objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy in comparison to mpMRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy analyzed in parallel. Secondarily, we aimed to determine the relationship between the “experimental test” and the histopathological characteristics of the specimen, along with the clinical utility of the “experimental test” compared to the “standard test.” Summary: To test the superiority of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT compared to mpMRI, we will enroll a minimum cohort of 128 patients. Inclusion criteria comprise: age >18 years; blood PSA level >4.0 ng/mL; free-to-total PSA ratio 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI scans within 1 month’s distance from each other, followed by biopsy session to be completed within 1 month’s distance. Targeted TRUS fusion needle biopsy will be performed for all lesions detected with PET and mpMRI. The total duration of the study is 36 months. Key Messages: By comparing the “experimental test” and the “standard test” in parallel, we will be able to determine the superior diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT over mpMRI in detecting PCa, and in particular clinically significant PCa, in the specific cohort of patients with a high suspicion of PCa who are candidates to re-biopsy. The clinical impact of the “experimental test” will be subsequently analyzed in terms of the number of prostate biopsies that could be spared, time-consuming, patient friendliness, and cost-effectiveness.

To compare perioperative outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) in patients with age ≥ 70 years to age 70 years.Using Vattikuti Collective quality initiative (VCQI) database for RAPN we compared perioperative outcomes following RAPN between the two age groups. Primary outcome of the study was to compare trifecta outcomes between the two groups. Propensity matching using nearest neighbourhood method was performed with trifecta as primary outcome for sex, body mass index (BMI), solitary kidney, tumor size and Renal nephrometery score (RNS).Group A (age ≥ 70 years) included 461 patients whereas group B included 1932 patients. Before matching the two groups were statistically different for RNS and solitary kidney rates. After propensity matching, the two groups were comparable for baselines characteristics such as BMI, tumor size, clinical symptoms, tumor side, face of tumor, solitary kidney and tumor complexity. Among the perioperative outcome parameters there was no difference between two groups for operative time, blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, intraoperative complications, need for radical nephrectomy, positive margins and trifecta rates. Warm ischemia time was significantly longer in the younger age group (18.1 min vs. 16.3 min, p = 0.003). Perioperative complications were significantly higher in the older age group (11.8% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.041). However, there was no difference between the two groups for major complications.RAPN in well-selected elderly patients is associated with comparable trifecta outcomes with acceptable perioperative morbidity.

To compare perioperative outcomes following retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPRAPN) and transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (TPRAPN).With this Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database, study propensity scores were calculated according to the surgical access (TPRAPN and RPRAPN) for the following independent variables, i.e., age, sex, side of the surgery, RENAL nephrometry scores (RNS), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and serum creatinine. The study's primary outcome was the comparison of trifecta between the two groups.In this study, 309 patients who underwent RPRAPN were matched with 309 patients who underwent TPRAPN. The two groups matched well for age, sex, tumor side, polar location of the tumor, RNS, preoperative creatinine and eGFR. Operative time and warm ischemia time were significantly shorter with RPRAPN. Intraoperative blood loss and need for blood transfusion were lower with RPRAPN. There was a significantly higher number of intraoperative complications with RPRAPN. However, there was no difference in the two groups for postoperative complications. Trifecta outcomes were better with RPRAPN (70.2% vs. 53%, p 0.0001) compared to TPRAPN. We noted no significant change in overall results when controlled for tumor location (anteriorly or posteriorly). The surgical approach, tumor size and RNS were identified as independent predictors of trifecta on multivariate analysis.RPRAPN is associated with superior perioperative outcomes in well-selected patients compared to TPRAPN. However, the data for the retroperitoneal approach were contributed by a few centers with greater experience with this technique, thus limiting the generalizability of the results of this study.