Tags

Main Content

Top Content

Directory of Key words from the Journal and the latest article from it.

Oncotype DX® GPSView Articles
open nephroureterectomyView Articles

Volume 19, Number 1Review Articles

Systematic Review of Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robot-assisted Nephroureterectomy

Systematic Review

Kamran AhmedEmma MullenBen Challacombe

Upper tract urothelial carcinoma is a relatively uncommon malignancy. The gold standard treatment for this type of neoplasm is an open radical nephroureterectomy with excision of the bladder cuff. This systematic review compares the perioperative and oncologic outcomes for the open surgical method with the alternative surgical management options of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy and robot-assisted nephroureterectomy (RANU). MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using a sensitive search strategy. Article inclusion was then assessed by review of abstracts and full papers were read if more detail was required. In all, 50 eligible studies were identified that looked at perioperative and oncologic outcomes. The range for estimated blood loss when examining observational studies was 296 to 696 mL for open nephroureterectomy (ONU), 130 to 479 mL for laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU), and 50 to 248 mL for RANU. The one randomized controlled trial identified reported estimated blood loss and length of stay results in which LNU was shown to be superior to ONU (P < .001). No statistical significance was found, however, following adjustment for confounding variables. Although statistically insignificant results were found when examining outcomes of RANU studies, they were promising and comparable with LNU and ONU with regard to oncologic outcomes. Results show that laparoscopic techniques are superior to ONU in perioperative results, and the longer-term oncologic outcomes look comparable. There is, however, a paucity of quality evidence regarding ONU, LNU, and RANU; data that address RANU outcomes are particularly scarce. As the robotic field within urology advances, it is hoped that this technique will be investigated further using gold standard research methods. [Rev Urol. 2017;19(1):32-43 doi: 10.3909/riu0691] © 2017 MedReviews®, LLC

Urothelial carcinomaRobot-assisted nephroureterectomyopen nephroureterectomyLaparoscopic nephroureterectomy

Open radical nephrectomyView Articles

Volume 14, Number 1Review Articles

LHRH Agonists for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer: 2012

Management Review

Neal D ShoreHerbert Lepor

The most recent guidelines on prostate cancer screening from the American Urological Association (2009), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2011), and the European Association of Urology (2011), as well as treatment and advances in disease monitoring, have increased the androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) population and the duration of ADT usage as the first-line treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. According to the European Association of Urology, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists have become the leading therapeutic option for ADT because they avoid the physical and psychological discomforts associated with orchiectomy. However, GnRH agonists display several shortcomings, including testosterone (T) surge (&ldquo;clinical flare&rdquo;) and microsurges. T surge delays the intended serologic endpoint of T suppression and may exacerbate clinical symptoms. Furthermore, ADT manifests an adverse-event spectrum that can impact quality of life with its attendant well-documented morbidities. Strategies to improve ADT tolerability include a holistic management approach, improved diet and exercise, and more specific monitoring to detect and prevent T depletion toxicities. Intermittent ADT, which allows hormonal recovery between treatment periods, has become increasingly utilized as a methodology for improving quality of life while not diminishing chronic ADT efficacy, and may also provide healthcare cost savings. This review assesses the present and potential future role of GnRH agonists in prostate cancer and explores strategies to minimize the adverse-event profile for patients receiving ADT. [ Rev Urol. 2012;14(1/2):1-12 doi:10.3909/riu0547 ] © 2012 MedReviews®, LLC

Wilms’ tumorRenal massOpen radical nephrectomyMultimodal therapy

Open radical retropubic prostatectomyView Articles

Volume 11, Number 2Review Articles

Status of Radical Prostatectomy in 2009: Is There Medical Evidence to Justify the Robotic Approach?

Treatment Review

Herbert Lepor

This article presents the evolution of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (ORRP) into a minimally invasive procedure and reviews the literature to provide a legitimate comparison between ORRP and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy (RALRP). The article is limited to manuscripts cited in the peer-reviewed literature, and an effort was made to identify those articles that fulfilled the highest level of medical evidence. In centers of excellence, ORRP is performed with no mortality, extraordinarily low technical and medical complications (1%), the rare need for blood transfusions, 1- to 2-day hospital stays, urinary catheters that are routinely removed in a week, the majority of men returning to work in 2 weeks, and up to 97% of men regaining urinary continence. Return of potency remains a challenge, especially for older men with marginal erections. RALRP is now the most common approach for the surgical removal of the malignant prostate. A critical review of the literature fails to support the marketing claims that RALRP is associated with shorter hospitalization, less pain, better cosmetics, shorter catheter time, lower transfusion rates, or improved continence and potency rates. The highest level of medical evidence suggests that RALRP may significantly compromise oncologic outcomes and that men undergoing this approach have higher regret rates than men undergoing ORRP.[Rev Urol. 2009;11(2):61-70]

Prostate cancerRobotic-assistedOpen radical retropubic prostatectomy

Organizational efficiencyView Articles

Volume 22, Number 2Review Articles

Implementation of a Centralized, Cost-effective Call Center in a Large Urology Community Practice

Original Research

Gary M KirshStephen F KappaChris McClainKrista WallacePaul CinquinaDon LawsonMary M SmithEarl WalzBrooke Edwards

Call centers provide front-line care and service to patients. This study compared call-answering efficiency and costs between the implementation of an internal, centralized call center (January to July 2019) and previously outsourced call-center services (January to July 2018) for a large urology community practice. Retrospective review of call metrics and cost data was performed. Internal call-center leadership, training, and culture was examined through survey of staff and management. A total of 299,028 calls with an average of 5751 calls per week were answered during the study periods. The Average Speed of Answer (ASA) was 1:42 (min:s) for the outsourced call center and 0:14 for the internal call center (P < 0.001), with 70% of outsourced calls answered under 2 minutes compared with 99% of calls for the internal call center (P < 0.001). The Average Handle Time (AHT) for each outsourced call was 5:32 versus 3:41 for the internal call center (P < 0.001). The total operating expenses were 7.7% lower for the internal call center. Surveys revealed the importance of engaged leadership and staff training with feedback, simplified work algorithms, and expanded clinical roles. We found that internal, centralized call centers may provide a call-answering solution with greater efficiency and lower total operating expense versus an outsourced call center for large surgical practices. A culture that emphasizes continuous improvement and empowers call-center staff with expanded clinical roles may ultimately enhance patient communication and service. [Rev Urol. 2020;22(2):67–74] © 2020 MedReviews®, LLC

Cost effectivenessCall centerTelehealthOrganizational efficiency

Orthotopic neobladderView Articles

Volume 8, Number 2Review Articles

Pathologic Guidelines for Orthotopic Urinary Diversion in Women With Bladder Cancer: A Review of the Literature

Therapeutic Challenges

John P SteinVannita Simma-ChangSimon D Wu

Orthotopic lower urinary tract reconstruction to the native intact urethra following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer was slower to gain clinical acceptance for women than for men. Until the 1990s, little was known about the natural history of urethral involvement by urothelial carcinoma in women with primary bladder cancer. The increasing availability of pathologic data to define the incidence of and risks for urethral involvement in women sparked an increasing interest in orthotopic diversion in female patients. Pathologic guidelines have been suggested to identify women suitable for orthotopic diversion. Preoperative involvement of the bladder neck is a significant risk factor for secondary tumor of the urethra, but is not an absolute contraindication, as long as full-thickness, intraoperative frozen-section analysis demonstrates no tumor involvement of the proximal urethra. Although less common, anterior vaginal wall tumor involvement may be a significant risk factor for urethral tumor involvement. Other pathologic parameters, including tumor multifocality, carcinoma in situ of the bladder, and tumor grade and stage, do not seem to be absolute contraindications. Long-term follow-up is critical for all patients. Women undergoing orthotopic reconstruction, if appropriately selected, should be assured of an oncologically sound operation and good function with their neobladder. [Rev Urol. 2006;8(2):54-60]

CystectomyOrthotopic urinary diversionOrthotopic neobladderFemale bladdercancerUrethrectomyUrethral recurrence

Orthotopic urinary diversionView Articles

Volume 8, Number 2Review Articles

Pathologic Guidelines for Orthotopic Urinary Diversion in Women With Bladder Cancer: A Review of the Literature

Therapeutic Challenges

John P SteinVannita Simma-ChangSimon D Wu

Orthotopic lower urinary tract reconstruction to the native intact urethra following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer was slower to gain clinical acceptance for women than for men. Until the 1990s, little was known about the natural history of urethral involvement by urothelial carcinoma in women with primary bladder cancer. The increasing availability of pathologic data to define the incidence of and risks for urethral involvement in women sparked an increasing interest in orthotopic diversion in female patients. Pathologic guidelines have been suggested to identify women suitable for orthotopic diversion. Preoperative involvement of the bladder neck is a significant risk factor for secondary tumor of the urethra, but is not an absolute contraindication, as long as full-thickness, intraoperative frozen-section analysis demonstrates no tumor involvement of the proximal urethra. Although less common, anterior vaginal wall tumor involvement may be a significant risk factor for urethral tumor involvement. Other pathologic parameters, including tumor multifocality, carcinoma in situ of the bladder, and tumor grade and stage, do not seem to be absolute contraindications. Long-term follow-up is critical for all patients. Women undergoing orthotopic reconstruction, if appropriately selected, should be assured of an oncologically sound operation and good function with their neobladder. [Rev Urol. 2006;8(2):54-60]

CystectomyOrthotopic urinary diversionOrthotopic neobladderFemale bladdercancerUrethrectomyUrethral recurrence

Osteoporosis fractureView Articles

Volume 9, Number 4Review Articles

Estrogenic Side Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy

Treatment Update

Michael S CooksonJames A EasthamTheresa A GuiseMichael G OefeleinMatthew R SmithCelestia Higano

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is part of standard therapy for locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer and is frequently used in men with a rising prostate-specific antigen following radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. In some men, ADT may be administered for years or even decades. The intended therapeutic effect of ADT is testosterone deficiency. Because estrogen is a normal metabolite of testosterone, ADT also results in estrogen deficiency. ADT has a variety of adverse effects, many of which are primarily related to estrogen deficiency. Bone mineral density may decrease by 4% to 13% per year in men receiving ADT. The fracture rate for patients on ADT averages 5% to 8% per year of therapy. Hot flashes, gynecomastia, and breast tenderness are common side effects associated with ADT. In the clinic, minimum baseline testing should include weight measurement, blood pressure reading, and fasting lipid panel and serum glucose tests. Currently, there are no large outcome trials in men on ADT testing the available therapies for adverse effects. No therapies are specifically approved for treatment of adverse effects in men on ADT. Although some therapies can be used for a single indication (based upon small studies), there is currently no agent to treat the multiple estrogenic side effects of ADT. [Rev Urol. 2007;9(4):163-180]

Androgen deprivation therapyCardiovascular diseaseGynecomastiaOsteoporosis fractureMale hot flashes