Major Urologic Cancer Research Articles

A manpower calculus: The implications of SUO fellowship expansion on oncologic surgeon case volumes

IntroductionSociety of Urologic Oncology (SUO)-accredited fellowship programs have undergone substantial expansion. This study developed a mathematical model to estimate future changes in urologic oncologic surgeon (UOS) manpower and analyzed the effect of those changes on per-UOS case volumes. Materials and methodsSUO fellowship program directors were queried as to the number of positions available on an annual basis. Current US UOS manpower was estimated from the SUO membership list. Future manpower was estimated on an annual basis by linear senescence of existing manpower combined with linear growth of newly trained surgeons. Case-volume estimates for the 4 surgical disease sites (prostate, kidney/renal pelvis, bladder, and testes) were obtained from the literature. The future number of major cases was determined from current volumes based upon the US population growth rates and the historic average annual change in disease incidence. Two models were used to predict future per-UOS major case volumes. Model 1 assumed the current distribution of cases between nononcologic surgeons and UOS would continue. Model 2 assumed a progressive redistribution of cases over time such that in 2043 100% of major urologic cancer cases would be performed by UOSs. ResultsOver the 30-year period to “manpower steady-state” SUO-accredited UOSs practicing in the United States have the potential to increase from approximately 600 currently to 1,650 in 2043. During this interval, case volumes are predicted to change 0.97-, 2.4-, 1.1-, and 1.5-fold for prostatectomy, nephrectomy, cystectomy, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, respectively. The ratio of future to current total annual case volumes is predicted to be 0.47 and 0.9 for models 1 and 2, respectively. The number of annual US practicing graduates necessary to achieve a future to current case-volume ratio greater than 1 is 25 and 49 in models 1 and 2, respectively. ConclusionsThe current number of SUO fellowship trainees has the potential to decrease future per-UOS case volumes relative to current levels. Redistribution of existing case volume or a decrease in the annual number of trainees or both would be required to insure sufficient surgical volumes for skill maintenance and optimal patient outcomes.

Molecular Diagnostic Trends in Urological Cancer: Biomarkers for Non-Invasive Diagnosis

The early detection of urological cancers is pivotal for successful patient treatment and management. The development of molecular assays that can diagnose disease accurately, or that can augment current methods of evaluation, would be a significant advance. Ideally, such molecular assays would be applicable to non-invasively obtained body fluids, enabling not only diagnosis of at risk patients, but also asymptomatic screening, monitoring disease recurrence and response to treatment. The advent of advanced proteomics and genomics technologies and associated bioinformatics development is bringing these goals into focus. In this article we will discuss the promise of biomarkers in urinalysis for the detection and clinical evaluation of the major urological cancers, including bladder, kidney and prostate. The development of urine-based tests to detect urological cancers would be of tremendous benefit to both patients and the healthcare system.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and cancer

Objectives:To perform a survey of the current state of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and its implementation in the treatment of malignant disease of the urinary tract. Although it is a recent development in the field of laparoscopic surgery with still unproven long-term results, LESS may prove to be more commonly performed in the coming years while managing urologic cancer patients.Materials and Methods:A PubMed search was conducted using the key words laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, LESS, urologic cancer. Relevant articles were reviewed for data on the management of urologic malignancy with LESS.Results:The first articles describing LESS for urologic cancers were published in 2007. Since then, published experience with this technique has increased. LESS has been implemented as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for the treatment of major urologic cancers. The proposed advantages of LESS are the aesthetic benefit of a single incision and a quicker and less painful recovery. Disadvantages are the lack of instrument triangulation, instrument clashing and the steeper learning curve. As this is a fairly recent technical innovation, long-term functional and oncological results for LESS have not yet been published.Conclusions:LESS is a novel technical advance over conventional laparoscopic surgery, and it can be successfully used in the treatment of patients with urologic cancers. Published data support the feasibility and safety of LESS interventions for major urologic cancers, and newer data may assist in finding LESS's ultimate position among therapeutic options for patients with urologic malignancies.

Quality‐of‐care framework in urological cancers: where do we stand?

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Provision of high-quality care necessitates the identification and measurement of relevant quality indicators. Urological surgery currently does not have a validated quality-of-care framework to guide surgical quality improvement. This article aims to delineate quality of care processes, current status of quality indicators for major urological cancers as well as recommend a provisional framework for evaluation of quality for urological procedures. Growing demands for patient safety, lower cost and quality of care have resulted in several initiatives of quality measurement across urological surgery. Although candidate indicators have been proposed in various procedures, the field still lacks a valid quality framework. Better understanding of the interplay between patient selection, surgical expertise, preoperative-, intraoperative, postoperative processes and outcomes is needed. Consensus needs to be achieved in which validated structural, process and outcomes measures to employ, how this data should be collected, which agencies to share this data with and how to use this data to effect change in health policy. Compliance with quality framework needs to be continuously audited with its outcomes frequently benchmarked against international standards. Pursuit of quality improvement schemes require significant investment and need to be weighed against current budgetary constraints.

Mortality after major surgery for urologic cancers in specialized urology hospitals: are they any better?: Konety BR, Allareddy V, Modak S, Smith B, Department of Urology, Carver College of Medicine and College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

Specialty-specific hospitals and hospitals with a high volume of complex procedures have been shown to have better outcomes. We sought to determine whether a high volume of unrelated complex procedures or procedures in the same specialty area (urology) could translate into better outcomes after major urologic cancer surgery. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of administrative discharge abstract data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample of the Health Care Utilization Project for years 1998 to 2002. Comparison of outcome after three major urologic cancer-related surgical procedures (radical cystectomy [RC], radical nephrectomy [RN], and radical prostatectomy [RP]) at hospitals by procedure-specific volume, specialized urology status, and Leapfrog criteria was obtained to determine in-hospital mortality after the procedure. All patients in the database with a diagnosis of bladder, kidney, or prostate cancer being admitted for RC, RN, or RP between 1998 and 2002 were included. Neither specialized urology status nor meeting Leapfrog volume criteria for unrelated procedures was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality after any of the procedures examined. High-volume hospitals (for RC and RP) and moderate-volume hospitals (for RP) were associated with lower odds of mortality. None of the examined hospital volume-related factors was associated with lower odds of mortality after RN. In-hospital mortality after two of three major urologic cancer procedures is affected only by procedure-specific volumes. Generalized process measures existing in hospitals performing a high volume of general urologic procedures or unrelated complex procedures may be less important determinants of procedure-specific outcomes in patients.

Mortality After Major Surgery for Urologic Cancers in Specialized Urology Hospitals: Are They Any Better?

Specialty-specific hospitals and hospitals with a high volume of complex procedures have been shown to have better outcomes. We sought to determine whether a high volume of unrelated complex procedures or procedures in the same specialty area (urology) could translate into better outcomes after major urologic cancer surgery. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of administrative discharge abstract data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample of the Health Care Utilization Project for years 1998 to 2002. Comparison of outcome after three major urologic cancer-related surgical procedures (radical cystectomy [RC], radical nephrectomy [RN], and radical prostatectomy [RP]) at hospitals by procedure-specific volume, specialized urology status, and Leapfrog criteria was obtained to determine in-hospital mortality after the procedure. All patients in the database with a diagnosis of bladder, kidney, or prostate cancer being admitted for RC, RN, or RP between 1998 and 2002 were included. Neither specialized urology status nor meeting Leapfrog volume criteria for unrelated procedures was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality after any of the procedures examined. High-volume hospitals (for RC and RP) and moderate-volume hospitals (for RP) were associated with lower odds of mortality. None of the examined hospital volume-related factors was associated with lower odds of mortality after RN. In-hospital mortality after two of three major urologic cancer procedures is affected only by procedure-specific volumes. Generalized process measures existing in hospitals performing a high volume of general urologic procedures or unrelated complex procedures may be less important determinants of procedure-specific outcomes in patients.

174: Where are Patients with Major Urologic Cancers Undergoing Surgery? Changing Trends in Delivery of Surgical and non-surgical care

174: Where are Patients with Major Urologic Cancers Undergoing Surgery? Changing Trends in Delivery of Surgical and non-surgical care

Hereditary Aspects of Urologic Cancer

The current status of genetic research at the molecular biology level is reviewed as it applies to the hereditary aspects of urogenital cancer. An introductory overview of tumorigenesis as a multistep process with interactions between the host and environment is followed by separate discussions of hereditary and genetic alterations in the five major urologic cancers: prostate, urothelial, testicular, renal cell, and Wilms’ tumor.

Immunohistochemical analysis of Reg IV in urogenital organs: Frequent expression of Reg IV in prostate cancer and potential utility as serum tumor marker

Regenerating islet-derived family, member 4 (Reg IV) is a candidate marker for cancer and inflammatory bowel disease and is associated with neuroendocrine and intestinal differentiation. We have reported that 14% of prostate cancer (PCa) cases are positive for Reg IV by immunohistochemistry. In the present study, we performed immunohistochemical analysis of Reg IV in other major urological cancers, including 101 renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and 95 urothelial carcinoma (UC) of urinary bladder by immunohistochemistry. We also investigated neuroendocrine differentiation by chromogranin A and synaptophysin staining along with intestinal differentiation by MUC2 staining. Immunohistochemical analysis of Reg IV revealed no expression of Reg IV in RCC, and only one case (1%) of UC expressed Reg IV. Neither neuroendocrine nor intestinal differentiation was found in RCC. Among 95 UC cases, neuroendocrine differentiation was detected in 13 cases (14%), and intestinal differentiation was observed in 33 cases (35%). In one Reg IV-positive UC case, MUC2 staining was observed. Since Reg IV expression was frequently found in PCa, we also measured Reg IV levels in sera from patients with PCa by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The serum Reg IV concentration in PCa patients (n=38, mean +/- SE, 1.69+/-0.16 ng/ml) was significantly higher than that in control individuals (n=40, 1.28+/-0.11 ng/ml, P=0.0199, Mann-Whitney U test). The sensitivity and specificity for detection of PCa were 34% (13/38) and 90% (36/40), respectively. These results suggest that among major urologic cancers, Reg IV is expressed frequently in PCa, and that serum Reg IV represents a novel biomarker for PCa.

Use of predeposit autologous blood and intraoperative autotransfusion in urologic cancer surgery

A total of 20 patients underwent major urologic cancer surgery with the combined use of predeposit autologous blood and intraoperative autotransfusion with the Haemonetics Cell Saver. The estimated blood loss ranged from 400 to 2,000 mL (mean 1,208 mL). Total transfusion requirements for the 20 patients were 85.5 units of which 82.5 (96 %) were autologous. Predeposit autologous blood accounted for 53 percent, intraoperative autotransfusion blood 43 percent, and homologous blood 4 percent of the total transfusion requirements Of the 20 patients in the study, only 1 received homologous blood. There were no complications related to either modality of autotransfusion. Our data suggest that using the combined modalities of predeposit autologous blood donation and intraoperative autotransfusion, major urologic cancer surgery can be performed without homologous blood in most cases.