To stent or not to stent perioperatively the ureteroileal anastomosis of ileal orthotopic bladder substitutes and ileal conduits? Results of a prospective randomized trial

PURPOSE: We evaluated the impact of stenting the ureteroileal anastomosis on its competence, upper urinary tract dilatation, gastrointestinal recovery, metabolic parameters and patency rate after cystectomy with ileal bladder substitution or ileal conduit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 54 patients (37 with an ileal bladder substitute and 17 with an ileal conduit) were prospectively randomized into 2 groups, with (29) or without (25) perioperative stenting of the ureteroileal anastomosis. In all cases an end-to-side ureteroileal refluxing anastomosis was performed. The stents were removed after 5 to 10 days. The parameters assessed postoperative days 1, 3 and 7 were creatinine concentration from the wound drains, upper urinary tract dilatation, time to bowel function recovery, serum creatinine, as well as urea and incidence of metabolic acidosis. RESULTS: Median patient age was 68 years (range 45 to 85). Urine leak on postoperative day 1 was more frequent in those anastomoses without stents, and on postoperative days 3 and 7 the values were comparable. Stenting of the ureteroileal anastomosis resulted in significantly decreased early postoperative upper urinary tract dilatation, improved recovery of bowel function and decreased metabolic acidosis. In either group no patient had clinical evidence of ureteroileal anastomotic stricture during the early postoperative period. Three patients with perioperative stenting required surgical or endoscopic treatment for a stricture of the ureteroileal anastomosis during the 12-month followup. CONCLUSIONS: Stenting of the ureteroileal anastomosis allows for significantly less frequent incidence of early postoperative dilatation of the pelvicaliceal system, bowel activity resumes significantly earlier and metabolic acidosis is significantly less frequent.

The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study

OBJECTIVES: To map the primary prostatic lymphatic landing sites using a multimodality technique. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with organ-confined prostate cancer (cT1-cT2; cN0) underwent single-photon emission computed tomography fused with data from computed tomography (SPECT/CT) (n=33) or magnetic resonance imaging (SPECT/MRI) (n=1) 1h after ultrasound-guided intraprostatic injection of technecium (Tc-99m) nanocolloid. The presence of lymph nodes (LNs) containing Tc-99m was confirmed intraoperatively with a gamma probe. A backup extended pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) was performed to preclude missed primary lymphatic landing sites. The SPECT/CT/MRI data sets were used to generate a three-dimensional projection of each LN site. RESULTS: A total of 317 LNs (median, 10 per patient; range, 3-19) were detected by SPECT/CT/MRI, 314 of which were confirmed by gamma probe. With an "extended" PLND, two thirds of all primary prostatic lymphatic landing sites are resected compared with only one third with a "limited" PLND. CONCLUSIONS: The multimodality technique presented here enables precise mapping of the primary prostatic lymphatic landing sites. PLND for prostate cancer should include not only the external and obturator regions as well as the portions medial and lateral to the internal iliac vessels, but also the common iliac LNs at least up to the ureteric crossing, thus removing approximately 75% of all nodes potentially harbouring metastasis.

Increased expression of putative cancer stem cell markers in the bone marrow of prostate cancer patients is associated with bone metastasis progression.

BACKGROUND The number of cells positive for the α-6 and α-2 integrin subunits and the c-Met receptor in primary tumors and bone biopsies from prostate cancer patients has been correlated with metastasis and disease progression. The objective of this study was to quantify disseminated tumour cells present in bone marrow in prostate cancer patients using specific markers and determine their correlation with metastasis and survival. METHODS Patients were included at different stage of prostate cancer disease, from localised to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Healthy men were used as a control group. Bone marrow samples were collected and nucleated cells separated. These were stained for CD45, α-2, α-6 integrin subunits and c-Met and samples were processed for analysis and quantification of CD45-/α2+/α6+/c-met + cells using flow cytometry. Clinical and pathological parameters were assessed and survival measured. Statistical analyses were made of associations between disease specific parameters, bone marrow flow cytometry data, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression free survival and bone metastases progression free survival. RESULTS For all markers, the presence of more than 0.1% positive cells in bone marrow aspirates was significantly associated with the risk of biochemical progression, the risk of developing metastasis and death from prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS Quantification of cells carrying putative stem cell markers in bone marrow is a potential indicator of disease progression. Functional studies on isolated cells are needed to show more specifically their property for metastatic spread in prostate cancer.

Incorporation of tissue-based genomic biomarkers into localized prostate cancer clinics.

Localized prostate cancer (PCa) is a clinically heterogeneous disease, which presents with variability in patient outcomes within the same risk stratification (low, intermediate or high) and even within the same Gleason scores. Genomic tools have been developed with the purpose of stratifying patients affected by this disease to help physicians personalize therapies and follow-up schemes. This review focuses on these tissue-based tools. At present, four genomic tools are commercially available: Decipher™, Oncotype DX®, Prolaris® and ProMark®. Decipher™ is a tool based on 22 genes and evaluates the risk of adverse outcomes (metastasis) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Oncotype DX® is based on 17 genes and focuses on the ability to predict outcomes (adverse pathology) in very low-low and low-intermediate PCa patients, while Prolaris® is built on a panel of 46 genes and is validated to evaluate outcomes for patients at low risk as well as patients who are affected by high risk PCa and post-RP. Finally, ProMark® is based on a multiplexed proteomics assay and predicts PCa aggressiveness in patients found with similar features to Oncotype DX®. These biomarkers can be helpful for post-biopsy decision-making in low risk patients and post-radical prostatectomy in selected risk groups. Further studies are needed to investigate the clinical benefit of these new technologies, the financial ramifications and how they should be utilized in clinics.