Articles tagged with: Kidney Surgery

29
April
2014

Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR)

Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR)

Our First Guest Blog for May 2014 is by Dr Shankar Siva, a Radiation Oncologist from The Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne. He discusses the new technique of Sterotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for kidney cancer in patients who are not medically fit for surgery. This new approach is still in a study period, but may offer cancer control to patients who do not have other treatment options.


Shankar, can you explain what Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) is, and what advantages it has over other forms of radiotherapy?


Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a high precision radiotherapy technique that involves between 1 and 5 treatments. This is very different from conventional radiotherapy that involves daily radiotherapy for up to 8 weeks. It is non-invasive, painless, delivered without any need for anaesthetic, and conveniently does not require in-patient hospitalisation. SABR requires high-tech radiotherapy equipment for safe delivery, such as motion management for the tumour, accurate image guidance, and robust immobilisation. When delivered correctly, SABR can achieve submillimetre accuracy. Because of its precision, the SABR technique allows for much higher biological doses than can be safely delivered using conventional radiotherapy techniques. As such, most studies in sites such as the brain, lung and spine report cancer control rates in the order of 90% or greater after SABR.


Sterotactic radiotherapy for some other types of tumour has been around for some time. Why has it only recently been looked at for kidney tumours?


Stereotactic radiotherapy was first devised for brain tumours by Swedish neurosurgeon Lars Leksell in 1951, who termed it “radiosurgery”, so yes, it has been around for a very long time! Cranial "radiosurgery" was performed by using a rigid frame around the skull which allowed for accurate delivery of the radiation dose. However, tumours in other organs such as the lung, liver, and kidney are all highly mobile due to normal breathing or from the pumping of the heart. Only recently have technological advances allowed us to account for and manage tumour motion during radiotherapy delivery. The kidney in particular is a challenging organ, as it is quite mobile and surrounded by many sensitive organs.


Which group of patients is likely to be suitable for this treatment for kidney tumours?


Surgery is still the standard of care for patients with kidney cancer. However, kidney cancer is typically a disease of the older population, with the average age of diagnosis being 65 years of age. Some patients have other medical conditions which make invasive procedures potentially risky, particularly those patients who may have significant pre-existing kidney dysfunction, are risky anaesthetic candidates, or have heart disease and are reliant on blood thinners. In light of this risk, other procedures such as SABR and radiofrequency or microwave ablation have emerged as treatment alternatives for inoperable patients. In contrast to SABR, the disadvantage of radiofrequency ablation and microwave ablation is that those techniques can typically treat only treat smaller tumours, require the insertion of electrodes through the skin into the kidney (invasive), and are not as effective when tumours are close to blood vessels. On the other hand, the disadvantage of SABR is that it is typically restricted to patients who have not previously received radiotherapy to the upper abdomen. Otherwise, we expect that most patients who are not suitable for surgery on medical grounds may be eligible for treatment using the SABR technique.


What are the potential side effects?


In the early period after treatment, we expect that most patients feel tired. There may be some nausea, or loose bowel actions. Some patients may experience some reflux or heartburn. We typically prescribe preventative medications to help with these side effects. There may be a mild skin reaction, similar to a very light sunburn, particularly around the back. These side effects usually resolve within the first 2-3 weeks, and we expect all of these side effects to be resolved by around 6 weeks post treatment. The longer term effects of SABR in the kidney are less well understood. There is a potential for decline in kidney function, rise in blood pressure, scarring or narrowing of the bowel, or very rarely ulceration of the bowel or stomach. To date, studies have shown that the risk of severe side effects to be less than 5%.


This treatment is currently part of a study at the Peter Mac. What do you think the future holds for this treatment for kidney tumours?


We have pioneered this technique in Australia through the FASTRACK clinical trial, one of the few clinical trials using SABR for localised kidney cancer in the world. This study is expected to be complete later in 2014, and to date the results have been very promising. We would like to make this treatment accessible to all patients in Australia. However, the problem is that technology is very complex and varies from centre to centre. The Peter Mac is one of the largest radiation oncology institutions in the southern hemisphere and an Australian leader in the SABR technique, so we are not certain whether our results can be immediately reproduced in other institutions across Australia.

The next phase in our research program is to lead a multicentre study of SABR for kidney cancer involving multiple cancer centres across Australia. All the treatment plans will be centrally reviewed by our team at the Peter Mac for quality assurance, in order for this new treatment to be safely introduced across Australia. If this study is successful, I imagine that stereotactic radiotherapy will become a readily available treatment alternative for inoperable patients with primary kidney cancer.


Click this link to display a news item and video on the SABR technique.


Dr Siva is a Radiation Oncologist, Research Staff Specialist and NHMRC Scholar at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne. His major research interests are in high-tech radiation delivery and radiation biology. He is the lead clinician of the stereotactic body radiotherapy program at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, and coordinates the first dedicated Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) clinic in Australia. He published the first original research using the SABR technique in Australia. He serves on the Radiation Oncology Research Committee (RORC) of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, on the renal subcommittee of the Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate (ANZUP) trials group, and as the radiation oncologist on the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) of the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group (ALTG). He is the principal investigator of multiple radiotherapy clinical trials of SABR in the context of lung, kidney and prostate malignancies.

Follow this link for more information on Dr. Shankar Siva


Categories: Video, Updates, Kidney Cancer

07
April
2014

Infectious Complications of Kidney Stone Surgery

Infectious Complications of Kidney Stone Surgery

Our latest Guest Blog is by Dr Michael Wong, Director of the Singapore Urology, Fertility and Gynaecology Centre. He is a US Fellowship Trained Urologist, and previous President of the Singapore Urology Association. Michael gives an up to date and comprehensive account of Infective Complications in the Surgical Management of Urinary Stones.


Infective Complications in the Surgical Management of Urinary Stones


Introduction

Despite the significant advancements in the surgical management of urinary stones, morbidity and even mortality are still being reported. Krambeck reported in the Journal of Urology in 2013 that deaths still occur after surgery, particularly in the elderly population as their immunity is lower and there could be delay in diagnosis due to lack of classical symptoms. The importance of appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis and assessment of risk factors prior to treatment cannot be underestimated.


Infective Issues with Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL)

PCNL is most appropriate for large renal stones. One of the feared complications of PCNL is urosepsis. A common composition for staghorn stones is struvite,5 which results from the presence of urea-splitting organisms, and non-struvite stones may also harbor bacteria. There is therefore an increased risk for sepsis during the procedure. Further, PCNL utilizes large volumes of irrigation relative to ureteroscopy, which may increase the risk of sepsis.

The practice of prophylaxis for PCNL is not for debate. David Tolley reported that the rate of UTI reduces 3 fold when using prophylaxis for PCNL. Recently, the CROES group reported a series of 162 patients from multiple institutions who underwent PCNL without pre-operative antibiotics and matched them to patients who did receive antibiotics6 All patients had negative pre-operative urine cultures and matching was based on infectious risk factors such as diabetes, nephrostomy tubes and staghorn stones. They found that antibiotic prophylaxis led to fewer fevers (2.5% vs. 7.4%) and other complications (1.9% vs. 22%) and higher stone free rate (86.3% vs. 74%). The explanation for this finding may be that stones themselves may harbor bacteria that may not manifest in a voided urine culture.

ESWL -

Techniques to culture stones were described over 40 years ago. In a study examining infection rates in patients undergoing PCNL, 35% of patients had positive stone cultures, compared with 21% of upper tract and 11% of bladder urine cultures. Stone manipulation and lithotripsy can result in the release of bacteria and contamination of urine with possible systemic transudation resulting in sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). Stone cultures have been shown to be a better predictor of sepsis and SIRS than voided cultures. Mariappan showed a positive stone culture to have over 80% sensitivity and a positive predictive value of 70% in predicting SIRS.7 Overall, positive stone cultures increased the risk of SIRS 4-fold. Along with bacteria, stones contain endotoxins that can potentially result in a systemic immune response clinically similar to sepsis.

The greatest limitation of stone cultures is that they are only available after a procedure with some days to allow bacteria culture and so cannot influence immediate peri-operative treatment. The utility of obtaining stone cultures in clinical practice is to guide antibiotic choice in the event of sepsis following ureteroscopy or PCNL rather than predicting it. Having said this, it is reassuring to routinely collect stone cultures intraoperatively from patients undergoing PCNL.


Understanding the Risk factors for Urosepsis during PCNL

Many groups have reviewed their experience with PCNL in an attempt to identify risk factors for post-operative fever, sepsis or SIRS. A positive pre-operative urine culture was associated with increased infectious risk (OR 2.2 -16.7), as were positive pelvic urine (OR 10.2 – 24.1) and stone cultures (4.88 – 25.6). Other factors such as female sex, hydroureteronephrosis, pre-operative nephrostomy tube, large or complex stone burden, and diabetes have all been associated with an increased risk of post-operative fever or sepsis.

Korets and colleagues showed that an increased number of access tracts increased the risk of SIRS (HR 4.8) when controlling for patient sex, stone culture and composition, while several other groups have found increased operative time to be a risk factor for fever. Dogan also showed volume of irrigation fluid required was a significant predictor. These three factors are likely all surrogates for stone size and complexity, resulting in a prolonged procedure.


Infective Issues with Ureteroscopy

A 2003 RCT by Knopf et al. that included 113 patients found a single prophylactic oral dose of fluoroquinolone prior to ureteroscopy reduced the incidence of post-operative bacteriuria (1.8% vs. 12.5%, p=0.02). There were, however, no incidences of symptomatic UTI. This study guided the AUA Best Practice Policy in recommending antibiotic prophylaxis prior to ureteroscopy for the management of stone disease.3 The guideline committee states that the potential risk of bacteriuria is 30% and UTI ranges from 4% - 25% without prophylaxis. There is no difference in efficacy between oral fluoroquinolone and intravenous cefazolin.

A Korean group reviewed their experience of infectious complications following ureteroscopy and identified several risk factors.4 They noted an overall UTI rate of 3.8%. Furthermore, they found hydronephrosis, bacteriuria, and an indwelling ureteral stent or nephrostomy tube was associated with an increased risk of post-procedural fever. Administration of antibiotics after the procedure was not as effective as pre-procedural prophylaxis.

flexi scope

Eswara and colleagues retrospectively reviewed their experience with stone cultures in patients undergoing ureteroscopy (n=274) or PCNL (n=54). They found that while pre-operative urine cultures were only positive at some point in 7% of patients, stone cultures were positive in 29%. Their overall sepsis rate was about 3-4% for all patents. In patients with positive stone cultures, the sepsis rate was significantly higher at 8% compared to only 1% in those who had negative stone cultures. Ultimately, urine cultures had a sensitivity of 11% versus 64% in stone cultures and there was a concordance of 64% between the stone culture pathogen and the one causes sepsis compared to only 9% of pre-operative urine cultures. Despite the correlation of stone cultures and post-operative infection, their utilization in guiding clinical practice is limited in that it takes several days following the removal of the stone for cultures to results. They are most helpful following the development of UTI to help guide antibiotic choice.

Unfortunately we do not have a study showing the use of ureteric stent post URS reduces UTI as upper tract decompression using a stent would also play a part in reducing UTI.


Infective Issues in Extra-Corporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL)

In general, the incidence of urinary tract infection occurring after uncomplicated ESWL is less than 1%, rising to 2.7% for staghorn calculi. This risk of sepsis increases in the presence of bacteriuria prior to ESWL especially if there is distal obstruction.

Until recently, the practice of giving prophylactic antibiotics was controversial in patients undergoing ESWL with negative urine cultures. It has been reported that bacteriuria can develop in 5-6% of patients undergoing ESWL even in the presence of sterile urine prior to the procedure and the risk of clinical UTI can be seen in 2-3% subsequently.

The European Association of Urology guidelines on urological infections (updated in 2010) do not recommend prophylactic antibiotics in ESWL unless there are risk factors like ureteral stents, urinary catheters, nephrostomy tubes or infective stones1. More recently, in a meta-analysis reported in the Journal of Urology in 2012 covering 9 randomized trials of 1364 patients undergoing ESWL for urinary stones with sterile urine cultures2, Lu et al reported no significant differences between the prophylactic group and the control group in terms of symptoms, rate of fever, rate of positive urine culture and the incidence of urinary tract infection. They suggested that antibiotic prophylaxis is not necessary for ESWL in low risk patients.

PCNL

The American Urological Association guidelines3 were recently updated in Jan 2014 and currently do not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing ESWL with negative urine culture. In the light of more recent publications, prophylactic antibiotics are recommended only in high risk stone groups with infective stones, recent instrumentation, nephrostomy tubes, positive urine cultures and a history of recent UTI or sepsis. In addition, special considerations should also be given to high risk patient groups which the AUA defines as advanced age, anatomical anomalies of the urinary tract, poor nutritional status, chronic smokers, chronic steroid users, immunodeficiency, externalized catheters and prolong hospitalisation.

In general, ESWL should only be performed if the urine is sterile and when there is no distal obstruction to minimise infective complication. Currently, prophylactic antibiotics should be considered only in high risk patients.


Conclusion

The current guidelines and practice patterns pertaining to stone surgery have evolved based on emerging clinical data. These recommendations in conjunction with patients’ individual risk factors and culture data should help guide ongoing practice patterns.


References

1. Wolf, J. S., Jr., Bennett, C.J., Dmochowski, R.R. et al. : Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol, 179:1379,2008.

2. Grabe, M., Bjerklund-Johansen, T.E., Botto, H. et al.: Guidelines on Urological infections. European Association of Urology:79,2010.

3. Lu, Y., Tianyong, F., Ping, H. et al.: Antibiotic prophylaxis for shock wave lithotripsy in patients with sterile urine before treatment may be unnecessary: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol, 188:441,2012.

4. Sohn, D. W., Kim, S. W., Hong, C. G. et al.: Risk factors of infectious complication after ureteroscopic procedures of the upper urinary tract. J Infect Chemother, 2013

5. Segura, J. W., Preminger, G. M., Assimos, D. G. et al.: Nephrolithiasis Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of staghorn calculi. The American Urological Association Nephrolithiasis Clinical Guidelines Panel. J Urol, 151: 1648, 1994

6. Gravas, S., Montanari, E., Geavlete, P. et al.: Postoperative infection rates in low risk patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy with and without antibiotic prophylaxis: a matched case control study. J Urol, 188: 843, 2012

7. Mariappan, P., Loong, C. W.: Midstream urine culture and sensitivity test is a poor predictor of infected urine proximal to the obstructing ureteral stone or infected stones: a prospective clinical study. J Urol, 171: 2142, 2004


You can read more about Michael Wong by clicking this link

Categories: Updates, Other

23
September
2013

Management of Localised Kidney Cancer

Management of Localised Kidney Cancer

Alexander Kutikov, MD is a Surgical Oncologist and Associate Professor of Urologic Oncology at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. He is a highly published author and experienced presenter on the topic of Urological Cancer, and is very active in Social Media in Urology. In this Guest Post, Alex gives a concise account of the diagnosis and treatment options for localised kidney cancer. He explains what you need to know, and what you should ask your surgeon.

You can read more about Alex by clicking this link : Alexander Kutikov MD, and you can follow him on twitter @uretericbud.

Details of the Fox Chase Cancer Center can be found here : Fox Chase Cancer Center.

The Kidneys

"If you or your loved one has been diagnosed with a kidney tumor / mass, reliable information regarding this condition is often difficult to obtain. It is important that you have a good understanding of the diagnostic and treatment options available in order to make an educated choice on how to best proceed with your treatment.

"Generally, when patients are diagnosed with a kidney mass, it is apparent on imaging studies whether the tumor is localized to the kidney or if it has spread beyond the kidney to other parts of the body. For patients with localized disease, surgical resection remains the gold standard, and is largely superior to therapies such as cryotherapy or radiofrequency ablation.

"The following points are important to remember:

1. Understand that not All Kidney Tumors are Malignant.

2. Understand Goals of Treatment:

Surgical Oncologists
  • Primary treatment goal: Oncologic cure - cancer control must never be compromised and surgical resection is the gold standard treatment for patients with kidney tumors. Yet, for some patients "active surveillance" is often an ideal initial option of choice (Small renal masses progressing to metastases under active surveillance: a systematic review and pooled analysis).

  • Secondary treatment goal: Kidney preservation - years of experience with kidney (aka: nephron) preserving surgery (partial nephrectomy) demonstrates that this approach is oncologically safe and is associated with long-term benefits to overall health. A standardized system to classify features of kidney tumors as they relate to ability to safely perform partial nephrectomy was developed at Fox Chase Cancer Center in 2009 (The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth.) and is currently used by kidney surgeons all over the globe.

  • Tertiary treatment goal: Utilization of minimally invasive surgical approaches - . Both transperitoneal and retroperitoneal minimally-invasive (laparoscopic / robotic) surgical approaches are currently utilized by expert kidney surgeons. Finding the right surgeon may help avoid a large painful incision, albeit traditional open kidney surgery continues to play an important role in management of some patients with large / anatomically complex kidney tumors.

3. Be Prepared During Your Visit.

Here are some questions to pose to your treating physician when you or your family member is diagnosed with a renal mass:

  • Understand characteristics of your mass: size of tumor, clinical stage of tumor, RENAL nephrometry score. If your tumor has been resected, be sure to obtain information regarding pathologic stage, grade and histology. Pathology review by expert pathologists at times can make a critical difference in guiding further treatments.
  • Why or why not do a biopsy?
  • Treatment Options:
    • Active Surveillance - am I a candidate?
    • Medical Therapy (generally reserved for tumors that have spread)
    • Renal mass ablation (generally reserved for frail patients whose surgical risks are prohibitive).
    • Surgery
      • partial nephrectomy: is your surgeon familiar and experienced with kidney preservation techniques? Is he/she comfortable performing partial nephrectomy minimally-invasively, thus accelerating your recovery and minimizing pain?
      • radical nephrectomy: if radical nephrectomy is offered, be sure to establish that partial nephrectomy is not possible at a more experienced center. If kidney preservation is not possible, can radical nephrectomy be performed with minimally-invasive techniques?
  • Risks of treatment: be sure to understand risks associated with each option.

"In summary, kidney cancer is curable in the majority of cases and its treatment is rapidly evolving. Finding an expert urologic surgeon who not only understands this complex disease, but also possesses the needed surgical skills to appropriately manage this condition is critical to successful outcomes."

This post was adapted by Alex Kutikov from an original Fox Chase Cancer Center Cancer Conversations blog post which appears at: Understanding Your Kidney Cancer Treatment Options

Categories: Updates

25
April
2013

da Vinci Robot: Prostate Surgery, Kidney Surgery, and More

Categories: Video, Kidney Surgery, Prostate Surgery, da Vinci Robot

25
April
2013

Organ Confined Kidney Cancer - George Chow, M.D. - Mayo Clinic

Categories: Video, Kidney Cancer

Affiliations

Urology Affiliations

Latest Tweets

Contact Us

  • Nick Brook Urology
    Calvary North Adelaide Hospital
    89 Strangways Tce,
    North Adelaide,
    Adelaide SA 5006
  • 08 8267 1424
  • 08 8267 1370