Outcomes of Postchemotherapy Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection from a High-volume UK Centre Compared with a National Data Set

European Urology Open Science

Robert Huddart¹  Alison Reid²  David L. Nicol³  David Manson-Bahr⁴  Erik Mayer⁵  Adam Kieran Pearce⁵ 

[1] Corresponding author. Urology Department, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield St, Herston, Brisbane, QLD 4006, Australia. Tel. [phone], Fax: [phone].;The Wesley Hospital, 450 Coronation Drive, Auchenflower, Qld 4066, Australia;Urology Dept, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Colney Lane, Norwich, NR4 7UY, UK;Urology Dept, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Butterfield St, Herston, Brisbane, Qld 4006, Australia;Urology Dept, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, 203 Fulham Rd, Chelsea, London, SW3 6JJ, UK;

关键词: Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection;    Germ cell tumours;    Testis cancer;    Postchemotherapy;    Outcomes;    Centralisation;   

DOI  :  

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Background: Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is essential for the treatment of metastatic germ cell tumours of the testis. Recommendations on the referral and management of complex urological cancers in the UK includes centralisation of services to regional centres. Objective: To review contemporary PC-RPLND outcomes at a high-volume centre with a complex case-mix, and compare with national registry data. Design, setting, and participants: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of PC-RPLNDs performed for germ cell tumours at our centre between July 2012 and September 2018. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Primary outcomes were Clavien 3+ complications, histology, rates of positive margin, relapse, in-field recurrences, and mortality. Secondary outcomes were blood loss, operation time, blood transfusion, adjuvant procedures, length of stay, and lymph node count. Surgical and histological outcomes of all RPLNDs for testicular cancers were compared with national RPLND registry data. For statistical difference, χ2 testing was used. Results and limitations: A total of 178 procedures were performed, including 31 (17%) redo RPLNDs. Clavien 3+ complications occurred in 11 (7%). Histological findings in non-redo cases were the following: necrosis 24%, teratoma 62%, viable germ cell tumour 11%, and dedifferentiated cancers 3%. Rates of positive margin, relapse, and in-field recurrence were 11%, 17%, and 2%, respectively. Overall survival was 89% at a median of 36 mo. The median blood loss was 650 ml (350, 1250), with a transfusion rate of 8%. Nephrectomy, vascular reconstruction, and visceral resection was required in 12%, 6%, and 3% respectively. The median inpatient stay was 6 d (5, 8) and the median node count was 35 (20, 37). A comparison of all RPLNDs with national data showed no statistical difference in primary outcomes. Our blood transfusion rate was significantly lower (12% vs 21%, χ2 [1, N = 322] = 4.296, p =  0.038). Conclusions: Centralisation led to high quality of RPLND in UK. Within that, our series (the largest in the UK) demonstrates no significant difference in outcomes despite higher complexity cases. Our blood transfusion rates are in fact lower than national figures. Complex RPLNDs should be performed in high-volume centres where possible. Patient summary: In the UK, retroperitoneal lymph node dissections (RPLND) are centralised to specialist centres and the quality of surgery is high, with low complications and good histological outcomes. When compared to national data, we found no significant difference in the majority of outcomes from our high-volume centre despite our complex case-mix.

【 授权许可】

Unknown