Pre-treatment and post-treatment fertility in young male patients affected by Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the fertility in young patients affected by Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, before and after chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. We conducted a retrospective study to analyse how treatment affects male fertility and a perspective study to assess pre-treatment sperm quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 28 patients, treated in our center or referred to our Medically Assisted Procreation Center, from 2002 to 2011, were selected for the retrospective study and asked if interested in their fertility assessment. Semen samples were taken from 11 patients (mean age 31.55: range 20-45); other possible causes of impaired fertility were excluded. We analyzed pretreatment semen samples of 61 patients (mean age 29.08 +/- 9.5) affected by leukaemia or lymphoma that were selected for the perspective study and referred to the Sperm Bank of Pordenone. All semen samples were analysed accordingly to 1999 World Health Organization guidelines. RESULTS: In the retrospective study all semen samples of the 11 patients selected were altered. Six patients treated with high dose alkylating agents and abdominal/pelvic radiotherapy were found azoospermic, 3 with severe oligoasthenozoospermic, 1 oligoteratozoospermic and 1 asthenozoospermic. In the perspective study pretreatment semen quality was poor in most of the samples of the 61 patients selected. Normozoospermia was observed in 14% of patients affected by Hodgkin lymphoma and in 25% affected by non-Hodgkin lymphoma. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy, radiotherapy or their combination are followed by a temporary but sometimes irreversible reduction of fertility potential. Pre-treatment semen quality is acceptable to proceed with cyopreservation techniques. Sperm cryopreservation should be offered to all post puberal male patients who have not yet conceived before treatment with gonado-toxic agents

Effect of Obesity and Overweight Status on Complications and Survival after Minimally Invasive Kidney Surgery in Patients with Clinical T2-4 Renal Masses

Objective: To evaluate the effect of obesity and overweight on surgical, functional, and survival outcomes in patients with large kidney masses after minimally invasive surgery. Materials and Methods: Within a multicenter multinational dataset, patients found to have ≥cT2 renal mass and treated with minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) kidney surgery (radical or partial nephrectomy) during the period 2003 to 2017 were abstracted. They were stratified according to the body mass index classes as normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2), and obese (≥30.0 kg/m2). Mixed models and Cox proportional hazard regression tested differences in complication rates, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) change over time, overall mortality (OM), and disease recurrence (DR) rates. Results: Of 812 patients, 30.6% were normal weight, 42.7% were overweight, and 26.7% obese. Overweight (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-1.31, p = 0.406) and obese patients (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.44-1.47, p = 0.490) experienced similar complication rates than normal weight. Moreover, no statistically significant differences in eGFR were found for overweight (p = 0.129) or obese (p = 0.166) patients compared to normal weight. However, higher OM rates were recorded in overweight (hazard ratio [HR] 3.59, 95% CI: 1.03-12.51, p = 0.044), as well as in obese, patients (HR 7.83, 95% CI: 2.20-27.83, p = 0.002). Similarly, higher DR rates were recorded in obese (HR 2.76, 95% CI: 1.40-5.44, p = 0.003) patients. Conclusions: Obese and overweight patients do not experience higher complication rates or worse eGFR after minimally invasive kidney surgery, which therefore can be deemed feasible and safe also in this subset of patients. Nevertheless, obese and overweight patients seem to carry a higher risk of OM, and therefore, they should undergo a strict follow-up after surgery

Outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for clinical t2 renal tumors. a multicenter analysis (rosula collaborative group)

This large multicenter experience suggests that robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for clinical T2 renal masses is feasible, it offers good surgical outcomes, and it allows preservation of renal function. Overall, the outcomes of a robotic approach compare favorably with those reported for open nephron-sparing surgery for this challenging indication

Robotic versus laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: a large multi-institutional analysis (ROSULA Collaborative Group)

Objective: To compare the outcomes of robotic radical nephrectomy (RRN) to those of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) for large renal masses. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of RRN and LRN cases performed for large (≥ cT2) renal masses from 2004 to 2017 and collected in the multi-institutional international database (ROSULA: RObotic SUrgery for LArge renal masses). Peri-operative, functional, and oncologic outcomes were compared between each approach. Descriptive analyses were performed and presented as medians with interquartile ranges. Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted multivariable analyses were used to identify predictors of peri-operative complications. Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox regression models were used to assess survival outcomes. Results: A total of 941 patients (RRN = 404, LRN = 537) were identified. There was no difference in terms of gender, age, and clinical tumor size. Over the study period, RRN had an annual increase of 11.75% (95% CI [7.34, 17.01] p < 0.001) and LRN had an annual decline of 5.39% (95% CI [−6.94, −3.86] p < 0.001). Patients undergoing RRN had higher BMI (27.6 [IQR 24.8–31.1] vs. 26.5 [24.1–30.0] kg/m2, p < 0.01). Operative duration was longer for RRN (185.0 [150.0–237.2] vs. 126 [90.8–180.0] min, p < 0.001). Length of stay was shorter for RRN (3.0 [2.0–4.0] vs. 5.0 [4.0–7.0] days, p < 0.001). RRN cases presented more advanced disease (higher pathologic staging [pT3–4 52.5 vs. 24.2%, p < 0.001], histologic grade [high grade 49.3 vs. 30.4%, p < 0.001], and rate of nodal disease [pN1 5.4 vs. 1.9%, p < 0.01]). Surgical approach did not represent an independent risk factor for peri-operative complications (OR 1.81 95% CI [0.97–3.39], adjusted p = 0.2). The main study limitation is the retrospective design. Conclusions: This study represents the largest known multi-center comparison between RRN and LRN. The two procedures seem to offer similar peri-operative outcomes. Notably, RRN has been increasingly utilized, especially in the setting of more advanced and surgically challenging disease without increasing the risk of peri-operative complications