- Efficacy of intravesical gemcitabine instillation compared with intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin instillation for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer
-
Dong Ha Kim, Taek Sang Kim, Su Hwan Kang, Seong Bin Kim
-
Kosin Med J. 2024;39(4):254-258. Published online December 11, 2024
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.24.143
-
-
 Abstract
 PDF PubReader  ePub
- Background
Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) instillation is the most effective treatment for reducing intravesical recurrence in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). However, due to the recent global shortage of BCG, there is an increasing need for alternative treatments. This study aimed to retrospectively compare the outcomes of patients treated with intravesical gemcitabine instillation and BCG instillation as initial treatment options for NMIBC.
Methods
Seventy-eight patients with NMIBC who underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumors between January 2022 and September 2023 were reviewed. Of these, 42 patients received intravesical gemcitabine instillation, and 36 patients received BCG instillation. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was analyzed, along with tumor multiplicity, grade, T stage, size, and bladder storage time after instillation, which could influence RFS.
Results
The mean follow-up period was 18.7 months for the gemcitabine group and 20.6 months for the BCG group. Recurrence occurred in 46.15% of patients (52.38% in the gemcitabine group and 38.92% in the BCG group). Tumor characteristics, including multiplicity, grade, stage, and size, were not significantly different between the two groups. The mean RFS was 15.92 months in the gemcitabine group and 19.84 months in the BCG group, with no statistically significant difference (p=0.397). However, gemcitabine instillation caused more severe bladder irritation, with shorter bladder storage time.
Conclusions
Intravesical gemcitabine and BCG instillation yielded comparable RFS outcomes. However, gemcitabine led to more severe bladder irritation, highlighting the need for further studies to optimize its application.
- Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robot partial nephrectomy for kidney tumors
-
Yongdeuk Seo, Su Hwan Kang, Taek Sang Kim, Dong Ha Kim, Seong Bin Kim
-
Kosin Med J. 2023;38(4):274-277. Published online December 20, 2023
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.23.145
-
-
Abstract
PDFPubReader ePub
- Background
Surgical techniques for small kidney tumors have been developed for decades, from open to robotic surgery. There are two approaches for partial nephrectomy: transperitoneal and retroperitoneal. We divided robotic partial nephrectomy cases into transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN) and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN) and compared the outcomes.
Methods
We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy at our hospital between November 2019 and May 2022. We reviewed patients’ demographic and perioperative data.
Results
Seventy robotic partial nephrectomies were performed (35 TRPN and 35 RRPN). There were significant differences in operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), tumor size, and the RENAL Nephrometry Score (RNS) between those who underwent TRPN and those who underwent RRPN. Larger tumors were noted in the TRPN group, and the RNS was higher. In contrast, the operation time was shorter, EBL was lower, and tumors were more likely to be located in the posterior and lower portions in the RRPN group than in the TRPN group.
Conclusions
In our study, RRPN had advantages over TRPN in terms of operation time and EBL. However, TRPN tended to be performed rather than RRPN for tumors that were more complex in terms of size or RNS. Although the choice between RRPN and TRPN depends on the surgeon's preference, RRPN seems effective for treating small kidney tumors if selected appropriately.
|
KOSIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
