INTRODUCTIONRenal cell carcinoma (RCC) in young patients is uncommon but thought to represent a distinctive clinical entity from older patients with different clinico-pathologic features and outcomes. We evaluated the association of age at the time of diagnosis with pathological staging, histological parameters, disease recurrence and overall survival (OS) following radical or partial nephrectomy for non-metastatic RCC in native kidneys.

MATERIALS AND METHODSA retrospective review of 316 patients with RCC after nephrectomy at a single institution between January 2001 and June 2008 was performed. Eligible patients included all histologically proven primary non-metastatic RCC treated by radical or partial nephrectomy. They were categorised into group A (≤ 40 years at diagnosis) and B (> 40 years). Differences in clinical parameters were analysed using the Mann Whitney U test. The prognostic potential of age at diagnosis was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan Meier method.

RESULTSThere were 33 patients in group A and 283 patients in group B. There were more non-clear cell tumours in the younger group (30% vs 14%, P <0.05). No statistical differences were found in the stage and grade of both groups. At a median follow-up time of 41 months, the younger group had a higher metastatic rate (18% vs 10.5%, P <0.05), lower 5-year cancer-specific survival (82% vs 98%, P <0.05) and lower 5-year OS (82 % vs 95%, P <0.05).

CONCLUSIONYounger patients were more likely to have non-clear cell RCC with higher disease recurrence and lower OS. They should not be assumed to have similar features and outcomes as screen-detected early RCC in older patients.

Adult ; Age Factors ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Carcinoma, Renal Cell ; diagnosis ; mortality ; pathology ; surgery ; Female ; Humans ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Kidney Neoplasms ; diagnosis ; mortality ; pathology ; surgery ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Nephrectomy ; Prognosis ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Recurrence ; Retrospective Studies ; Statistics, Nonparametric ; Survival Analysis

Adult ; Carcinoma, Renal Cell ; complications ; pathology ; Castleman Disease ; complications ; pathology ; Humans ; Kidney Neoplasms ; complications ; pathology ; Male ; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy

INTRODUCTIONPeriprostatic nerve block (PPNB) is a common local anaesthetic technique in transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsy, but concerns remain over the increased theoretical risks of urinary tract infection (UTI) and sepsis from the additional transrectal needle punctures. This study reviewed our biopsy data to assess this risk.

MATERIALS AND METHODSRetrospective data collected from 177 men who underwent TRUS biopsy between July 2007 and December 2009 in a single institution were analysed. PPNB was administered using 1% xylocaine at the prostatic base and apex and repeated on the contralateral side under ultrasound guidance. Complications, including UTI sepsis, bleeding per rectum and acute retention of urine (ARU) were noted. Every patient was tracked for the first 2 weeks for complications until his clinic review. Demographic profi le, biopsy parameters and histological fi ndings were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analysis of possible risk factors for development of sepsis after TRUS biopsy were performed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 17.0.

RESULTSNinety (51%) men received PPNB and 87 (49%) did not. The groups were matched in age (PPNB: mean 62.7 ± 5.8 years; without PPNB: mean 64.4 ± 5.7 years) and prebiopsy prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels (PPNB: mean 8.2 ± 3.9 ng/mL; without PPNB: mean 8.3 ± 3.7 ng/mL). The PPNB group had a larger prostate volume, with more cores taken (P <0.05). On univariate and multivariate analysis controlling for age, PSA, prostate volume, number of cores taken and histological prostatitis, PPNB was not a significant risk factor for sepsis. Sepsis rates were 5.6% in the PPNB group and 5.7% in the other group (P = 0.956). Overall prostate cancer detection rate was 33.3%.

CONCLUSIONThe risk of sepsis was not increased in patients who received PPNB, even though this group had larger gland volumes and more biopsy cores taken.

Aged ; Biopsy, Needle ; adverse effects ; methods ; Endosonography ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Incidence ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Nerve Block ; adverse effects ; methods ; Prostate-Specific Antigen ; blood ; Prostatic Neoplasms ; blood ; diagnosis ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Sepsis ; blood ; epidemiology ; etiology ; Singapore ; epidemiology

Humans ; Male ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Prostatectomy ; standards ; Prostatic Neoplasms ; surgery

INTRODUCTIONThis study evaluated the data completeness in the registration of prostate cancer after robotic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in the Urological Cancer Registry at the Singapore General Hospital (SGH), and its compliance to the international standards of US Commission on Cancer (CoC).

MATERIALS AND METHODSA certified cancer registrar reviewed all RRP cases between June 2003 and July 2008 in the Urological Cancer Registry at SGH.

RESULTSA total of 365 cases were reviewed. The results showed that 351 (96.2%) of RRP patients' demographic data were captured and 321 (87.9%) of RRP patients were staged. According to the international standards of CoC for an academic institution, the requirement is to capture 100% of all cancer cases and stage at least 90% of them. As for data completeness, 317 (86.7%) of RRP details were captured as compared to the CoC standard requirement of 90%.

CONCLUSIONSThe existing manual cancer registry does not fully meet the CoC standards. Hence, the registry increased sources of case-finding and used active case-finding. With improvements made to the data collection methodology, the number of prostate cancer cases identified has been increased by 52.1% from 215 in 2007 to 327 in 2009. The registry is expected to be fully compliant with the CoC standard with the recruitment of more full time cancer registrars when a new web-based cancer registry is in full operation.

Algorithms ; Data Collection ; methods ; Demography ; Humans ; Male ; Prostatectomy ; instrumentation ; methods ; statistics & numerical data ; Prostatic Neoplasms ; surgery ; Registries ; Research Design ; standards ; Robotics ; Singapore

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusions: We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Background: Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care, because it is the first step through which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit, and return to normal life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider scientific and systematic approaches, as well as the individual experiences of healthcare professionals. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools to identify when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians for liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. These evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved the recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine questions on ventilator liberation about Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) are presented in this document. This guideline presents seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusion We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Background: Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care, because it is the first step through which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit, and return to normal life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider scientific and systematic approaches, as well as the individual experiences of healthcare professionals. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools to identify when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians for liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. These evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved the recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine questions on ventilator liberation about Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) are presented in this document. This guideline presents seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusion We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Background: Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care, because it is the first step through which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit, and return to normal life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider scientific and systematic approaches, as well as the individual experiences of healthcare professionals. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools to identify when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians for liberation from the ventilator. Methods: Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. These evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved the recommendations. Results: Recommendations for nine questions on ventilator liberation about Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) are presented in this document. This guideline presents seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation. Conclusion We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.