Objectives

To report our experience and review published reports on the laparoscopic management of peripelvic renal cysts. Peripelvic renal cysts represent a unique subset of renal cysts, as they are rare, commonly symptomatic, and more difficult to treat than simple peripheral renal cysts. Minimally invasive methods for the treatment of peripelvic renal cysts, including laparoscopic decortication, have recently become more common.

Methods

Four patients who presented with symptomatic peripelvic cysts underwent laparoscopic decortication at our institution. All four were men aged 47 to 65 years. One patient had undergone an unsuccessful prior cyst aspiration. All patients underwent preoperative computed tomography and retrograde pyelography. The mean number of peripelvic cysts per patient was 3.0, and the mean cyst size was 7.1 cm.

Results

The mean operative time was 259 minutes (range 240 to 293), and the mean estimated blood loss was 30 mL (range 10 to 50). No evidence of cystic renal cell carcinoma was found on aspiration cytology or cyst wall pathologic examination. The mean hospital stay was 1.3 days. No inadvertent collecting system injuries and no intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred. All 4 patients achieved symptomatic relief and were determined to have radiologic success as determined by the 6-month postoperative computed tomography findings.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic ablation of peripelvic renal cysts is more difficult than that of simple peripheral renal cysts and demands a heightened awareness of potential complications and, therefore, more advanced surgical skills. In addition to our experience, a thorough review of published reports found this procedure to be safe and effective with appropriate patient selection.

Purpose

We summarize the available data about the clinical and economic effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer, and provide practical recommendations for its use in the screening, diagnosis, staging and surveillance of prostate cancer.

Materials and methods

A panel of clinicians with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus.

Results

At this time the data support the use of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. The data regarding its usefulness for initial biopsy suggest a possible role for magnetic resonance imaging in some circumstances. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer.

Conclusions

Although it adds cost to the management of prostate cancer, magnetic resonance imaging offers superior anatomic detail, and the ability to evaluate cellular density based on water diffusion and blood flow based on contrast enhancement. Imaging targeted biopsy may increase the diagnosis of clinically significant cancers by identifying specific lesions not visible on conventional ultrasound. The clinical indications for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of prostate cancer are rapidly evolving.

Purpose

We update the prior standard operating procedure for magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate, and summarize the available data about the technique and clinical use for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. This update includes practical recommendations on the use of magnetic resonance imaging for screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment and surveillance of prostate cancer.

Materials and methods

A panel of clinicians from the American Urological Association and Society of Abdominal Radiology with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and technique of magnetic resonance imaging for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus.

Results

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging should be performed according to technical specifications and standards, and interpreted according to standard reporting. Data support its use in men with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. Sufficient data now exist to support the recommendation of magnetic resonance imaging before prostate biopsy in all men who have no history of biopsy. Currently, the evidence is insufficient to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer.

Conclusions

Use of prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification, diagnosis and treatment pathway of men with prostate cancer is expanding. When quality prostate imaging is obtained, current evidence now supports its use in men at risk of harboring prostate cancer and who have not undergone a previous biopsy, as well as in men with an increasing prostate specific antigen following an initial negative standard prostate biopsy procedure.