scholarly journals Sexual Concerns after (Pelvic) Radiotherapy: Is There Any Role for the Radiation Oncologist?

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 1927-1939 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esmée M. Krouwel ◽  
Melianthe P. Nicolai ◽  
Gerard J. van der Wielen ◽  
Hein Putter ◽  
Augustinus D.G. Krol ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
pp. 030089162110312
Author(s):  
Luca Bergamaschi ◽  
Marianna Alessandra Gerardi ◽  
Mattia Zaffaroni ◽  
Matteo Augugliaro ◽  
Sabrina Vigorito ◽  
...  

The presence of a neobladder constitutes a limitation for the radiation oncologist, as there is no clear evidence about its tolerance to radiotherapy (RT). The limited literature only concerns the conventional postoperative treatment in patients with bladder cancer after cystectomy. Here we report a case of a patient with neobladder who underwent a stereotactic RT for a pelvic recurrence of disease, with response to treatment and no toxicity to the neobladder. This case represents a promising example of the chance to perform RT with ablative intent, using advanced techniques, even on lesions close to the neobladder.


2008 ◽  
Vol 67 (OCE3) ◽  
Author(s):  
H. E. Armitage ◽  
C. McGough ◽  
L. Wedlake ◽  
K. Whelan ◽  
H. J. N. Andreyev

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Junghoon Lee ◽  
Jungyo Suh ◽  
Chang Wook Jeong ◽  
Cheol Kwak ◽  
Hyeon Hoe Kim ◽  
...  

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> We investigated the efficacy of a urethral catheter alone for intraperitoneal perforation during transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). <b><i>Patients and Methods:</i></b> We retrospectively evaluated the medical records of 4,543 patients who underwent TURBT from January 2000 to December 2017 using the Clinical Data Warehouse system. The clinicopathologic characteristics, recurrence-free survival, and progression-free survival were compared between the patient groups with intraperitoneal perforation treated with the Foley catheter alone, extraperitoneal perforation, and matched control TURBT. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Intraperitoneal perforation and extraperitoneal perforation were observed in 16 (35.6%) and 29 (64.4%) patients, respectively. In the intraperitoneal perforation group, 11 (68.8%), 2 (12.5%), and 3 (18.8%) patients were treated with the Foley catheter alone, additional percutaneous drainage, and delayed open surgery, respectively. The use of the Foley catheter alone in patients with intraperitoneal perforation of smaller size than the cystoscope or no pelvic radiotherapy history showed improved efficacy without sequelae or therapeutic delay. One of the 2 patients with the size of the intraperitoneal perforation larger than the cystoscope was successfully treated with the Foley catheter alone, whereas the other patient underwent delayed surgical repair. There was no difference in recurrence-free survival and progression-free survival of the intraperitoneal perforation treated with the Foley catheter alone compared to those of the matched control TURBT (<i>p</i> = 0.909, <i>p</i> = 0.518) and the extraperitoneal perforation (<i>p</i> = 0.458, <i>p</i> = 0.699). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Intraperitoneal perforation rarely occurred during TURBT. In the case of intraperitoneal perforation of size smaller than cystoscopy or without pelvic radiotherapy history, treatment with the Foley alone showed successful improvement and safe oncological results. Therefore, treatment with the urethral catheter alone can be carefully considered when an intraperitoneal perforation smaller than the cystoscope size or without pelvic radiotherapy history occurs.


Author(s):  
Jennifer Novak ◽  
Jason Liu ◽  
Xiaoke Zou ◽  
Tariq Abuali ◽  
Jessica Vazquez ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document