ABSTRACT Purpose: To provide data of the incidence and management of common urological malignancies in renal transplant recipients. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective database from August 1967 to August 2015. A descriptive analysis of the sample was performed. Results: Among 1256 consecutive RTR a total of 88 patients developed malignancies (7%). There were 18 genitourinary tumors in the 16 patients (20.45 % of all malignant neoplasms), incidence of 1.27%. The most common neoplasm encounter was renal cancer (38.8%), followed by urothelial carcinoma (33.3%). Median follow-up of transplantation was 197 months (R, 36-336). Mean time from RT to cancer diagnosis 89±70 months (R, 12-276). CsA and AZA was the most common immunosuppression regimen in 68.75%. Mean follow-up after diagnosis was 103±72 months (R 10-215). Recurrence free survival rate of 100%. Overall survival of 89.5% of the sample; there were two non-related cancer deaths during follow-up. Conclusions: The incidence of neoplasms in RTR was lower than in other series, with favorable functional and oncologic results after treatment. This suggests that actions to reduce the risk of these malignancies as well as a strict follow-up are mandatory for an early detection and treatment.

Abstract OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of bladder perforation detected during transurethral resection of the bladder due to urothelial cancer and its association with risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention to reduce complications that modify patient outcome, increasing the risk for recurrence, progression, and metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective and prospective study was conducted on patients that underwent transurethral resection of the bladder due to non-muscle-invasive urothelial cancer at the Urology Service of the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, within the time frame of 1987 to February 2017. Cases of bladder perforation detected during the procedure were described, and the demographic and clinical variables were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 556 patients that underwent transurethral resection of the bladder, 7 had detected bladder perforation: 4 were cases of extraperitoneal perforation and 3 were intraperitoneal. One patient with extraperitoneal perforation presented with extravesical recurrence that was treated conservatively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of bladder perforations found in our study was low. It was associated with age, tumor grade, and number of resected tumors, but not with BMI. Unlike descriptions in the literature, extravesical recurrence was not associated with intraperitoneal perforation. The urologist should be aware of the complications of the procedure and treat them opportunely.

Resumen OBJETIVO: Determinar la incidencia de perforaciones vesicales advertidas durante la resección transuretral de vejiga por cáncer urotelial y su asociación con factores de riesgo, diagnóstico, tratamiento y prevención, con la finalidad de evitar complicaciones que modifiquen el pronóstico del paciente y, a su vez, el riesgo de recurrencia, progresión y metástasis. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio retrospectivo y prospectivo llevado a cabo en pacientes a quienes se efectuó resección transuretral de vejiga por cáncer urotelial no músculo invasor, atendidos en el servicio de Urología del Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, de 1987 a febrero de 2017. Se describen los casos de perforación vesical advertida durante el procedimiento, considerando variables demográficas y clínicas. RESULTADOS: De 556 pacientes con resección transuretral de vejiga, se encontraron 7 casos de perforación vesical advertida: 4 con perforación extraperitoneal y 3 intraperitoneal, además de un caso de recurrencia extravesical en un paciente con perforación extraperitoneal tratada conservadoramente. CONCLUSIONES: La incidencia de perforaciones vesicales advertidas es baja, no se asocian propiamente con el IMC del paciente, pero sí con la edad, el grado y número de tumores resecados. La recurrencia extravesical no se asocia con perforación intraperitoneal, contrario a lo descrito. El urólogo debe considerar y atender de manera oportuna las complicaciones de este procedimiento.