Search

To assess the degree of psychological impact among surgical providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively impacted global healthcare systems. We hypothesized that the degree of psychological impact would be higher for surgical providers deployed for COVID-19 work, certain surgical specialties, and for those who knew of someone diagnosed with, or who died, of COVID-19.We conducted a global web-based survey to investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19. The primary outcomes were the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) and Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) scores.4283 participants from 101 countries responded. 32.8%, 30.8%, 25.9% and 24.0% screened positive for depression, anxiety, stress and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) respectively. Respondents who knew someone who died of COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, anxiety, stress and PTSD (OR 1.3, 1,6, 1.4, 1.7 respectively, all p0.05). Respondents who knew of someone diagnosed with COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, stress and PTSD (OR 1.2, 1.2 and 1.3 respectively, all p0.05). Surgical specialities that operated in the Head and Neck region had higher psychological distress among its surgeons. Deployment for COVID-19-related work was not associated with increased psychological distress.The COVID-19 pandemic may have a mental health legacy outlasting its course. The long-term impact of this ongoing traumatic event underscores the importance of longitudinal mental health care for healthcare personnel, with particular attention to those who know of someone diagnosed with, or who died of COVID-19.

PURPOSE To generate and present survey results on important issues relevant to treatment and follow-up of localized and locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) focusing on developing countries. METHODS A panel of 99 PCa experts developed more than 300 survey questions of which 67 questions concern the main areas of interest of this article: treatment and follow-up of localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in developing countries. A larger panel of 99 international multidisciplinary cancer experts voted on these questions to create the recommendations for treatment and follow-up of localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in areas of limited resources discussed in this article. RESULTS The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. Each question was deemed consensus if 75% or more of the full panel had selected a particular answer. These answers are based on panelist opinion and not on a literature review or meta-analysis. For questions that refer to an area of limited resources, the recommendations considered cost-effectiveness as well as the possible therapies with easier and greater access. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two nonanswers. Results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSION The voting results and recommendations presented in this article can guide physicians managing localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data; however, as guidelines for treatment of localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in developing countries have not been defined, this article will serve as a point of reference when confronted with this disease.

PURPOSE A group of international urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on prostate cancer (PCa) in developing countries. The results are reviewed and summarized, and recommendations on consensus statements for very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk PCa focused on developing countries were developed. METHODS A panel of experts developed more than 300 survey questions of which 66 questions concern the principal areas of interest of this paper: very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in developing countries. A larger panel of 99 international multidisciplinary cancer experts voted on these questions to create the recommendations for treatment and follow-up for very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk PCa in areas of limited resources discussed in this manuscript. RESULTS The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. Each question was deemed consensus if 75% or more of the full panel had selected a particular answer. These answers are based on panelist opinion not a literature review or meta-analysis. For questions that refer to an area of limited resources, the recommendations consider cost-effectiveness and the possible therapies with easier and greater access. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two nonanswers. The results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSION The voting results and recommendations presented in this document can be used by physicians to support management for very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data; however, as guidelines for treatment for very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in developing countries have not been developed, this document will serve as a point of reference when confronted with this disease.

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the cancellation or deferment of many elective cancer surgeries. We performed a systematic review on the oncological effects of delayed surgery for patients with localised or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the targeted therapy (TT) era. Method The protocol of this review is registered on PROSPERO(CRD42020190882). A comprehensive literature search was performed on Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL using MeSH terms and keywords for randomised controlled trials and observational studies on the topic. Risks of biases were assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. For localised RCC, immediate surgery [including partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN)] and delayed surgery [including active surveillance (AS) and delayed intervention (DI)] were compared. For metastatic RCC, upfront versus deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) were compared. Results Eleven studies were included for quantitative analysis. Delayed surgery was significantly associated with worse cancer-specific survival (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.23–2.27, p

Bladder neck stenosis (BNS) is a long-term complication of surgical procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We performed a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis of the incidence of BNS after transurethral procedures for BPH. We performed a systemic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials. We accepted only randomized trials comparing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) vs. other transurethral surgery for BPH that were grouped in Ablation vs. Enucleation modalities. The incidences of BNS were pooled using the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel Method with the random effect model and expressed as Risk Ratios, 95% Confidence Intervals, and p values. Study heterogeneity was assessed utilizing the I2 value. 72 studies were identified for meta-analysis, 46 comparing TURP vs. Ablation and 26 TURP vs. Enucleation. The pooled incidence of BNS was 1.3% after TURP, 0.66% after enucleation and 1.2% after Ablation. The incidence of BNS was higher after TURP than after Enucleation but the difference was not statistically significant (RR 1.75 95% CI 0.81–3.79, p = 0.16). There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 0%, Chi2 4.11, p = 0.90). The incidence of BNS was higher after TURP than after Ablation, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.82–2.11, p = 0.26) with no significant heterogeneity (I2 0%, Chi2 21.1, p = 0.51). Our study showed no difference in the rate of BNS incidence among randomized trials comparing TURP vs. Ablation vs. Enucleation and can be used as a reference to counsel patients undergoing BPH surgery.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on clinical practice, income, health and lifestyle behavior of Brazilian urologists during the month of April 2020.Materials and MethodsA 39-question, web-based survey was sent to all urologist members of the Brazilian Society of Urology. We assessed socio-demographic, professional, health and behavior parameters. The primary goal was to evaluate changes in urologists’ clinical practice and income after two months of COVID-19. We also looked at geographical differences based on the incidence rates of COVID-19 in different states.ResultsAmong 766 urologists who completed the survey, a reduction ≥ 50% of patient visits, elective and emergency surgeries was reported by 83.2%, 89.6% and 54.8%, respectively. An income reduction of ≥ 50% was reported by 54.3%. Measures to reduce costs were implemented by most. Video consultations were performed by 38.7%. Modifications in health and lifestyle included weight gain (32.9%), reduced physical activity (60.0%), increased alcoholic intake (39.9%) and reduced sexual activity (34.9%). Finally, 13.5% of Brazilian urologists were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and about one third required hospitalization. Urologists from the highest COVID-19 incidence states were at a higher risk to have a reduction of patient visits and non-essential surgeries (OR = 2.95, 95% CI 1.86 – 4.75; p < 0.0001) and of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 4.36 95%CI 1.74–10.54, p = 0.012).ConclusionsCOVID-19 produced massive disturbances in Brazilian urologists’ practice, with major reductions in patient visits and surgical procedures. Distressing consequences were also observed on physicians’ income, health and personal lives. These findings are probably applicable to other medical specialties.

Context The first case of the new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2), was identified in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Since then, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was reclassified as a pandemic, and health systems around the world have faced an unprecedented challenge. Objective To summarize guidelines and recommendations on the urology standard of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence acquisition Guidelines and recommendations published between November 2019 and April 17, 2020 were retrieved using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. This was supplemented by searching the web pages of international urology societies. Our inclusion criteria were guidelines, recommendations, or best practice statements by international urology organizations and reference centers about urological care in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Of 366 titles identified, 15 guidelines met our criteria. Evidence synthesis Of the 15 guidelines, 14 addressed emergency situations and 12 reported on assessment of elective uro-oncology procedures. There was consensus on postponing radical prostatectomy except for high-risk prostate cancer, and delaying treatment for low-grade bladder cancer, small renal masses up to T2, and stage I seminoma. According to nine guidelines that addressed endourology, obstructed or infected kidneys should be decompressed, whereas nonobstructing stones and stent removal should be rescheduled. Five guidelines/recommendations discussed laparoscopic and robotic surgery, while the remaining recommendations focused on outpatient procedures and consultations. All recommendations represented expert opinions, with three specifically endorsed by professional societies. Only the European Association of Urology guidelines provided evidence-based levels of evidence (mostly level 3 evidence). Conclusions To make informed decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are multiple national and international guidelines and recommendations for urologists to prioritize the provision of care. Differences among the guidelines were minimal. Patient summary We performed a systematic review of published recommendations on urological practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which provide guidance on prioritizing the timing for different types of urological care., Take Home Message We performed a systematic review of published recommendations on urological practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which provides guidance on prioritizing the timing for different types of urological care.

This letter to the Editor aims to provide suggestions and recommendations for the management of urological conditions in times of COVID-19 crisis in Brazil and other low- and middle-income countries It is important to highlight that one of the main characteristics of this pandemic is the oversaturation of the health system capacity, mostly due to a high demand for personal protective equipment (PPE), Hospital/ICU beds, as well as ventilators In places with limited resources and where the health care systems are already saturated, such consideration is even more worrisome Therefore, most worldwide authorities are recommending to avoid, as much as possible, patient's elective visits to hospitals, as well as a judicious use of the operating room in order to mitigate the strain put on the health system While efforts should be directed to the care of COVID-19 patients, other conditions (especially urgencies and oncological cases) must continue to be assisted Thus, through a panel of experts, we have prepared a practical guide for urologists based on the recommendations from the main Urologic Associations, as well as data from the literature to support the suggested management We will try to follow the standard guideline recommendations from the American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU), with the aim of pursuing the best outcomes possible However, some recommendations were based on the consensus of the panel, taking into consideration the reality of developing countries and the unprecedented situation caused by the COVID-19 crisis Most importantly, all recommendations on this manuscript are based on the expectancy of a maximum 3-month duration of the crisis If this period shall extended, these recommendations will be revised and updated Available at https://www intbrazjurol com br/pdf/aop/COVID_19_Arie_et_al pdf

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on urological services in different geographical areas is unknown. Objective To investigate the global impact of COVID-19 on urological providers and the provision of urological patient care. Design, setting, and participants A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from March 30, 2020 to April 7, 2020. A 55-item questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of urological services. Target respondents were practising urologists, urology trainees, and urology nurses/advanced practice providers. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary outcome was the degree of reduction in urological services, which was further stratified by the geographical location, degree of outbreak, and nature and urgency of urological conditions. The secondary outcome was the duration of delay in urological services. Results and limitations A total of 1004 participants responded to our survey, and they were mostly based in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Worldwide, 41% of the respondents reported that their hospital staff members had been diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 27% reported personnel shortage, and 26% had to be deployed to take care of COVID-19 patients. Globally, only 33% of the respondents felt that they were given adequate personal protective equipment, and many providers expressed fear of going to work (47%). It was of concerning that 13% of the respondents were advised not to wear a surgical face mask for the fear of scaring their patients, and 21% of the respondents were advised not to discuss COVID-19 issues or concerns on media. COVID-19 had a global impact on the cut-down of urological services, including outpatient clinic appointments, outpatient investigations and procedures, and urological surgeries. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak. On average, 28% of outpatient clinics, 30% of outpatient investigations and procedures, and 31% of urological surgeries had a delay of >8 wk. Urological services for benign conditions were more affected than those for malignant conditions. Finally, 47% of the respondents believed that the accumulated workload could be dealt with in a timely manner after the COVID-19 outbreak, but 50% thought the postponement of urological services would affect the treatment and survival outcomes of their patients. One of the limitations of this study is that Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were under-represented. Conclusions COVID-19 had a profound global impact on urological care and urology providers. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak and was greater for benign than for malignant conditions. One-fourth of urological providers were deployed to assist with COVID-19 care. Many providers reported insufficient personal protective equipment and support from hospital administration. Patient summary Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has led to significant delay in outpatient care and surgery in urology, particularly in regions with the most COVID-19 cases. A considerable proportion of urology health care professionals have been deployed to assist in COVID-19 care, despite the perception of insufficient training and protective equipment., Take Home Message The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed great challenges to the urological community globally. The impact of COVID-19 on urological services increased with the degree of outbreak, and resulted in significant delay in the delivery of urological care.

To evaluate the clinical dilemma of men with surgical indication due to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) and concomitant elevated PSA, we analysed if multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) could safely prescind the prostate biopsy. Forty men with surgical indication due to BPE and concomitantly elevated PSA levels were prospectively enrolled and retrospectively analysed. All patients underwent 1.5 Tesla mpMRI prior to TRUS-guided biopsies. In cases where mpMRI was PIRADS 3 with focal lesions, PIRADS 4 or PIRADS 5, additional fragments were obtained with the fusion guided technique. Biopsy histopathological results were used as the standard of reference. Two scenarios were evaluated: scenario 1, considering mpMRI PIRADS 1 and 2 as negative; and scenario 2, considering PIRADS 1, 2 and 3 as negative. Clinically significant prostate cancer (CsPCa) was defined as ISUP ≥ 2. Median age was 68 years, median PSA was 9.41 (6.40–19.54) and median prostatic volume was 116.5 cc (IQR 86.5–155). Scenario 1 mpMRI sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy for any prostate cancer on prostate biopsy was 76.9%, 63%, 50%, 85% and 67.5%. For csPCa, they were 87.5%, 59.4%, 35%, 95% and 65%, respectively, for the same measures. Scenario 2 the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of mpMRI for any prostate cancer on prostate biopsy was 53.8%, 96.3%, 87.5%, 81.3% and 82.5%. For csPCa, they were 75%, 93.8%, 75%, 93.8% and 90%, respectively, for the same measures. Prostate mpMRI may prevent unnecessary biopsies in patients with elevated PSA and surgical indications due to BPE, given its high negative predictive value.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) plays a cornerstone role in the management of nonmuscle invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. However, there has been a worldwide intermittent BCG shortage in recent years that may affect the care of patients with bladder cancer and pose difficult clinical decisions to urologists and clinical oncologists. This literature review aims to clarify alternatives to BCG during a shortage and propose measures to replace BCG, mainly in Brazil and probably in other low- and middle-income countries, where not all studied and commonly suggested treatments are available.

Objective To understand the preference and role of ‘hybrid’ urological meetings compared to face-to-face and online meetings during and after COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary outcome was finding out the most preferable webinar setting. Methods An online global survey was done between June 06 and July 05, 2020, using SurveyMonkey. The target participants were urology healthcare providers. The survey was disseminated via mailing lists and the Twitter platform. Results A total of 526 urology providers from 56 countries responded to the survey and it was completed by 73.3%. Participants’ overall experience was better in a face-to-face meeting, followed by a hybrid and webinar only meeting. While opportunities for networking was identified as high in face-to-face meeting, online webinars were more cost effective, and learning opportunity and reach of audience was higher for hybrid meetings. For online webinar format, Zoom platform was used by 73% and majority (69%) saw it on their laptop or desktop. The preference was for a 1-hour webinar in the evenings with 3-5 speakers. Urology residents rated face-to-face meetings to have better cost-effectiveness when compared to consultants. Post COVID-19, more than half of all respondents would prefer hybrid meetings compared to the other formats. Conclusion While there will be a place for face-to-face meetings, COVID-19 situation has led to a preference towards hybrid meetings which is ideal for a global reach in the future. It is plausible that most urological associations will move towards a hybrid model for their meetings.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Female representation in urological meetings is important for gender equity. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine the prevalence of "manels" or all-male speaking panels at urological meetings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Urology meetings organized by major urological associations/societies from December 2019 to November 2020 were reviewed. Meeting information and details of the faculty were retrieved. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were: (1) the percentage of male faculty in all included sessions and (2) the overall proportion of manels. We made further comparisons between manel and multigender sessions. Male and female faculty were stratified by quartiles of publications, citations, and H-index, and their mean numbers of sessions were compared. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 285 meeting sessions, 181 (63.5%) were manels. The mean percentage of male faculty was 86.9%. Male representation was very high in urology meetings for most disciplines and urological associations/societies, except for female urology meeting sessions and those organized by the International Continence Society. Nonmanel sessions had higher numbers of chairs/moderators (p = 0.027), speakers (p

To evaluate and compare the incidences of post-operative pelvic pain (PPP) in patients undergoing ablation, enucleation and conventional transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Using MEDLINE via PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL, randomised control trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting PPP rates post-ablation, enucleation or TURP were identified. The risk of biases (RoB) in RCTs and observation studies were assessed using the Cochrane RoB1.0 tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, respectively. 62 studies were included for qualitative analysis, while 51 of them reported number of patients with PPP post-intervention. Three observational studies and 13 RCTs compared the rates of PPP in patients undergoing ablation, enucleation or TURP. The most reported types of PPP are dysuria, abdominal pain and irritative symptoms. The pooled incidence of PPP at 1-month follow-up in patients undergoing ablation, enucleation and TURP were 0.15 (95% CI 0.10–0.22), 0.09 (95% CI 0.04–0.19 and 0.10 (95% CI 0.06–0.15), respectively. PPP is no longer prevalent at 3-months and onwards post-operatively. Ablation is associated with a higher risk of PPP than enucleation (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.04–4.62) and TURP (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.03–5.62) in observational studies but not RCTs; and there were no significant differences in the rates of PPP upon comparison of other modalities. PPP is common after transurethral benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery. Patients undergoing ablation had a higher rate of post-intervention PPP than those undergoing enucleation and TURP in observational studies.

Background: The three-way indwelling urinary catheter (IUC) is used for continuous bladder irrigation and is considered the cornerstone for clinical treatment of patients with macroscopic hematuria. Although there seems to be a logical relationship between catheter size and efficacy of irrigation and drainage, we often observe relevant variations in these parameters between different brands of catheters available on the market. The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical properties of different models of latex and silicone three-way catheters in an in vitro setting that resembles clinical use. Methods: Three different three-way catheters were evaluated: Gold Silicone-Coated Rusch® (Model A), 100% Silicone Rusch® (Model B) and X-Flow Coloplast® (Model C). Irrigation channel, drainage channel, and overall cross-sectional areas were all digitally measured. Irrigation and drainage channel flow rates were measured and correlated with their corresponding catheter cross-sectional area values. Results: Different catheter models of the same caliber have different internal irrigation port diameters, internal drainage port diameters and internal cuff port diameters. The Model C IUC internal irrigation port diameter is significantly larger than models A and B. When flows were evaluated, we found that in the same model, the increase in caliber of the IUC was related to an increased drainage flow, but not to an increased irrigation flow. Conclusion: Precise measurements of the internal architecture of the three-way catheter, rather than relying on the caliber itself, could assist surgeons in choosing the best product for each specific patient, while minimizing complications.

Prostate cancer (PC) screening remains a controversial topic, although it has been studied for more than two decades. Since the 1990s, when the use of Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) began in clinical practice, the mortality rate from PC has decreased by around 50%. Prostate cancer screening policies, early diagnosis and treatment are pointed out as responsible to 45%-70% of this reduction.() On the other hand, indiscriminate screening can lead to problems because of unnecessary prostate biopsies, and their possible side effects, [...]

This study aims to evaluate safety and efficacy of different endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) techniques, by comparing laser (L-EEP) and non-laser (NL-EEP) procedures; and EEP versus other endoscopic non-enucleation (ENE) surgeries for benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). A systematic literature review was performed for randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compared different endoscopic treatments for BPE, between 1982 and 2018. Two analyses were performed: (1) EEP versus ENE; and (2) L-EEP versus NL-EEP. Efficacy was assessed using perioperative data (removed tissue volume, operation time (OT), catheterization time, length of hospital stay); and functional outcomes [IPSS, IIEF-5, maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual volume (PVR), quality of life (QoL)]. Safety was assessed through complications (Hb and sodium decrease, transfusion rate). Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan® 5.3. Out of 35 RCTs (4066 patients), 31 (3909 patients) evaluated EEP versus ENE, and 4 (327 patients) evaluated L-EEP versus NL-EEP. EEP presented greater Qmax. Also, EEP presented less catheterization time, length of hospital stay, Hb decrease, transfusion rate. OT and bladder injury were greater with EEP. There were no significant differences between other items. L-EEP removed more tissue volume, with a smaller drop in serum Hb. There were no significant differences in other perioperative data, functional outcomes, complications. EEP and ENE are effective and safe for treating BPE. Perioperative data favors EEP. Statistical differences, with questionable clinical significance in functional outcomes and complication rates were encountered. L-EEP provides greater tissue removal and smaller Hb decrease then NL-EEP, with similar functional profiles.

a) Objective: An increase in cell-free DNA was observed in the plasma of many cancer patients. This major biomarker can be used to differentiate patients with malignant neoplasms from those with benign neoplasms or healthy patients. Depending on the characteristic of the tumor, there are qualitative variations in the circulating cell-free DNA. Today, studies on the concentration of fragments of circulating cell-free DNA and their respective sizes in patients with bladder cancer are not plentiful in the literature. A 100% effective plasma tumor marker, which would help in the diagnosis and follow-up of bladder cancer, is yet to be developed; therefore, cell-free DNA levels in the plasma may represent a valuable biomarker for the diagnosis, prognosis and follow-up of patients with this type of tumor. b) Design and methods: In this study we analyze the kinetics of plasma and urine DNA concentrations in patients with bladder cancer, relating them to the other clinical laboratory variables. c) Results: Patients with hematuria showed a positive correlation with urine DNA. d) Conclusion: An increase in plasma and urine DNA was unprecedentedly reported over time, a fact that may come in handy in the prognosis of patients. Furthermore, microscopic haematuria is correlated with plasma and urinary DNA levels.

Introduction: Renal ptosis is defined as the renal descent when there is a change from supine to orthostatic position, usually with a change of two vertebral bodies or more than five cm apart. Although rare, it is one of the causes of chronic flank pain or of upper abdomen. The typical patient of renal ptosis is young, female, thin, with complaint of pain when in an upright position (1, 2). Objective: Demonstrate a robot-assisted nephropexy technique in a young woman diagnosed with symptomatic renal ptosis on the right kidney, confirmed by imaging tests. Materials and Methods: A 29-year-old female patient with a history of chronic right-sided pain and palpable renal mobility on physical examination. The diagnosis of renal ptosis was confirmed by ultrasound imaging, excretory urography (Figure-1), and renal scintigraphy with 99mTc-DTPA (Figure-2). She was submitted to a robotic-assisted right nephropexy with a polypropylene mesh fixing the right kidney to the ipsilateral psoas muscle fascia. Result: We reported a 96-minute surgical time. The patient was discharged in the first postoperative day. At the one-month follow-up, there was an important improvement of the symptoms, with normality renal function and imaging tests describing adequate renal positioning. Conclusions: Robotic-assisted nephropexy is feasible and can be an excellent minimally invasive alternative technique for the proposed surgery. We reported a shorter hospital stay and a faster postoperative recovery compared with the opened procedure.

Background: Low-dose aspirin use has been correlated with an increased risk of bleeding and overall complications in surgical and invasive diagnostic procedures. In this review, our aim was to analyze the current literature on whether robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is feasible and safe in patients taking low-dose aspirin perioperatively. Methods: A systematic review was performed identifying a total of 767 studies, published between January 2000 and September 2017, with five of these studies meeting the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, totalizing 1481 patients underwent RARP. Patients were divided into two groups: taking aspirin (group A) and those not taking aspirin (group B) perioperatively. Results: There were no significant differences between groups in the overall [group A 10.7% versus group B 15.7%, risk ratio (RR) 0.83; p = 0.45; I2 = 0%] or major complication rates (group A 1% versus group B 3%, RR 0.98; p = 0.98; I² = 0%), rate of cardiovascular events (group A 1.4% and group B 0.5%, RR 2.06; p = 0.24; I2 = 9%), blood loss (group A 278 ml versus group B 307 ml, SMD −0.12; p = 0.91; I2 = 96%), or hospital length of stay [group A 4 days (3–5) and group B 4 days (3–4), SMD −0.09; p = 0.52; I² = 0%]. There was a slightly higher blood-transfusion rate in group A (2.6%) versus group B (1.6%) (RR, 5.05; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%). Conclusion: Continued aspirin use in the perioperative period does not correlate with an increase in surgical morbidity, blood loss, or hospital length of stay. There was a slightly higher blood-transfusion rate in patients taking low-dose aspirin (group A) perioperatively.

Purpose: This study compared the suprapubic (SP) versus retropubic (RP) prostatectomy for the treatment of large prostates and evaluated perioperative surgical morbidity and improvement of urinary symptoms. Materials and Methods: In this single centre, prospective, randomised study, 65 consecutive patients with LUTS and surgical indication with prostate volume greater than 75g underwent open prostatectomy to compare the RP (32 patients) versus SP (33 patients) technique. Results: The SP group exhibited a higher incidence of complications (p=0.002). Regarding voiding pattern analysis (IPSS and flowmetry), both were significantly effective compared to pre-treatment baseline. The RP group parameters were significantly better, with higher peak urinary flow (SP: 16.77 versus RP: 23.03mL/s, p=0.008) and a trend of lower IPSS score (SP: 6.67 versus RP 4.14, p=0.06). In a subgroup evaluation of patients with prostate volumes larger than 100g, blood loss was lower in those undergoing SP prostatectomy (p=0.003). Patients with prostates smaller than 100g in the SP group exhibited a higher incidence of low grade late complications (p=0.004). Conclusions: The SP technique was related to a higher incidence of minor complications in the late postoperative period. High volume prostates were associated with increased bleeding when the RP technique was utilized. The RP prostatectomy was associated with higher peak urinary flow and a trend of a lower IPSS Score.

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The reported discordance between staging on transurethral bladder resection and on radical cystectomy pathology in the literature ranges from 20 to 80%.Correct staging in bladder cancer has direct implications for its management. The upstaging from organ-confined (OC) to non-organ-confined (nOC) disease has been reported in 40% of cases. Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is a factor known to be associated with poor clinical outcome. Pathological upstaging was observed in our cohort in 40% of cases and most cases (80%) were upstaged from OC to nOC disease. During the study period the frequency of upstaging observed increased. We found LVI (hazard ratio [HR]= 5.07, 95% CI = 3.0-8.3, P < 0.001) and any histological variant variant (HR = 2.77, 95% CI = 1.6-4.8, P < 0.001) to be strong independent predictors of upstaging. Patients with clinical T2 bladder cancer found with upstaging at the time of radical cystectomy had a poorer outcome than patients with no upstaging. Identification of patients at high risk of upstaging at radical cystectomy is key to improving their management and outcome. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the details of bladder cancer (BC) staging in a large combined radical cystectomy (RC) database from two academic centres. To study rate and time trends, as well as risk factors for upstaging, especially clinical factors associated with staging errors after RC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Characteristics of patients undergoing RC at University Health Network, Toronto, Canada (1992-2010) and University of Turku, Turku, Finland (1986-2005) were analysed. RESULTS: Among 602 patients undergoing RC, 306 (51%) had a discordance in clinical and pathological stages. Upstaging occurred in 240 (40%) patients and 192 (32%) patients were upstaged from organ-confined (OC) to non-organ-confined (nOC) disease. During the study period, upstaging became more common in both centres. In multivariate analyses, T2 disease at initial presentation (P= 0.001, odds ratio [OR]= 2.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.44-4.77), high grade disease (P= 0.01, OR = 2.85, 95% CI: 1.21-6.7), lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (P < 0.001, OR = 5.17, 95% CI: 3.48-7.68), female gender (P= 0.038, OR = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.38-0.97, and histological variants (P < 0.001, OR = 2.77, 95% CI: 1.6-4.8) were associated with a risk of upstaging from OC to nOC disease. Upstaged patients had worse survival rates than patients with correct staging. This was especially significant among patients with carcinoma invading bladder muscle before undergoing RC (16% vs 46% 10-year disease-specific mortality, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Upstaging is a common problem and unfortunately no improvements have been observed during the last two decades. LVI and the presence of histological variants are strong predictors of upstaging at the time of RC. Pathologists should be encouraged to report LVI and any histological variant at the time of TURBT.

Prostate cancer presents itself in a heterogeneous way with both aggressive and indolent forms. Despite the controversy surrounding its use, prostate-specific antigen screening ultimately leads to a greater number of diagnosed patients. One of the biggest challenges in clinical practice is to select the right patients for biopsy and, among diagnosed patients, to differentiate tumors with an indolent course from those with an unfavorable prognosis, in order to determine the best therapeutic decision for each case, avoiding unnecessary interventions. Currently, several types of biomarkers are available for clinical use in patients with prostate cancer, which include blood-based (prostate-specific antigen, Prostate Health Index®, 4K score®); urine sample-based (PCA3, SelectMDx®, ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore®); and biopsy, transurethral resection, or radical prostatectomy tissue-based (ConfirmMDx®, Oncotype®, Prolaris®, Decipher®). The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current state of evidence and to highlight recent advances in the evaluation and diagnosis of prostate cancer, with emphasis on biomarkers related to diagnosis and to prognostic evaluation of localized prostate cancer.

Objective To evaluate the surgical morbidity and effectiveness in improving symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), comparing ‘button-type’ bipolar plasma vaporisation (BTPV) vs transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Methods We conducted a literature search of published articles until November 2014. Only prospective and randomised studies with comparative data between BTPV and conventional TURP (mono- or bipolar) were included in this review. Results Six articles were selected for the analyses. In the 871 patients evaluated, 522 underwent TURP and 349 BTPV. There was a tendency for a higher transfusion rate in the TURP group, with two BTPV cases (0.006%) and 16 TURP cases (0.032%) requiring transfusions (P = 0.06). The number of complications was similar between the groups (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8–1.31; P = 0.12; I2 = 86%). When subdivided by severity, 10.7% (14/131) and 14.6% (52/355) of complications were classified as severe (Clavien 3 or 4) in patients who underwent BTPV and TURP, respectively (P = 0.02). The average duration of indwelling catheterisation was significantly less in patients who underwent BTPV (standardised mean difference [SMD] −0.84; 95% CI −1.54 to 0.14; P = 0.02; I2 = 81%). Both treatments significantly improved symptoms and the postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score was similar in both groups (SMD 0.09, 95% CI −1.56 to 1.73; P = 0.92). Conclusion BTPV is an effective and safe treatment for BPH. The improvement of urinary symptoms and overall complications are comparable to conventional TURP. However, BTVP appears to be associated with a lower rate of major complications and duration of indwelling catheterisation.

The potential mechanisms involving the genesis and growth of androgen-independent prostate cancer include super-expression of the androgen receptor (AR), in an attempt to compensate for the low androgenic plasma levels and mutations of this specific receptor, which could determine resistance to anti-androgenic therapy. However, most advanced prostate tumors have no mutations or amplifications of the AR, suggesting a potential role of non-androgenic growth factors, including epidermal growth factor (EGF), transforming growth factor α, insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) and fibroblast growth factor. More specifically, these factors, and their receptors like EGFR (HER-1) and HER-2/neu, through paracrine and autocrine mechanisms, may contribute to the proliferation and growth of prostate cancer. Free full text available at www.tumorionline.it

Background/Aims Evaluation of Her2/neu expression in the peripheral blood mononuclear cell fraction of prostate cancer patients by RT-PCR may afford an opportunity for the detection of circulating tumor cells and thus serve as a marker of micrometastatic disease. Methods We studied Her2/neu expression by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction in peripheral blood mononuclear cell fraction samples of 21 controls and serially in 43 patients with prostate cancer. Results None of the 21 controls expressed Her2/neu whereas 23.25% (95% CI, 11.75–38.63) of the patients were positive at entry into the study, and 65.11% (95% CI, 49.07–78.99) of them had at least one positive result during the follow-up period. Her2/neu positivity at study entry did not correlate significantly with PSA level, Gleason score, clinical stage or time to PSA progression. When we analyzed only patients with advanced disease, we observed a trend towards a shorter time to PSA progression in patients with at least one positive Her2/neu result during the follow-up (log-rank test, P = 0.08). Conclusions We conclude that Her2/neu expression in the peripheral blood mononuclear cell fraction of prostate cancer patients is frequent and therefore this assay may potentially be useful to detect the presence of micrometastatic disease in men with prostate cancer and for monitoring patients enrolled in trastuzumab-based therapeutic protocols.