Search

We aimed to review the current state‐of‐the‐art imaging methods used for primary and secondary staging of prostate cancer, mainly focusing on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and positron‐emission tomography/computed tomography with new radiotracers. An expert panel of urologists, radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians with wide experience in prostate cancer led a PubMed/MEDLINE search for prospective, retrospective original research, systematic review, meta‐analyses and clinical guidelines for local and systemic staging of the primary tumor and recurrence disease after treatment. Despite magnetic resonance imaging having low sensitivity for microscopic extracapsular extension, it is now a mainstay of prostate cancer diagnosis and local staging, and is becoming a crucial tool in treatment planning. Cross‐sectional imaging for nodal staging, such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, is clinically useless even in high‐risk patients, but is still suggested by current clinical guidelines. Positron‐emission tomography/computed tomography with newer tracers has some advantage over conventional images, but is not cost‐effective. Bone scan and computed tomography are often useless in early biochemical relapse, when salvage treatments are potentially curative. New imaging modalities, such as prostate‐specific membrane antigen positron‐emission tomography/computed tomography and whole‐body magnetic resonance imaging, are showing promising results for early local and systemic detection. Newer imaging techniques, such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, whole‐body magnetic resonance imaging and positron‐emission tomography/computed tomography with prostate‐specific membrane antigen, have the potential to fill the historical limitations of conventional imaging methods in some clinical situations of primary and secondary staging of prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older people hospitalized for COVID-19 are at highest risk of death. Frailty Assessment can detect heterogeneity in risk among people of the same chronological age. We investigated the association between frailty and in-hospital and medium-term mortality in middle-aged and older adults with COVID-19 during the first two pandemic waves., Methods: This study is an observational multicenter study. We recorded sociodemographic factors (age, sex), smoking status, date of symptom onset, biological data, need for supplemental oxygen, comorbidities, cognitive and functional status, in-hospital mortality. We calculated a Frailty Index (FI) as the ratio between deficits presented and total deficits considered for each patient (theoretical range 0-1). We also assessed the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Mortality at follow-up was ascertained from a regional registry., Results: In total, 1344 patients were included; median age 68 years (Q1-Q3, 56-79); 857 (64%) were men. Median CFS score was 3 (Q1-Q3 2-5) and was lower in younger vs. older patients. Median FI was 0.06 (Q1-Q3 0.03-0.09) and increased with increasing age. Overall, 244 (18%) patients died in-hospital and 288 (22%) over a median follow-up of 253 days. FI and CFS were significantly associated with risk of death. In two different models using the same covariates, each increment of 0.1 in FI increased the overall hazard of death by 35% (HR=1.35, 95%CI 1.23-1.48), similar to the hazard for each increment of CFS (HR=1.37, 95%CI 1.25-1.50)., Conclusions: Frailty, assessed with the FI or CFS, predicts in-hospital and medium-term mortality and may help estimate vulnerability in middle-aged and older COVID-19 patients.

Background : Proximal Row Carpectomy (PRC) is a widespread, safe and effective salvage surgical procedure for wrist arthritis. Some authors believe that PRC results in low grip strength (GS), due to the loss of carpal height, supporting the idea to discourage PRC in high-demanding patients. Resurfacing Capitate Prosthesis Implant (RCPI) allows extending the indication for PRC also in case of deformity and/or arthritis of the head of capitate, with possible implications of clinical outcomes, including GS. Methods : Retrospective multicentre study on a population of active workers, affected by secondary post traumatic wrist arthritis, who underwent PRC (27 patients) or PRC + RCPI (20 patients), Primary outcome was to assess GS between PRC and PRC + RCPI. Secondary outcome was to assess CHR and to search for any possible contributors to GS. Active range of motion (AROM), hand function (DASH, Work-DASH, VAS, PRWHE), pain, time to return to work, job maintenance, major complications and general satisfaction were also assessed. Results : PRC + RCPI results in more GS maintenance compared with PRC alone, with higher values of CHR. CHR values were associated with GS with a good correlation. According to linear regression model analysis within PRC + RCPI group (GS-CHR), it is esteemed that the increase in parameter CHR is associated with an increase in parameter GS. Looking at a multiple linear regression model analysis built on the whole sample (GS% increase - (group × CHR) + GS% pre-operative). It is estimated that the increase of one unit of the GS coefficient is associated with an increase in GS% increase. Furthermore, higher pre-operative GS values positively influence post-operative GS. No differences were revealed between the two treatments in terms of the remaining secondary outcomes. Conclusions : PRC alone and PRC + RCPI are both effective salvage procedures for wrist arthritis. RCPI provides a better GS preservation, in part due to the carpal height preservation.