Search

Francesco Lasorsa,1,2 Gabriele Bignante,1,3 Angelo Orsini,1,4 Sofia S Rossetti,1 Michele Marchioni,4 Francesco Porpiglia,3 Pasquale Ditonno,2 Giuseppe Lucarelli,2 Riccardo Autorino,1 Celeste Manfredi5 1Department of Urology, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA; 2Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area- Urology, Andrology and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari ‘Aldo Moro’, Bari, Italy; 3Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, University of Turin, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy; 4Urology Unit, Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, “G. d’Annunzio” University, Chieti, Italy; 5Department of Woman, Unit of Urology, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” Naples ItalyCorrespondence: Riccardo Autorino, Director of Surgical Innovation & Clinical Research, Department of Urology, Rush University Medical Center, 1725 W. Harrison Street, Suite 970, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA, Tel +1 312-563-7622, Email ricautor@gmail.com; riccardo_autorino@rush.eduAbstract: Penile cancer (PeCa) is a rare urologic tumor worldwide. In 2024, 2100 new cases and 500 deaths are estimated in the United States. Radical surgery via total penectomy has historically been the cornerstone of treatment, since it provides excellent long-term oncological control. The rationale of surgery for penile cancer was to achieve a 2 cm macroscopic surgical margin that is historically advocated to reduce recurrences. Over time, numerous studies have demonstrated that resection margin status does not affect patients’ survival. Different penile-sparing techniques are currently recommended in the European Association of Urology-American Society of Clinical Oncology (EAU-ASCO) guidelines for the treatment of localized primary PeCa. Centralization of care could yield multiple benefits, including improved disease awareness, higher rates of penile-sparing surgery, enhanced detection rates, increased utilization of less invasive lymph node staging techniques, enhanced quality of specialized histopathological examinations, and the establishment of specialized multidisciplinary teams. Compared to more aggressive treatments, the higher recurrence rates after penile-sparing surgery do not hamper neither the metastasis-free survival nor the overall survival. Repeated penile-sparing surgery could be considered for selected cases. The psychological impact of penile cancer is not negligible since the perceived loss of masculinity might adversely affect mental health and overall well-being. Quality of life may be compromised by sexual and urinary dysfunction which may be the result either of the loss of penile tissue or the psychological status of the patient. It is of utmost importance to offer rehabilitative treatment as sexual therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, family and peer counseling.Keywords: penile cancer, penile-sparing surgery, quality of life, sexual function, survival

Abstract Extracellularly released molecular inflammasome assemblies -ASC specks- cross-seed Aβ amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease. Here we show that ASC governs the extent of inflammation-induced amyloid A (AA) amyloidosis, a systemic disease caused by the aggregation and peripheral deposition of the acute-phase reactant serum amyloid A (SAA) in chronic inflammatory conditions. Using super-resolution microscopy, we found that ASC colocalized tightly with SAA in human AA amyloidosis. Recombinant ASC specks accelerated SAA fibril formation and mass spectrometry after limited proteolysis showed that ASC interacts with SAA via its pyrin domain (PYD). In a murine model of inflammatory AA amyloidosis, splenic amyloid load was conspicuously decreased in Pycard −/− mice which lack ASC. Treatment with anti-ASCPYD antibodies decreased amyloid loads in wild-type mice suffering from AA amyloidosis. The prevalence of natural anti-ASC IgG (−logEC50 ≥ 2) in 19,334 hospital patients was

Antonio Franco,1,2 Francesco Ditonno,1,3 Celeste Manfredi,1,4 Andrew D Johnson,1 Avinash Mamgain,1 Oren Feldman-Schultz,1 Carol L Feng,1 Antony A Pellegrino,5,6 Maria Carmen Mir,7 Francesco Porpiglia,8 Simone Crivellaro,5 Cosimo De Nunzio,2 Alexander K Chow,1 Riccardo Autorino1 1Department of Urology, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA; 2Department of Urology, Sant’Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy; 3Department of Urology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy; 4Urology Unit, “Luigi Vanvitelli” University, Naples, Italy; 5Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; 6Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; 7Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario La Ribera, Valencia, Spain; 8Department of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, ItalyCorrespondence: Riccardo Autorino, Professor of Urology, Director of Surgical Innovation & Clinical Research, Department of Urology, Rush University Medical Center, 1725 W Harrison St Professional Building – Suite 970, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA, Email ricautor@gmail.com; Riccardo_autorino@rush.eduAbstract: Robot-assisted surgery has emerged as a transformative technology, revolutionizing surgical approaches and techniques that decades ago could barely be imagined. The field of urology has taken charge in pioneering a new era of minimally invasive surgery with the ascent of robotic systems which offer enhanced visualization, precision, dexterity, and enabling surgeons to perform intricate maneuvers with improved accuracy. This has led to improved surgical outcomes, including reduced blood loss, lower complication rates, and faster patient recovery. The aim of our review is to present an evidence-based critical analysis on the most pioneering robotic urologic approaches described over the last eight years (2015– 2023).Keywords: robotic urologic surgery, robot-assisted, minimally invasive, image-guided surgery, single port robot