Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: A multicenter, prospective analysis.

INTRODUCTION: High-resolution micro-ultrasound has the capability of imaging prostate cancer based on detecting alterations in ductal anatomy, analogous to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). This technology has the potential advantages of relatively low cost, simplicity, and accessibility compared to mpMRI. This multicenter, prospective registry aims to compare the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of mpMRI with high-resolution micro-ultrasound imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: We included 1040 subjects at 11 sites in seven countries who had prior mpMRI and underwent ExactVu micro-ultrasound-guided biopsy. Biopsies were taken from both mpMRI targets (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] >3 and micro-ultrasound targets (Prostate Risk Identification using Micro-ultrasound [PRIMUS] >3). Systematic biopsies (up to 14 cores) were also performed. Various strategies were used for mpMRI target sampling, including cognitive fusion with micro-ultrasound, separate software-fusion systems, and software-fusion using the micro-ultrasound FusionVu system. Clinically significant cancer was those with Gleason grade group ≥2. RESULTS: Overall, 39.5% were positive for clinically significant prostate cancer. Micro-ultrasound and mpMRI sensitivity was 94% vs. 90%, respectively (p=0.03), and NPV was 85% vs. 77%, respectively. Specificities of micro-ultrasound and MRI were both 22%, with similar PPV (44% vs. 43%). This represents the initial experience with the technology at most of the participating sites and, therefore, incorporates a learning curve. Number of cores, diagnostic strategy, blinding to MRI results, and experience varied between sites. CONCLUSIONS: In this initial multicenter registry, micro-ultrasound had comparable or higher sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer compared to mpMRI, with similar specificity. Micro-ultrasound is a low-cost, single-session option for prostate screening and targeted biopsy. Further larger-scale studies are required for validation of these findings.

[Robotic and laparosocpic urological surgery during COVID-19 pandemia.] / Situación de la cirugía laparoscópica y robótica urológica durante la pandemia COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic hashigh repercussion on urologic minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Controversy about safety of MIS procedures during COVID-19 pandemic has been published. Nowadays, our priority should be create agreement in order to restart and organize MIS with safety conditions for patients and healthcare workers. METHODS: Pubmed and web search was conducted with following terms: "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID19", "COVID19 Urology", COVID19 Surgery", "COVID19 transmission", "SARS-CoV-2 transmission", "COVID19 nd minimally invasive surgery", "SARS-CoV-2 and CO 2insuflation". A narrative review of available literature and scientific evidence summary was done. A modify nominal group technique was used to achieve an expert consensus. First draft was circulated amongst authors. Definitive document was approved in May 26th. RESULTS: Non evidence supports higher risk of SARSCoV-2 healthcare workers infection with MIS compared to open surgery. MIS is associated with shorter hospital stay than open surgery. Modify MIS indications to open surgery, with no scientific evidence, could spend valuable resources in detriment to COVID-19 patients. MIS indications should be prioritized attending to available resources and pandemic intensity. SARS-CoV-2screening 72 hours prior to surgery by clinical and epidemiological questionnaire and nasopharyngeal PCRis recommended, in order to prevent nosocomial transmission, professional infections and to minimize postoperative complications. Intraoperative steps should be established to reduce professional exposure to surgical aerosols, including: surgical room reorganization, adequate personal protective equipment, surgical technique optimization and management of CO2 and surgical smoke. CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 pandemic de-escalation, MIS carried out with optimal safety measurements, could contribute to reduce hospital resources utilization. With current evidence, MIS should not be limited or reconverted to open surgery during COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJETIVO: La pandemia provocada por el nuevo coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 ha tenido una elevada repercusión sobre la cirugía mínimamente invasiva (CMI). Ha surgido una importante controversia sobre la realización de CMI durante la pandemia COVID-19. Es prioritario, establecer un consenso sobre la organización y realización con seguridad de la CMI durante la pandemia. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda web y en PubMed con los términos: "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID19", "COVID19 Urology", "COVID19 Surgery", "COVID19 transmission", "SARS-CoV-2 transmission", "COVID19 and minimally invasive surgery", "SARSCoV-2 and CO2 insuflation". Se realizó una revisión narrativa de la literatura y una síntesis de la evidencia disponible. Se ha utilizado una técnica de grupo nominal modificada, circulando un primer borrador a todos los autores y aprobándose la versión definitiva el día 26 de Mayo de 2020. RESULTADOS: No existe evidencia sobre una mayor exposición a SARS-CoV-2 en CMI respecto a cirugía abierta. La CMI se asocia a una menor estancia hospitalaria por lo que cambiar, sin justificación, la indicaciónde CMI puede retrotraer recursos que podrían ser utilizados para la pandemia COVID-19. Se debe priorizar la CMI según los recursos disponibles y la intensidad de la pandemia en cada momento. Se recomienda realizar despistaje de SARS-CoV-2 mediante cuestionario clínico-epidemiológico y PCR nasofaríngea 72 horas antes de la CMI electiva, para minimizar las complicaciones postoperatorias, evitar la transmisión cruzada entre pacientes y la posible exposición de los profesionales sanitarios. Se recomienda establecer medidas de organización en quirófano, de protección personal, técnica quirúrgica y manejo del CO2 y aerosoles generados para reducir la exposición y riesgos del personal sanitario. CONCLUSIONES: La CMI realizada con las medidasd e seguridad adecuadas para el paciente y profesionales, puede contribuir durante la desescalada a una menor utilización de recursos sanitarios y por tanto, no debe limitarse su utilización o cambiar sus indicaciones.

[Salvage high energy focalized ultrasound (HIFU) in prostate cancer after radiotherapy]. / Ultrasonidos focalizados de alta energía (HIFU) de rescate en el cáncer de próstata después de radioterapia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) as salvage treatment after radical radiotherapy in prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: We reviewed the literature through databases and published articles that refer to this treatment between 2000 and 2010. We evaluated oncological results and adverse effects, compared with those published in conjunction with other therapies. RESULTS: We evaluated the different series, which include the results of the two devices currently available, all with their initial results and those that are in the process of dose adjustment. Generally, it can be said that the biggest problem of all is that initial morbidity is reduced as the surgeon gains experience with the treatment. We must stress the importance of the short series that are evaluated, especially in follow-up time and number of patients. Also, except for a recently published systematic review, no prospective studies are published. The results from different series are compared with existing literature regarding to other PC treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of published results, the treatment with HIFU for prostate cancer recurrence after radiotherapy is an option that should be considered. Especially considering that, it is important to delay the development of the disease in these patients, and there are no other alternatives that have proven to be effective. Further research is needed to explore the use of HIFU in the treatment of PC. Anyway, it is essential to publish comparative prospective series and series with more patients and longer follow-up to draw definitive conclusions.