Corrigendum to "RPN (Radius, Position of tumour, iNvasion of renal sinus) Classification and Nephrometry Scoring System: An Internationally Developed Clinical Classification To Describe the Surgical Difficulty for Renal Masses for Which Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Is Planned" [Eur. Urol. Open Sci. 54 (2023) 33-42].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.05.007.].

RPN (Radius, Position of tumour, iNvasion of renal sinus) Classification and Nephrometry Scoring System: An Internationally Developed Clinical Classification To Describe the Surgical Difficulty for Renal Masses for Which Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Is Planned.

Background: The surgical difficulty of partial nephrectomy (PN) varies depending on the operative approach. Existing nephrometry classifications for assessment of surgical difficulty are not specific to the robotic approach. Objective: To develop an international robotic-specific classification of renal masses for preoperative assessment of surgical difficulty of robotic PN. Design setting and participants: The RPN classification (Radius, Position of tumour, iNvasion of renal sinus) considers three parameters: tumour size, tumour position, and invasion of the renal sinus. In an international survey, 45 experienced robotic surgeons independently reviewed de-identified computed tomography images of 144 patients with renal tumours to assess surgical difficulty of robot-assisted PN using a 10-point Likert scale. A separate data set of 248 patients was used for external validation. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Multiple linear regression was conducted and a risk score was developed after rounding the regression coefficients. The RPN classification was correlated with the surgical difficulty score derived from the international survey. External validation was performed using a retrospective cohort of 248 patients. RPN classification was also compared with the RENAL (Radius; Exophytic/endophytic; Nearness; Anterior/posterior; Location), PADUA (Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for Anatomic), and SPARE (Simplified PADUA REnal) scoring systems. Results and limitation: The median tumour size was 38 mm (interquartile range 27-49). The majority (81%) of renal tumours were peripheral, followed by hilar (12%) and central (7.6%) locations. Noninvasive and semi-invasive tumours accounted for 37% each, and 26% of the tumours were invasive. The mean surgical difficulty score was 5.2 (standard deviation 1.9). Linear regression analysis indicated that the RPN classification correlated very well with the surgical difficulty score (R2 = 0.80). The R2 values for the other scoring systems were: 0.66 for RENAL, 0.75 for PADUA, and 0.70 for SPARE. In an external validation cohort, the performance of all four classification systems in predicting perioperative outcomes was similar, with low R2 values. Conclusions: The proposed RPN classification is the first nephrometry system to assess the surgical difficulty of renal masses for which robot-assisted PN is planned, and is a useful tool to assist in surgical planning, training and data reporting. Patient summary: We describe a simple classification system to help urologists in preoperative assessment of the difficulty of robotic surgery for partial kidney removal for kidney tumours.

Emergence of triplet therapy for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: An updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There have been a growing number of treatment options available for men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Not only have newer agents entered the clinical landscape, there is a trend toward treatment intensification by combining multiple agents simultaneously. We aim to assess the best contemporary treatment option for men with mCSPC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We perform an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized control trials that evaluated systemic therapies in men with castration-sensitive prostate cancer. We searched multiple databases up to April 2022. We included all randomized trials assessing the effect of systemic agents. We performed subgroup analyses based on disease volume and timing of presentation. Statistical analysis was performed with Bayesian methods. RESULTS: We found 10 eligible trials with 10,065 patients who were included in this analysis. Triplet therapy with darolutamide or abiraterone with docetaxel and ADT improved overall survival. In the sensitivity analysis, the respective hazard ratios for triplet therapy was HR 0.70 (95%CI 0.61-0.80) compared to docetaxel+ADT and 0.77 (95%CI 0.65-0.91) compared to androgen receptor pathway inhibitors+ADT combinations. It was estimated that there was 96% chance that one of the triplet therapy combinations were the best treatment option from an OS perspective. Triplet therapy also improved progression-free survival. These benefits were pronounced in men with high-volume disease burden and those with de novo metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: The finding suggest that triplet therapy is likely the most efficacious available option in men with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer, especially in those with high-volume disease burden.

Effect of local steroids on urethral strictures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Urethral stricture disease is common and has high associated morbidity and impact on quality-of-life. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summarise current evidence on the efficacy of local urethral steroids post-direct vision internal urethrotomy (DVIU) for the treatment of urethral strictures in males. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed using reputable databases and registries, up to 22 February 2022. Only randomised control trials in which participants were randomised to DVIU plus local urethral steroids versus DVIU only were included. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Quality of evidence was rated according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: The search identified seven studies in which 365 participants were randomised to DVIU plus local urethral steroids versus DVIU only. The application of local steroids appeared to reduce recurrence rates (risk ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.90) and time-to-recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.85). Qmax also improved following steroid application (mean difference, 0.82; 95% CI, -1.02-2.66); however, this was not statistically significant. No heterogeneity was identified between included studies for all outcomes. The certainty of evidence was downgraded due to study limitations with a small sample size and unclear risk-of-bias related to insufficient trial information. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to DVIU alone, adjuvant steroids applied to the urethra may reduce risk of recurrence and time-to-recurrence. These findings were statistically significant and likely also clinically significant given low associated costs and risk. However, more robust randomised trials are necessary to enhance the validity of these outcomes.

Protocol for CAMUS Delphi Study: A Consensus on Comprehensive Reporting and Grading of Complications After Urological Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Reproducible assessment of postoperative complications is essential for reliable evaluation of quality of care to enable comparison between healthcare centres and ensure transparent patient counselling. Currently, significant discrepancies exist in complication reporting and grading due to heterogeneous definitions and methodologies. OBJECTIVE: To develop a standardised and reproducible assessment of perioperative complications and overall associated morbidity, to allow for the construction of a uniform language for complication reporting and grading. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The 12-part REDCap-based Delphi survey was developed in conjunction with methodologist review and experienced urologist opinion. International urologists, anaesthetists, and intensive care unit specialists will be included. A minimum sample size of 750 participants (500 urologists and 250 critical care specialities) is targeted. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The survey assesses participant demographics, opinion on complication reporting and the proposed Complications After Major & Minor Urological Surgery (CAMUS) reporting recommendations, grading of intervention events using the existing Clavien-Dindo classification and the proposed CAMUS classification, and rating of various clinical scenarios. Consensus will be defined as ≥75% majority agreement. If consensus is not reached, then subsequent Delphi rounds will be performed under steering committee guidance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Twenty-one participants completed the draft survey. The median survey completion time was 128 min (interquartile range 88-135). The survey revealed that 90% of participants believe that the current complication classification systems are useful but inaccurate, while 100% of participants believe that there is a universal demand for reporting consensus. Several amendments were made following feedback. Limitations include complexity of the proposed supplemental grades and time to completion of the survey. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure comprehensive and comparable complication reporting and grading across centres worldwide, a conclusive uniform language for complication reporting must be created. We intend to address shortcomings of the current complication reporting and classification systems with a new CAMUS classification system developed through multidisciplinary expert consensus obtained through a Delphi survey. Ultimately, standardisation of urological complication reporting and grading may improve patient counselling and quality of care. PATIENT SUMMARY: The reporting and grading of operative complications that occur during or after an operation and associated costs provide a means to stratify quality of patient care. Current complication reporting and classification systems are not standardised and somewhat inaccurate, and thus significantly underestimate patient morbidity and surgical risk. This Delphi survey will provide the basis for the creation of a uniform complication reporting and grading system. Our new system may allow improved reporting and grading between centres, and ultimately improve patient counselling and care.

There is a Need for a Universal Language in the Reporting and Grading of Complication and Intervention Events to Ensure Comparability and Improvement of Surgical Care.

To enhance the clarity and quality of complication reporting and grading for clinicians and patients, the CAMUS-Collaboration aims to develop the following: (1) a data dictionary; (2) parameters required for reporting; (3) risk-based reporting; (4) nursing and patient opinions; and (5) prospective reporting and grading of short- and long-term complications.

Detection and localisation of primary prostate cancer using 68 gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and radical prostatectomy specimen pathology.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of 68 gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT) with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in detecting and localising primary prostate cancer when compared with radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen pathology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of men who underwent 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI for primary prostate cancer before RP across four centres between 2015 and 2018. Patients undergoing imaging for recurrent disease or before non-surgical treatment were excluded. We defined pathological index tumour as the lesion with highest International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (GG) on RP specimen pathology. Our primary outcomes were rates of accurate detection and localisation of RP specimen pathology index tumour using 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT or mpMRI. We defined tumour detection as imaging lesion corresponding with RP specimen tumour on any imaging plane, and localisation as imaging lesion matching RP specimen index tumour in all sagittal, axial, and coronal planes. Secondary outcomes included localisation of clinically significant and transition zone (TZ) index tumours. We defined clinically significant disease as GG 3-5. We used descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney U-test to define and compare demographic and pathological characteristics between detected, missed and localised tumours using either imaging modality. We used the McNemar test to compare detection and localisation rates using 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. RESULTS: In all, 205 men were included in our analysis, including 133 with clinically significant disease. There was no significant difference between 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI in the detection of any tumour (94% vs 95%, P > 0.9). There was also no significant difference between localisation of all index tumours (91% vs 89%, P = 0.47), clinically significant index tumours (96% vs 91%, P = 0.15) or TZ tumours (85% vs 80%, P > 0.9) using 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. Limitations include retrospective study design and non-central review of imaging and pathology. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in the detection or localisation of primary prostate cancer between 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. Further prospective studies are required to evaluate a combined PET/MRI model in minimising tumours missed by either modality.