Evaluation of Patients Referred for Abnormal Digital Rectal Examination With Normal Prostate-Specific Antigen on Best Timed Pathway for Prostate Cancer.

Introduction Currently, there is no recommendation for adjustments to the Best Timed Pathway for Prostate cancer (BTiPP) depending on whether the referral is for raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or malignant-feeling prostate on digital rectal examination (DRE). Therefore, all patients undergo MRI scanning. We aim to establish if patients with abnormal DRE only (without raised PSA) should have an adjusted pathway by comparing the biopsy rate and diagnostic yield after an MRI scan. Methods All BTiPP 2021 referral patient notes were reviewed. The patients were categorized into the aDRE group (abnormal DRE with normal PSA) or the rPSA group (raised PSA with or without abnormal DRE). Data and results for MRI and prostate biopsy were evaluated. Diagnostic yield was defined as the percentage of patients who underwent an MRI, who were diagnosed with biopsy-proven cancer. Results 68.5% (74/108) and 70.9% (282/398) of patients underwent upfront MRI in the aDRE and rPSA groups, respectively. Following MRI, the biopsy rate (28.4% (21/74) vs. 42.9% (121/282) (p=0.02)) and the biopsy-proven diagnostic yield (20.3% (15/74) vs. 36.9% (104/282) (p<0.01)) were both significantly lower in the aDRE group. 58% (43/74) of patients in the aDRE group had no posterior lesions on MRI. Only 6.7% (1/15) of biopsy-proven cancers in the aDRE group were solely anterior. Conclusions After MRI, the biopsy rate and diagnostic yield were significantly lower in the aDRE group compared to the rPSA group. Furthermore, a majority of patients referred for aDRE had a normal posterior prostate appearance on MRI. An adjusted pathway for patients referred for aDRE with normal PSA, with DRE by a urologist prior to MRI, should be considered as it would likely reduce unnecessary investigations, treatment, and patient anxiety. These data suggest that this would not risk missing significant cancers.

Retrograde Endourological Management of Upper Urinary Tract Abnormalities in Patients with Ileal Conduit Urinary Diversion: A Dual-Center Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with ileal conduit urinary diversions are at an increased risk of long-term upper urinary tract (UUT) complications, including anastomotic strictures, infections, and urolithiasis. The reconstructed urinary system poses challenges for endoscopic manipulation. We present and describe our dual-center experience in performing retrograde ureteroscopy to treat or diagnose UUT abnormalities in patients with ileal conduit incontinent diversion. PATIENT AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of medical records for all patients with previous urinary diversion who underwent retrograde ureteroscopic procedures via the ileal loop in our institutions over a 9 year period (between June 2007 and August 2016). RESULTS: Fifty-four procedures were performed in 36 patients. Mean age was 61 (28-90) years. Average time from diversion to ureteroscopic procedure was 13.0 (0.08-53) years. Stone disease was the most common indication for intervention in 35.2% (19/54) of cases, with a stone-free rate of 78.9% (15/19). Other indications included surveillance of transitional-cell carcinoma in 22.2% (12/54), diagnostic flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) in 20.4% (11/54), stricture management in 11.1% (6/54), removal of encrusted stent/nephrostomy in 7.4% (4/54), urine leak after diversion in 1.9% (1/54), and miscellaneous in 1.9% (1/54). Successful retrograde access was possible in 74% (40/54) of cases. A long and tortuous ileal segment, too difficult to negotiate, was the most common cause of failure to access the UUT. In 13 out of 54 (24.1%) cases, retrograde fURS was combined with simultaneous percutaneous antegrade access. Six patients (11.1%) developed postprocedural pyrexia requiring additional antibiotic therapy, and one (1.9%) patient required embolization of the renal artery for ongoing bleeding. Median length of stay was 1 day (0-55), with 13 (24%) being performed as day-case procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Retrograde ureteroscopy in patients with ileal conduits can be technically challenging due to distorted anatomy. This procedure can be safely performed in experienced hands with standard endourological equipment. An antegrade approach can be carried out simultaneously, which may be required in a small number of patients.

Medium-term Outcomes of Urolift (Minimum 12 Months Follow-up): Evidence From a Systematic Review.

The urolift device has emerged as a novel intervention for men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia, and in recent years there has been an increasing amount of primary research published on it. However, critical medium-term appraisal remains lacking. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and therefore identify, appraise, and synthesize the existing evidence for the minimally invasive technique.