[Intradetrusor injections of botulinum toxin A to treat urinary incontinence due to bladder overactivity during idiopathic Parkinson's disease]. / Injections intradétrusorienne de toxine botulique A (onabotuliniumtoxin A) pour traiter l'incontinence urinaire par urgenturie au cours de la maladie de parkinson idiopathique.

INTRODUCTION: During idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD), lower urinary tract symptoms and dysfunctions are frequent, dominated by overactive bladder and detrusor overactivity (OAB, DO). Intradetrusor Injection (IDI) of Botulinum Toxin A (BTA) is recommended as second-line treatment for neurogenic urinary incontinence related to DO in multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury patients. However, there is little data on BTA IDI to treat incontinence owing to OAB and DO during idiopathic Parkinson's disease. The objective of this study is to evaluate efficacy and tolerance of BTA IDI in patients suffering IPD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in IPD patients treated with BTA IDI from 2012 to 2018. For each patient we compared patient clinical and urodynamic data at baseline before the first injection and 8 weeks following the injection. We defined 3 levels of effects (perfect, improved, failure), corresponding to 3-dimension composite criteria: clinical, quality of life (Likert scale), urodynamics. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were included from 2012 to 2018. The median age was 73 (70-78.25). The median number of micturition/day before and after TBA was 13 (10-16) and 9 (6.75-13.25) (p=0.022). The median number of pad used/day before and after BTA was 5.4 (2-5) and 1 (0-5) (p=0.035). Median USP scores for OAB was 15.5 (11.75-20) and 14 (6.75-15.25). Median score on the Likert scale was 1 (0-1.5) meaning "slight improvement" felt by the patient. The median maximum cystometric capacity raised from 130cm3 (41.25-187.75) to 217cm3 (165-376.75) (p=0,013). Among the patients, 20% had a perfect result, 40% were significantly improved and in 40% TBA injections failed. After TBA 4/14 patients (28%) needed intermittent self-catheterization. No severe side effect was observed. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study we observe some short-term efficacy of TBA IDI to treat urinary incontinence owing to OAB/DO in patients with IPD in 60% of patients. These results are consistent with findings from previous retrospective studies. Prospective data coming from larger cohorts are now tremendously needed to clarify the best patient responders profiles, the actual TBA dose, and eventually to define TBA IDI place in the therapeutic algorithm of IPD patients' incontinence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Active surveillance in favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer: A single-center experience.

PURPOSE: To report the long-term oncological outcomes of active surveillance (AS) in selected patients with favorable intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A retrospective database review of two academic centers was conducted to identify favorable IR PCa patients initially managed by AS between 2014 and 2022. Favorable IR PCa was defined by the presence of one single element of IR disease (i.e., PSA 10-20ng/mL, Gleason Grade Group [GG] 2, or cT2b). All patients were diagnosed and followed up according to a contemporary scheme, including MRI and image-guided biopsies. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients met our inclusion criteria and the median follow-up was 56months. During follow-up, there were no cases of metastasis or death due to PCa, but 6 deaths due to competing causes. A total of 25 (44%) and 6 patients (11%) had definitive treatment and GG 3 reclassification during follow-up, respectively. In multivariable Cox hazard regression analysis, the risk of undergoing definitive treatment was significantly associated with PSA density>0.15 (HR: 4.82, 95% CI: 1.47 to 15; P=0.01) and PI-RADS 4-5 lesions on mpMRI (HR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.06 to 5.19; P=0.006). Interestingly, tumor burden (P=0.3) and GG (P=0.7) on biopsy were not associated with definitive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: AS is a safe and valuable strategy for well-selected patients with favorable IR prostate cancer, with excellent oncological outcomes after five years' follow-up.