Does vaginal surgery for correction of pelvic organ prolapse improve urinary function? A prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is caused by an imbalance in the stability of the pelvic organs, resulting in loss of support. The most common types of POP, anterior and apical, are associated with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) such as bladder outlet obstruction and detrusor overactivity (DO). Vaginal surgery may improve LUTS and overall urinary symptoms. We assessed urodynamic (UD) parameters and urinary symptoms before and after vaginal surgery for POP correction. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 59 women with symptomatic anterior and/or apical POP associated with urinary symptoms and with indications for vaginal surgery were included. POP surgeries included anterior colporrhaphy and vaginal hysterectomy with culdoplasty (VH) and with/without concomitant posterior colporrhaphy and mid-urethral sling (MUS). All participants underwent UD evaluation and answered urinary symptom questionnaires pre- and 3 months post-surgery. RESULTS: Anterior colporrhaphy was performed in all patients: 45.7% with associated VH and 54.2% with concomitant MUS. Preoperative ICIQ-OAB score >8 points was significantly associated with DO (p<0.02) and decreased after surgery (9±4.3 to 3.2±3.0, p<0.001). All other questionnaires demonstrated improvements in urinary symptoms. Stress urinary incontinence rate decreased from 59.6% to 21% (p<0.001). Post-void residual (PVR) volume and Valsalva maneuver also decreased (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic organ prolapse surgery reduced the prevalence of urgency symptoms, and all questionnaires on urinary symptoms showed clinically significant improvement. Vaginal surgery for POP, even combined with MUS, significantly reduced PVR volume and improved urgency symptoms.

Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection as primary treatment for stage II seminoma germ cell tumor.

INTRODUCTION: Historically, therapeutic avenues for patients with clinical stage II seminoma germ cell tumors (SGCT) were confined to radiotherapy and chemotherapy. While survival rates with these modalities are commendable, both entail substantial long-term morbidities. Furthermore, this youthful patient cohort exhibits elevated rates of secondary malignancies, surfacing decades post-successful primary cancer treatment (1). Recently, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) has emerged as a primary treatment consideration for individuals with low-volume metastatic seminoma (2-4). However, there is a dearth of video documentation illustrating the robotic assisted (RA) bilateral approach (5- 7). METHODS: We present the case of a 24-year-old male who underwent prior left orchiectomy for seminoma (pT1b). Despite negative serum tumor markers, a 1.7 x 1.4cm lymph node enlargement was identified in the aortic bifurcation after 4 months, classifying the patient as stage IIA per the IGCCCG risk classification. Subsequently, a RA bilateral template RPLND was performed due to the patient's refusal of chemotherapy, citing concerns about offspring. RESULTS: The surgery was performed, incorporating nerve sparing techniques, lasting 4h13minutes, an estimated bleeding rate of 400ml, without intraoperative complications. The patient was discharged within 24 hours of the procedure, following a prescribed low-fat diet. CONCLUSION: The patient experienced postoperative well-being, painlessness, and resumed work three weeks post-procedure. Preserved ejaculation was noted, and adjuvant therapy was performed with 2 cycles of EP due to the anatomopathological result. The feasibility of robotic primary RPLND for SGCT was demonstrated, showing reduced postoperative pain and early hospital discharge. Further studies are necessary to validate our findings regarding oncological, safety, and functional outcomes.

Outcomes of ablative therapy and radical treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare biochemical recurrence, sexual potency and urinary continence outcomes of ablative therapy and radical treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines were performed. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed. Biochemical recurrence at three and five years; incontinence rate (patients who used one pad or more) and erectile dysfunction rate at 12 and 36 months (patients who did not have sufficient erection to achieve sexual intercourse) were evaluated. The Mantel-Haenszel method was applied to estimate the pooled risk difference (RD) in the individual studies for categorical variables. All results were presented as 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Random effects models were used regardless of the level of heterogeneity (I²). (PROSPERO CRD42022296998). RESULTS: Eight studies comprising 2,677 men with prostate cancer were included. There was no difference in biochemical recurrence between ablative and radical treatments. We observed the same biochemical recurrence between ablative therapy and radical treatment within five years (19.3% vs. 16.8%, respectively; RD 0.07; 95%CI=-0.05, 0.19; I2=68.2%; P=0.08) and continence rate at 12 months (9.2% vs. 31.8%, respectively; RD -0.13; 95%CI, -0.27, 0.01; I2=89%; P=0.32). When focal treatment was analyzed alone, two studies with 582 patients found higher erectile function at 12 months in the ablative therapy group than in the radical treatment (88.9% vs. 30.8%, respectively; RD -0.45; 95%CI -0.84, -0.05; I2=93%; P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Biochemical recurrence and urinary continence outcomes of ablative therapy and radical treatment were similar. Ablative therapy appears to have a high rate of sexual potency.

Urodynamic profile of voiding in patients with pelvic organ prolapse after surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a defect of the female pelvic floor. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI), urge urinary incontinence (UUI), and obstructive symptoms may occur in these patients. The objective of surgical treatment is to restore the anatomy and function of the pelvic floor; however, it may prompt urinary symptoms not present previously. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine urodynamic changes in patients undergoing surgical correction for POP. METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that contained data from urodynamic evaluation before and after vaginal surgery for POP. The main urodynamic data collected were free uroflowmetry (maximum flow [Qmax], voided volume, and post-void residual volume [PVR]), cystometry (bladder capacity, presence of detrusor overactivity [DO], SUI or UUI, and Valsalva leak point pressure), and pressure × flow study (detrusor pressure at maximum flow [PdetQmax], Qmax, and PVR). RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included (1,549 women). Patients had a significantly higher prevalence of DO before surgery (OR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.06-2.29), and surgeries without sling placement demonstrated a tendency to ameliorate DO. Patients who did not receive a sling were more incontinent after surgery. Bladder-emptying parameters improved after surgery, with higher PdetQmax before surgery (IV = 3.23; 95% CI = 0.45-1.18). Patients who did not receive MUS presented a lower Qmax (IV = -3.19; 95%CI = -4.09 to -2.30) and a higher PVR (IV = 27.89; 95%CI = 15.68-40.1) before surgery. CONCLUSION: Correction surgery for POP yields better urodynamic emptying parameters, with a reduction in the prevalence of DO. In contrast, sling placement enhances obstructive parameters.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on prostate cancer outcomes at an uro-oncology referral center.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the possible effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the oncologic results of patients with prostate cancer regarding clinical staging, presence of adverse pathological outcomes, and perioperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. The time between biopsy and surgery, staging tests, final histopathological evaluation after surgery, lymphadenectomy rate, postoperative complications, and prostatic specific antigen (PSA) levels (initial and 30 days after surgery) were analyzed and compared in a group of patients before and during the pandemic period. RESULTS: We included 226 patients: 88 in the pre-pandemic period and 138 during the pandemic period. There was no statistically significant difference in mean age, body mass index, ASA, pathological locally advanced disease, the proportion of patients who underwent lymphadenectomy, and ISUP grade in the biopsy between the groups. Positive surgical margins, prostatic extracapsular extension, and PSA levels at 30 days were also similar between the groups. The mean time between medical consultation and surgery was longer in the pandemic period than in the pre-pandemic (124 vs. 107 days, p<0.001), and the mean time between biopsy and medical consultation (69.5 days vs. 114 days, p<0.001) and between biopsy and surgery (198.5 days vs. 228 days, p=0.013) was shorter during the pandemic. The incidence of severe early and late perioperative complications was similar between the periods. CONCLUSIONS: There was no delay between diagnosis and treatment at our institution during the COVID-19 pandemic period. No worsening of the prostate cancer features was observed.

The current role of local treatment in metastatic prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the current role of local treatment in prostate cancer with a low metastatic burden (or oligometastatic) in relation to survival and safety. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of studies published in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases until December 2021. Studies comparing local and nonlocal treatment in patients with metastatic prostate cancer were included. The risk of bias within studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Oligo-metastasis was defined as low-volume metastasis with up to five lesions. The local treatment used was radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy associated with systemic therapy (i.e., androgen deprivation therapy ± abiraterone, docetaxel, enzalutamide, or apalutamide). The endpoints evaluated were overall survival, cancer-specific survival, failure-free survival, and complication rates. RESULTS: Thirteen studies including 46,541 patients were included. The 5-year overall survival (16.0% vs. 6.5%, respectively; odds ratio (OR) 2.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.18, 3.44; I2 = 0%; p < .00001) and 3-year cancer-specific survival (48.2% vs. 26.3%, respectively; OR 1.87; 95% CI: 1.44, 2.44; I2 = 0%; p < .00001) were higher in the local treatment group than that of the nonlocal treatment group. In addition, failure-free survival at 3 years was higher in the local treatment group than that of the nonlocal treatment group (40.5% vs. 28.4%, respectively; OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.38, 2.14; I2 = 0%; p < .00001). The low complication rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 indicated that local treatment is feasible and safe in this setting. CONCLUSION: Recent data have shown that local treatment combined with systematic therapy, might improve the overall, cancer-specific, and failure-free survivals of patients diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. Furthermore, local treatment is both feasible and safe. Further studies evaluating the quality of life of these patients are needed.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of active surveillance in prostate cancer among urologists: a real-life survey from Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred treatment for patients with very low-and low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but it is underperformed worldwide. This study aimed to report knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of AS for PCa among urologists in Brazil. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a questionnaire with 50 questions divided into participant characteristics, knowledge regarding inclusion criteria for AS, follow-up, intervention triggers, acceptance, and practice for an index patient. Data analysis comprises absolute and relative frequencies of the variables. After that, a logistic regression was performed in order to verify possible patterns of answers provided by the respondents in the index patient questionnaire. RESULTS: Questionnaires were sent through the SurveyMonkey® platform to 5,015 urologists using email addresses and through social media. A total of 600 (12%) questionnaires returned and 413 (8.2%) were completed and included in the analysis. Only 53% of urologists adopt AS for low- and very-low-risk PCa. Inclusion criteria were patients with age > 50 years (32.2%), prostate specific antigen (PSA) < 10 ng/mL (87.2%), T1 clinical stage (80.4%), Biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6, positive cores ≤ 2 (44.3%), positive core involvement < 50% (45.3%), and magnetic resonance imaging findings (38.7%). The PSA doubling time was still used by 60.3%. Confirmatory biopsy (55.9%), PSA level (36.6%), and digital rectal examination (34.4%) were considered by most urologists for follow-ups. Patient preference (85.7%), upgrade of Gleason score (73.4%), and increased number of positive cores (66.8%) were associated with conversion to definitive treatment. In an index patient, non-acceptance and active treatment request were the most cited reasons for not performing AS. CONCLUSION: There is significant variability in the KAP of AS in Brazil, which indicates the need to reinforce AS, its inclusion and follow-up criteria, and the benefits for physicians and the general population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Can remote assistance for robotic surgery improve surgical performance in simulation training? A prospective clinical trial of urology residents using a simulator in south america.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate the role of remote proctoring during the initial training phases of a robotics curriculum using surgical robot skills simulator exercises. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective randomized study comprising 36 urology residents and junior staff urologists without previous robotic training. Group 1 (G1) performed exercises without any assistance or support, group 2 (G2) received support from in-person proctor, and group 3 (G3) from a remote proctor through a telementoring system. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted for each exercise and group. RESULTS: The overall score approval rates (OSA) for the different skill exercises were Ring Walk 2 (RW2) 83%, Energy Dissection 2 (ED2) 81%, and Ring Walk 3 (RW3) 14%. RW2 OSA was higher on attempt 3 than on attempt 1 (83.3% vs. 63.9%, p=0.032). ED2 OSA rate was higher in attempt 3 than in attempt 1 (80.6% vs. 52.8%, p=0.002). RW2 OSA was similar among the groups. In ED2, both remote and live assistance were significantly related to upper OSA (G1=47.2%, G2=75.0%, G3=83.3%, p=0.002). RW3 had similar OSA among the groups, which can be explained by the high level of difficulty and low OSA in all the groups. However, in a sensitive quantitative analysis, the mean overall score of the participants in RW3 was higher in both proctored groups (G1=24, G2=57.5, G3=51.5, p=0.042). CONCLUSION: Robotic performance increased significantly over three attempts for simulation exercises of low, medium, but not high-complexity. Proctoring, either in-person or remotely, has a positive impact on approval performance, particularly in intermediate tasks.

Consensus on diagnosis and management of non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer in Brazil: focus on patient, selection, treatment efficacy, side effects and physician's perception according to patient comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC) has seen important developments in drugs and diagnostic tools in the last two years. New hormonal agents have demonstrated improvement in metastasis free survival in M0 CRPC patients and have been approved by regulatory agencies in Brazil. Additionally, newer and more sensitive imaging tools are able to detect metastasis earlier than before, which will impact the percentage of patients staged as M0 CRPC. Based on the available international guidelines, a group of Brazilian urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on the diagnosis and treatment of M0 CRPC in Brazil. These results are reviewed and summarized and associated recommendations are provided. OBJECTIVE: To present survey results on management of M0 CRPC in Brazil. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A panel of six Brazilian prostate cancer experts determined 64 questions concerning the main areas of interest: 1) staging tools, 2) treatments, 3) side effects of systemic treatment/s, and 4) osteoclast-targeted therapy. A larger panel of 28 Brazilian prostate cancer experts answered these questions in order to create country-specific recommendations discussed in this manuscript. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. These answers are the panelists' opinions, not a literature review or meta-analysis. Therapies not yet approved in Brazil were excluded from answer options. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two non-answers. Results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSIONS: The results and recommendations presented can be used by Brazilian physicians to support the management of M0 CRPC patients. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data, however, for Brazil, guidelines for diagnosis and management of M0 CRPC patients have not been developed. This document will serve as a point of reference when confronting this disease stage.

Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer with Either High Intensity Focused Ultrasound or Cryoablation: A Single Institution Experience.

PURPOSE: We report oncologic outcomes in patients treated with focal therapy for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a single institution cohort of men with localized prostate cancer who received focal therapy using high intensity focused ultrasound or cryotherapy from 2009 to 2018. Focal therapy was offered for low or intermediate risk disease (prostate specific antigen less than 20 ng/ml, Gleason score 7 or less and clinical stage T2b or less). Patients with previous prostate cancer treatment or less than 6 months of followup were excluded from study. Failure was defined as local or systemic salvage treatment, a positive biopsy Gleason score of 7 or greater in-field or out-of-field in nontreated patients, prostate cancer metastasis or prostate cancer specific death. Cox regression analysis was done to identify independent predictors of failure after focal therapy. RESULTS: Of the 309 patients included in study 190 and 119 were treated with high intensity focused ultrasound and cryotherapy, respectively. Median followup was 45 months. At 1, 3 and 5 years the failure-free survival rate was 95%, 67% and 54%, and the radical treatment-free survival rate was 99%, 79% and 67%, respectively. The 5-year metastasis-free survival rate was 98% and no prostate cancer specific death was registered in this cohort. Before focal therapy a biopsy Gleason score of 7 (3 + 4) or greater (HR 2.4, p <0.001) and nadir prostate specific antigen (HR 2.2, p <0.001) were independently associated with failed focal therapy. In the salvage focal therapy setting in-field recurrence after primary focal therapy was associated with poorer failure-free survival (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the men were free of focal therapy failure 5 years after treatment. Still, a significant proportion experienced recurrence at the midterm followup. The preoperative biopsy Gleason score and nadir prostate specific antigen were significantly associated with treatment failure.

Comparison of Initial Experience with Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cognitive Guided Micro-Ultrasound Biopsies versus Established Transperineal Robotic Ultrasound Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Biopsies for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared cancer detection rates in patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging cognitive guided micro-ultrasound biopsy vs robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 269 targeted biopsy procedures 222 men underwent robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy and 47 micro-ultrasound biopsy. Robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy was performed using the transperineal Artemis™ device while micro-ultrasound biopsy was performed transrectally with the high resolution ExactVu™ system. Random biopsies were performed in addition to targeted biopsy in both modalities. Prostate cancer detection rates and concordance between random and target biopsies were also assessed. RESULTS: Groups were comparable in terms of age, prostate specific antigen, prostate volume and magnetic resonance PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) version 2 score. The micro-ultrasound biopsy group presented fewer biopsied cores in random and target approaches. In targeted biopsies micro-ultrasound biopsy cases presented higher detection of clinically significant disease (Gleason score greater than 6) than the robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy group (38% vs 23%, p=0.02). When considering prostate cancer detection regardless of Gleason score or prostate cancer detection by random+target biopsies, no difference was found between the groups. However, on a per core basis overall prostate cancer detection rates favored micro-ultrasound biopsy in random and targeted scenarios. In addition, the PRI-MUS (Prostate Risk Identification Using Micro-Ultrasound) score yielded by micro-ultrasound visualization was independently associated with improved cancer detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In our initial experience micro-ultrasound biopsy featured a higher clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate in target cores than robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy, which was associated with target features in micro-ultrasound (PRI-MUS score). These findings reinforce the role of micro-ultrasound technology in targeted biopsies.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of endoscopic enucleation and non-enucleation procedures for benign prostatic enlargement.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate safety and efficacy of different endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) techniques, by comparing laser (L-EEP) and non-laser (NL-EEP) procedures; and EEP versus other endoscopic non-enucleation (ENE) surgeries for benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed for randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compared different endoscopic treatments for BPE, between 1982 and 2018. Two analyses were performed: (1) EEP versus ENE; and (2) L-EEP versus NL-EEP. Efficacy was assessed using perioperative data (removed tissue volume, operation time (OT), catheterization time, length of hospital stay); and functional outcomes [IPSS, IIEF-5, maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual volume (PVR), quality of life (QoL)]. Safety was assessed through complications (Hb and sodium decrease, transfusion rate). Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan® 5.3. RESULTS: Out of 35 RCTs (4066 patients), 31 (3909 patients) evaluated EEP versus ENE, and 4 (327 patients) evaluated L-EEP versus NL-EEP. EEP presented greater Qmax. Also, EEP presented less catheterization time, length of hospital stay, Hb decrease, transfusion rate. OT and bladder injury were greater with EEP. There were no significant differences between other items. L-EEP removed more tissue volume, with a smaller drop in serum Hb. There were no significant differences in other perioperative data, functional outcomes, complications. CONCLUSIONS: EEP and ENE are effective and safe for treating BPE. Perioperative data favors EEP. Statistical differences, with questionable clinical significance in functional outcomes and complication rates were encountered. L-EEP provides greater tissue removal and smaller Hb decrease then NL-EEP, with similar functional profiles.

Portuguese version of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP): psychometric validation and prospective application for early functional outcomes at a single institution.

BACKGROUND: The Expanded Prostate Index Composite for Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP) is a short version of the original EPIC, developed to facilitate the instrument's use in routine care. This study aimed to validate the EPIC-CP Portuguese version, and evaluate its role in presenting early functional outcomes of surgically treated prostate cancer patients at a Latin American referral center. METHODS: The EPIC-CP was self-administered prospectively and individually by all localized prostate cancer patients, before and after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, from March 2017 to June 2018 at a single institution. For validation, we used the Cronbach's alpha coefficient to evaluate internal consistency. The EPIC-CP domains were compared before surgery, and 6 months and 12 months after surgery. Statistical analyses were performed using the student's t test, and Wilcoxon and Friedman tests, with p values < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty two patients answered the EPIC-CP. The patients had a median age of 62.7 (± 8.5) years and prostate specific antigen level of 6.3 (± 4.6) ng/ml. The Cronbach's alpha varied from 0.75 to 0.77 for all domains with good internal consistency, except for the "vitality/hormonal" domain, which had a score of 0.35. The domain evolution for the preoperative and 6-month postoperative groups revealed that the domains related to urinary continence and bowel worsened, and were increased during the first 6 months; however, this variation had no obvious clinical implications, and the irritative symptoms improved. Regarding the sexual domain, the scores worsened, and also increased over the first 6 months. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis were robust, with an explained variance of 0.951 and covariance of 0.929. CONCLUSIONS: The Portuguese version of the EPIC-CP is a reliable and valid questionnaire for postoperative patients, and very useful to improve the knowledge of the early functional outcomes of men treated for prostate cancer.

Anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: The next gold standard? No! (or not yet!).

Most cases of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia are initially managed through medical therapy. In cases that surgery is indicated, the anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (aEEP), first described in 1983, allegedly presents the same safety profile as the best endoscopic non-enucleating procedures and the same long-term functional outcomes as simple prostatectomy. Thus, why aEEP has not yet been consolidated as the gold-standard BPH surgical treatment? The main reasons are as follows: (a) Multiple energy sources and techniques; (b) High costs; (c) Steep learning curve; (d) Rare in-residency training; (e) Reimbursement issues; (f) Outcomes and (g) Complications. We do believe aEEP is an important advance and a "practice-changing" procedure that will play an important role in the BPH surgical options arsenal, especially for larger prostates. However, there is a need to start an in-residency training program, with a mentor guidance, and, over time, the cost will likely be reduced due to greater competition between companies and greater support from health insurers. Considering these points, in the future, EEP may be considered the gold-standard treatment for BPH… but not yet.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Urologist's clinical practice in Brazil: a management guideline proposal for low- and middle-income countries during the crisis period.

This letter to the Editor aims to provide suggestions and recommendations for the management of urological conditions in times of COVID-19 crisis in Brazil and other low- and middle-income countries. It is important to highlight that one of the main characteristics of this pandemic is the oversaturation of the health system capacity, mostly due to a high demand for personal protective equipment (PPE), Hospital/ICU beds, as well as ventilators. In places with limited resources and where the health care systems are already saturated, such consideration is even more worrisome. Therefore, most worldwide authorities are recommending to avoid, as much as possible, patient's elective visits to hospitals, as well as a judicious use of the operating room in order to mitigate the strain put on the health system. While efforts should be directed to the care of COVID-19 patients, other conditions (especially urgencies and oncological cases) must continue to be assisted. Thus, through a panel of experts, we have prepared a practical guide for Thus, through a panel of experts, we have prepared a practical guide for urologists based on the recommendations from the main Urologic Associations, as well as data from the literature to support the suggested management. We will try to follow the standard guideline recommendations from the American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU), with the aim of pursuing the best outcomes possible. However, some recommendations were based on the consensus of the panel, taking into consideration the reality of developing countries and the unprecedented situation caused by the COVID-19 crisis. Most importantly, all recommendations on this manuscript are based on the expectancy of a maximum 3-month duration of the crisis. If this period shall extended, these recommendations will be revised and updated.

Transition from open partial nephrectomy directly to robotic surgery: experience of a single surgeon to achieve "TRIFECTA".

INTRODUCTION: Recent data suggest that robotic platform has become the most accessible minimal invasive surgery even for surgeons without previous training in laparoscopy. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) is a well-stablished procedure, however, with high level of complexity and long learning curve that limit its use. OBJECTIVE: To describe safety, efficiency and learning curve of a single surgeon without previous experience in LPN to reach "TRIFECTA" at robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study, with prospective data collection of 101 patients submitted to RAPN by a single surgeon. In order to analyze the learning curve, sample was chronologically divided in two phases: first phase: P1: 50 first patients, second phase: P2: 51 subsequent patients. TRIFECTA was defined as: ischemia time lower than 25 minutes, negative surgical margin and absence of severe complications (Clavien >2). RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 54 years (SD=11.85), median tumor size was 32mm (SD=17) and surgery was performed with zero ischemia time in 33.6% of patients (29.8% at P1 and 40.9% at P2). Demographic data of patients were similar between both groups, except tumor size (P1=27.5mm vs. P2=35.3mm; p=0.02) and body mass index (BMI) (P1=26.6kg/m2 vs. P2=29kg/m2; p=0.03). Rate of bleeding, surgical time, presence of positive margin and peri-operatory surgical complications were similar in both phases. TRIFECTA was higher in P2 in relation to P1 (P1: 58% vs. P2: 87.8%; p=0.002) and median time of hot ischemia was significantly lower at P2 (P1: 17.3 vs. P2: 11.7; p=0.02). At multivariate analysis independent factors related to TRIFECTA included: chronological phase (OR 10.74; 95% IC: 1.63-70.53; p=0.013) and tumor size (OR 0.95; 95% IC: 0.91-0.99; p=0.024). CONCLUSION: RAPN seems to be safe and efficient with good functional and oncological results (TRIFECTA) since the beginning. Experience improvement was related to treatment of larger tumors, higher proportion of patients with zero ischemia and higher rate of TRIFECTA.

Does mpMRI guidance improve HIFU partial gland ablation compared to conventional ultrasound guidance? Early functional outcomes and complications from a single center.

BACKGROUND: Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is raising interest. New technological mpMRI-US guided FT devices have never been compared with the previous generation of ultrasound-only guided devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data of men undergoing FT for localized low- or intermediate-risk PCa with US- (Ablatherm®-2009 to 2014) or mpMRI-US (Focal One®-from 2014) guided HIFU. Follow-up visits and data were collected using internationally validated questionnaires at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: We included n=88 US-guided FT HIFU and n=52 mpMRI-US guided FT HIFU respectively. No major baseline differences were present except higher rates of Gleason 3+4 for the mpMRI-US group. No major differences were present in hospital stay (p=0.1), catheterization time (p=0.5) and complications (p=0.2) although these tended to be lower in the mpMRI-US group (6.8% versus 13.2% US FT group). At 3 months mpMRI-US guided HIFU had significantly lower urine leak (5.1% vs. 15.9%, p=0.04) and a lower drop in IIEF scores (2 vs. 4.2, p=0.07). Of those undergoing 12-months control biopsy in the mpMRI-US-guided HIFU group, 26% had residual cancer in the treated lobe. CONCLUSION: HIFU FT guided by MRI-US fusion may allow improved functional outcomes and fewer complications compared to US- guided HIFU FT alone. Further analysis is needed to confirm benefits of mpMRI implementation at a longer follow-up and on a larger cohort of patients.

Are localized prostate cancer biomarkers useful in the clinical practice?

Prostate cancer presents itself in a heterogeneous way with both aggressive and indolent forms. Despite the controversy surrounding its use, prostate-specific antigen screening ultimately leads to a greater number of diagnosed patients. One of the biggest challenges in clinical practice is to select the right patients for biopsy and, among diagnosed patients, to differentiate tumors with an indolent course from those with an unfavorable prognosis, in order to determine the best therapeutic decision for each case, avoiding unnecessary interventions. Currently, several types of biomarkers are available for clinical use in patients with prostate cancer, which include blood-based (prostate-specific antigen, Prostate Health Index®, 4K score®); urine sample-based (PCA3, SelectMDx®, ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore®); and biopsy, transurethral resection, or radical prostatectomy tissue-based (ConfirmMDx®, Oncotype®, Prolaris®, Decipher®). The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current state of evidence and to highlight recent advances in the evaluation and diagnosis of prostate cancer, with emphasis on biomarkers related to diagnosis and to prognostic evaluation of localized prostate cancer.