Same-day discharge for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To systematically review studies focused on the feasibility and outcomes of outpatient endoscopic enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic obstruction. METHODS: A literature search was conducted through December 2022 using PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Embase databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. Risk of bias assessment was performed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case control studies. RESULTS: Of 773 studies, ten were included in the systematic review (n = 1942 patients) and four in the meta-analysis (n = 1228 patients). The pooled incidence of successful same-day discharge was 84% (95% CI 0.72-0.91). Unplanned readmission was recorded in 3% (95% CI 0.02-0.06) of ambulatory cases. In the reported criteria-selected patients submitted to SDD surgery, the forest plot suggested a lower rate of postoperative readmission (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.91, p = 0.02) and complications (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48-1, p < 0.05) rates compared to standard protocols. CONCLUSION: We provide the first systematic review and meta-analysis on SDD for endoscopic prostate enucleation. Despite the lack of randomized controlled trials, we confirm the feasibility and safety of the protocol with no increase in complications or readmission rate in well-selected patients.

Oncological and safety profiles in patients undergoing simultaneous transurethral resection (TUR) of bladder tumour and TUR of the prostate.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the oncological impact and adverse events of performing simultaneous transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURB) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), as evidence on the outcomes of simultaneous TURB for bladder cancer and TURP for obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia is limited and contradictory. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from 12 European hospitals treated with either TURB alone or simultaneous TURB and TURP (TURB+TURP) were retrospectively analysed. A propensity score matching (PSM) 1:1 was performed with patients from the TURB+TURP group matched to TURB-alone patients. Associations between surgery approach with recurrence-free (RFS) and progression-free (PFS) survivals were assessed in Cox regression models before and after PSM. We performed a subgroup analysis in patients with risk factors for recurrence (multifocality and/or tumour size >3 cm). RESULTS: A total of 762 men were included, among whom, 76% (581) underwent a TURB alone and 24% (181) a TURB+TURP. There was no difference in terms of tumour characteristics between the groups. We observed comparable length of stay as well as complication rates including major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥III) for the TURB-alone vs TURB+TURP groups, while the latest led to longer operative time (P < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 44 months, there were more recurrences in the TURB-alone (47%) compared to the TURB+TURP group (28%; P < 0.001). Interestingly, there were more recurrences at the bladder neck/prostatic fossa in the TURB-alone group (55% vs 3%, P < 0.001). TURB+TURP procedures were associated with improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.53; P < 0.001), but not PFS (HR 1.63, 95% CI 0.90-2.98; P = 0.11). Within the PSM cohort of 254 patients, the simultaneous TURB+TURP was still associated with improved RFS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.22-0.49; P < 0.001). This was also true in the subgroup of 380 patients with recurrence risk factors (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28-0.62; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In our contemporary cohort, simultaneous TURB and TURP seems to be an oncologically safe option that may, even, improve RFS by potentially preventing disease recurrence at the bladder neck and in the prostatic fossa.

Online Crowdfunding for Urologic Cancer Care.

Background: we aimed to characterize the financial needs expressed through online crowdfunding for urologic cancers. Methods: the data used in this study came from the online crowdfunding platform GoFundMe.com. Using an automated software method, we extracted data for campaigns related to urologic cancers. Subsequently, four independent investigators reviewed all extracted data on prostate, bladder, kidney and testicular cancer. We analyzed campaigns' basic characteristics, goals, fundraising, type of treatment and factors associated with successful campaigns. Results: in total, we identified 2126 individual campaigns, which were related to direct treatment costs (34%), living expenses (17%) or both (48%). Median fundraising amounts were greatest for testicular cancer. Campaigns for both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) (median $11,000) or CAM alone (median $8527) achieved higher fundraising totals compared with those for conventional treatments alone (median $5362) (p < 0.01). The number of social media shares was independently associated with campaign success and highest quartile of fundraising. Conclusions: using an automated web-based approach, we identified and characterized online crowdfunding for urologic cancer care. These findings indicated a diverse range of patient needs related to urologic care and factors related to campaigns' success.

Pembrolizumab outperforms tyrosine kinase inhibitors as adjuvant treatment in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy.

We determined the oncologic outcomes and safety profiles of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) compared to adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients at high risk after nephrectomy for clinically nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Network meta-analyses were conducted for disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) with placebo as the common comparator arm. Six trials (KEYNOTE-564, S-TRAC, ASSURE, PROTECT, ATLAS, and SORCE) were included in our analysis. Compared to placebo, both pembrolizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.92) and pazopanib 800 mg (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.97) were significantly associated with better DFS. Adjuvant pembrolizumab (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.97) was significantly associated with better OS compared to TKIs (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-1.04). Analysis of treatment ranking revealed that pembrolizumab was the best treatment with regard to both DFS and OS and had the lowest likelihood of any-grade and high-grade AEs in comparison to TKIs. The superior oncologic benefit of pembrolizumab and its better toxicity profile support it as the new standard of care in the adjuvant setting for nephrectomy patients at high risk of RCC relapse. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with kidney cancer at high risk of relapse after surgical removal of their kidney, postoperative therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab offers the best risk/benefit ratio.

Accuracy and Clinical Utility of a Tumor Grade- and Stage-based Predictive Model in Localized Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Among various clinicopathologic factors used to identify low-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), tumor grade and stage are of utmost importance. The clinical value added by inclusion of other risk factors remains unproven. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of a tumor grade- and stage-based (GS) model to identify patients with UTUC for whom kidney-sparing surgery (KSS) could be attempted. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this international study, we reviewed the medical records of 1240 patients with UTUC who underwent radical nephroureterectomy. Complete data needed for risk stratification according to the European Association of Urology (EAU) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines were available for 560 patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine if risk factors were associated with the presence of localized UTUC. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the GS, EAU, and NCCN models in predicting pathologic stage were calculated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 198 patients (35%) had clinically low-grade, noninvasive tumors, and 283 (51%) had ≤pT1disease. On multivariable analyses, none of the EAU and NCCN risk factors were associated with the presence of non-muscle-invasive UTUC among patients with low-grade and low-stage UTUC. The GS model exhibited the highest accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value among all three models. According to the GS, EAU, and NCCN models, the proportion of patients eligible for KSS was 35%, 6%, and 4%, respectively. Decision curve analysis revealed that the net benefit of the three models was similar within the clinically reasonable range of probability thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The GS model showed favorable predictive accuracy and identified a greater number of KSS-eligible patients than the EAU and NCCN models. A decision-making algorithm that weighs the benefits of avoiding unnecessary kidney loss against the risk of undertreatment in case of advanced carcinoma is necessary for individualized treatment for UTUC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: We assessed the ability of three models to predict low-grade, low-stage disease in patients with cancer of the upper urinary tract. No risk factors other than grade assessed on biopsy and stage assessed from scans were associated with better prediction of localized cancer. A model based on grade and stage may help to identify patients who could benefit from kidney-sparing treatment of their cancer.

Adjuvant therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors for localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been widely used in the management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the use of systemic therapies in the adjuvant setting of localized and locally advanced RCC has shown conflicting results across the literature. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of TKIs in the adjuvant setting for patients with localized and locally advanced RCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched in December 2020 to identify phase III randomized controlled trials of patients receiving adjuvant therapies with TKI for RCC. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were the primary endpoints. The secondary endpoints included treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of high and any grade. RESULTS: Five trials (S-TRAC, ASSURE, PROTECT, ATLAS, and SORCE) were included in our meta-analysis comprising 6,531 patients. The forest plot revealed that TKI therapy was associated with a significantly longer DFS compared to placebo (pooled HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81-0.96, P= 0.004). The Cochrane's Q test (P = 0.51) and I2 test (I2 = 0%) revealed no significant heterogeneity. Adjuvant TKI was not associated with improved OS compared to placebo (pooled HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83-1.04, P= 0.23). The Cochrane's Q test (P = 0.74) and I2 test (I2 = 0%) revealed no significant heterogeneity. The forest plot revealed that TKI therapy, compared to placebo, was associated with higher rates of high grade TRAEs (OR: 5.20, 95% CI: 4.10-6.59, P< 0.00001) as well as any grade TRAEs (OR: 3.85, 95% CI: 1.22-12.17, P= 0.02). The Cochrane's Q tests (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.00001, respectively) and I2 tests (I2 = 79% and I2 = 90%, respectively) revealed significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our analyses suggest an improved DFS in patients with localized and locally advanced RCC receiving adjuvant TKI as compared to placebo; however, this did not translate into any significant OS benefit. Additionally, TKI therapy led to significant toxicity. Adjuvant TKI does not seem to offer a satisfactory risk and/orbenefit balance for all patients. Select patients with very poor prognosis may be considered in a shared decision-making process with the patient. With the successful arrival of immune-based therapies in RCC, these may allow a more favorable risk/benefit profile.

[Office-based therapies for benign prostatic hyperplasia : Update on new minimally invasive surgery therapies]. / Traitement de l'HBP en consultation : le point sur les nouvelles thérapies mini-invasives.

INTRODUCTION: Several minimally invasive surgical therapies have been developed for the treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) associated with Benign Prostate Hyperplasia (BPH). The objective was to report an update on these new office-based therapies. METHODS: This simple review is based on the data available in the literature on office-based minimally invasive surgical techniques for treating BPH. A PubMed search and narrative review of the data were performed in July 2021. Only articles in French or English were reviewed. RESULTS: The most studied office-based minimally invasive treatments for BPH are water vapor thermal therapy (Rezum® system, Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA), prostatic urethral lift (UroLift® system, NeoTract, Inc., Pleasanton, California, USA) and the Temporarily Implanted Nitinol Device (iTind®, Medi-Tate Ltd, Hadera, Israel). Each treatment appears to provide rapid and lasting improvement in LUTS and quality of life, preservation of sexual and ejaculatory functions, rapid postoperative recovery with a minimal adverse event profile, thus allowing outpatient care. Compared to conventional BPH surgeries, these benefits would be offset by higher retreatment rates and less overall improvement in LUTS. CONCLUSION: New minimally invasive therapies are promising options that are well tolerated and preserve sexual and ejaculatory functions in men with BPH. Although standard surgical approaches may be more effective, these benefits are valuable for certain patient populations.

Head-to-head comparison of prostatic urethral lift and water vapor thermal therapy for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a real-life study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed at reporting a head-to-head comparison between water vapor thermal therapy using the Rezum™ system and prostatic urethral lift using the Urolift™ system in men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From December 2017 to November 2019, consecutive patients who underwent Rezum™ and Urolift™ procedures in two urology centers have been retrospectively considered. Only patients with a prostate size less than 80 mL were included. We used the PSM method to adjust baseline differences between both groups. The co-primary endpoint included the change in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and IPSS- quality of life (QoL) from baseline to 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 61 (52.1%) and 56 (47.9%) patients underwent Rezum™ and Urolift™ procedures, respectively. After PSM adjustment, 24 patients were included in both groups. No serious adverse events occurred (> Clavien II) in both groups. At 12 months, higher IPSS improvement was observed in the Rezum™ group (median:4 [IQR 3-5]) than in the Urolift™ group (median:8 [IQR 7-12]), without statistical difference (p = 0.08). The improvement in term of QoL at 12 m was similar (p = 0.43). The retreatment rates were 25% (Urolift™) and 8.3% (Rezum™), p = 0.24. Erection and ejaculatory function scores did not change significantly in either treatment group. Results in the full cohort showed that Rezum™ appeared to deliver greater improvements for IPSS and IPSS-QoL (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006, respectively) and lower reintervention rate (p = 0.006) than Urolift™. CONCLUSIONS: In this small retrospective study, our results indicate that both Rezum™ and Urolift™ provide a clinically significant improvement in symptoms and QoL, although some of these improvements were greater in the Rezum™ arm. Future studies are needed to definitively assess which treatment would be best suited for each patient.

Propensity-score analysis comparing perioperative and functional outcomes between XPS 180 W-photovaporization and GreenLight laser enucleation of the prostate: reasons to discard vaporization and move to enucleation.

PURPOSE: To compare the perioperative and functional outcomes between 180_W XPS GreenLight photoselective vaporization (PVP) and 532-nm GreenLight laser enucleation of the prostate (GreenLEP) in the surgical management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained international database of patients managed with GreenLight laser surgery (PVP or GreenLEP) was performed. To adjust for potential baseline confounders, propensity-score matching (PSM) was applied at a ratio of 1:1 to compare the perioperative and functional outcomes between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 2,420 patients were included. 1,491 (61.6%) underwent PVP and 929 (38.4%) underwent GreenLEP. Before PSM analysis, patients in the vaporization group were older (p < 0.001), had a lower PSA and prostate volume at baseline (p < 0.001). Using estimated propensity scores, 78 patients in the PVP group were matched 1:1 to the patients in the GreenLEP group. The incidence of overall postoperative complications was comparable between the two groups (19 vs. 16%, p = 0.06). However, after PSM, PVP was found to be associated with a higher rate of overall complications (33 vs. 11%, p = 0.001). At 3 months and at last follow-up the I-PSS, Qmax and PSA had similarly decreased in the two groups with a greater improvement in the GreenLEP group (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PVP and GreenLEP are two efficient and safe techniques for treating BPO. However, PVP was associated with longer operative time and higher risk of reoperation on a midterm follow-up compared to GreenLEP.

The recurrence and progression risk after simultaneous endoscopic surgery of urothelial bladder tumour and benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate recurrence and progression risk after simultaneous endoscopic surgery of bladder cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), as simultaneous surgery is not an unusual scenario and theoretically simultaneous transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) can lead to an increased risk of recurrence in the bladder neck and prostatic urethra (BN/PU). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the risk of recurrence (i.e. whole bladder and/or BN/PU) and tumour progression as outcomes after a simultaneous endoscopic surgery of bladder tumour and BPH, as compared to TURBT alone. We queried PubMed and Web of Science database on 1 January 2020. We used random- and/or fixed-effects meta-analytic models in the presence or absence of heterogeneity according to the I2 statistic, respectively. RESULTS: Nine retrospective and three clinical trial studies were selected after considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. We conducted the meta-analysis on retrospective and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) separately. Eight retrospective and three RCT studies were included to assess the BN/PU recurrence risk and the summarised risk ratio (RR) was 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.41) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.47-1.84), respectively. Five retrospective and two RCT studies were included to assess the progression risk and the summarised RR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.56-1.48) and 1.16 (95% CI 0.30-4.51), respectively. Eight retrospective and three RCT studies were included to assess the whole bladder recurrence risk and the summarised RR was 0.87 (95% CI 0.78-0.97) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.65-1.21), respectively. CONCLUSION: We did not observe any increased risk of total bladder recurrence, BN/PU recurrence, or progression after a simultaneous endoscopic surgery of bladder tumour and BPH, as compared to TURBT alone.

Nonantibiotic Strategies for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We identify which nonantibiotic strategies could reduce the risk of infectious complications following prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a literature search on MEDLINE®, Embase® and the Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials (inception to May 2020) assessing nonantibiotic interventions in prostate biopsy. Primary outcome was pooled infectious complications (fever, sepsis and symptomatic urinary tract infection) and secondary outcome was hospitalization. Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE approach were used to assess the bias and the certainty of evidence. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026354). RESULTS: A total of 90 randomized controlled trials (16,941 participants) were included in the analysis, with 83 trials being categorized into one of 10 different interventions. Transperineal biopsy was associated with significantly reduced infectious complications as compared to transrectal biopsy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.92, p=0.02, I2=0%, 1,330 participants, 7 studies). Rectal preparation with povidone-iodine was also shown to reduce infectious complications (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.65, p <0.000001, I2=27%, 1,686 participants, 8 studies) as well as hospitalization (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.69, p=0.002, I2=0%, 620 participants, 4 studies). We found no difference in infectious complications/hospitalization for 6 other interventions, ie number of biopsy cores, periprostatic nerve block, number of injections for periprostatic nerve block, needle guide type, needle type and rectal preparation with enema. In 2 interventions (needle diameter, rectal preparation with chlorhexidine) meta-analysis was not possible. Finally, 7 studies had unique interventions. The certainty of evidence was rated as low/very low for all interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal biopsy significantly reduces infectious complications compared to transrectal biopsy and should therefore be preferred. If transrectal biopsy is performed, rectal preparation with povidone-iodine is highly recommended. The other investigated nonantibiotic strategies did not significantly influence infection and hospitalization after prostate biopsy.

Do patients have to choose between ejaculation and miction? A systematic review about ejaculation preservation technics for benign prostatic obstruction surgical treatment.

PURPOSE: Ejaculatory dysfunction is the most common side effect related to surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Nowadays, modified surgical techniques and non-ablative techniques have emerged with the aim of preserving antegrade ejaculation. Our objective was to conduce a systematic review of the literature regarding efficacy on ejaculatory preservation of modified endoscopic surgical techniques, and mini-invasive non-ablatives techniques for BPO management. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was carried out on the PubMed database using the following MESH terms: "Prostatic Hyperplasia/surgery" and "Ejaculation", in combination with the following keywords: "ejaculation preservation", "photoselective vaporization of the prostate", "photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate", "holmium laser enucleation of the prostate", "thulium laser", "prostatic artery embolization", "urolift", "rezum", and "aquablation". RESULTS: The ejaculation preservation rate of modified-TURP ranged from 66 to 91%. The ejaculation preservation rate of modified-prostate photo-vaporization ranged from 87 to 96%. The only high level of evidence studies available compared prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and aquablation versus regular TURP in prospective randomized-controlled trials. The ejaculation preservation rate of either PUL or aquablation compared to regular TURP was 100 and 90 versus 34%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Non-ablative therapies and modified endoscopic surgical techniques seemed to be reasonable options for patients eager to preserve their ejaculatory functions.

Update on Strategies to Reduce Infectious Complications After Prostate Biopsy.

CONTEXT: Prostate biopsy is one of the most performed procedures in urology. As a diagnostic procedure it should be of low risk. However, morbidity following prostate biopsy is common due to infectious complications. OBJECTIVE: To describe how to reduce infectious complications following prostate biopsy. We report on antibiotic and technical interventions to reduce infectious complications. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The data presented are based on a narrative review. Search in PubMed and Medline was performed until May 2018 with a focus on randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses. Articles were reviewed for data on symptomatic infections, hospitalisation, and adverse events. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Antibiotic prophylaxis is the standard of care. However, the duration of antibiotic preemptive treatment is still under debate. The use of augmented antibiotic prophylaxis as well as targeted antibiotic prophylaxis might be of potential value, but evidence is currently limited. Moreover, no antibiotic class was shown to be clearly superior to another. The evaluation of the technical aspects during prostate biopsy reveals that rectal preparation with povidone-iodine is clearly effective to reduce infectious complications. Transperineal biopsy has a potential benefit to reduce infectious complications, but powerful randomised controlled studies are missing. Finally, the number of biopsy cores, the application of periprostatic nerve block, or the use of a cleansing enema has no impact on prostate biopsy in terms of infectious complications. CONCLUSIONS: The available data only suggest that rectal preparation with povidone-iodine as well as antibiotic prophylaxis is of significant advantage to reduce infectious complications following prostate biopsy. The augmented and targeted antibiotic prophylaxis shows some potential, but need further validation. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review we evaluate the best management strategy to prevent infectious complications following prostate biopsy. We show that antibiotic prophylaxis is essential for prostate biopsy and that rectal preparation with povidone-iodine is mandatory.