Rezum water vapor therapy for the treatment of patients with urinary retention and permanent catheter dependence secondary to benign prostate hyperplasia: a systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: Recurrent urinary retention due to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), requiring permanent catheterization, represents one of the most challenging issues geriatric patients can face. Rezum, as a minimal invasive treatment for BPH, takes the advantage of sterile water vapor injections directly into the prostate. The purpose of this Systematic Review is to report the safety and the efficacy of Rezum regarding urinary retention relief and permanent catheter withdrawal. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases were meticulously screened using the keywords "Rezum", "retention" and "permanent catheter". Only human studies and articles in English were included. Rezum should be the only intervention employed in patients. Patients of included studies should not have been submitted to any prior interventions, such as transurethral prostatectomy (TURP) for the relief of their symptoms. Patients' baseline characteristics along with intraoperative and postoperative parameters were collected and analysed. Catheter relief was the primary outcome. RESULTS: Five studies fulfilled all the criteria and were included in the final qualitative synthesis. Four studies were retrospective and one was prospective. All studies were non-comparative. The success rate ranged from 70.3 to 100%, while no grade ≥ III Clavien-Dindo complications were reported in any of the studies. CONCLUSION: Rezum Water Vapor Therapy Treatment seems to be a feasible, safe and efficient minimally-invasive procedure for catheterized patients with urinary retention secondary to BPH, especially for frail ones with comorbidities who cannot undergo general anesthesia.

Review on the Role of BRCA Mutations in Genomic Screening and Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer.

(1) Background: Somatic and germline alterations can be commonly found in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. The aim of our present study was to perform a comprehensive review of the current literature in order to examine the impact of BRCA mutations in the context of PCa as well as their significance as genetic biomarkers. (2) Methods: A narrative review of all the available literature was performed. Only "landmark" publications were included. (3) Results: Overall, the number of PCa patients who harbor a BRCA2 mutation range between 1.2% and 3.2%. However, BRCA2 and BRCA1 mutations are responsible for most cases of hereditary PCa, increasing the risk by 3-8.6 times and up to 4 times, respectively. These mutations are correlated with aggressive disease and poor prognosis. Gene testing should be offered to patients with metastatic PCa, those with 2-3 first-degree relatives with PCa, or those aged < 55 and with one close relative with breast (age ≤ 50 years) or invasive ovarian cancer. (4) Conclusions: The individualized assessment of BRCA mutations is an important tool for the risk stratification of PCa patients. It is also a population screening tool which can guide our risk assessment strategies and achieve better results for our patients and their families.

A rare presentation of medullary thyroid cancer metastasis to the prostate in a patient with multiple endocrine neoplasia 2B syndrome treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN) syndromes are rare and potentially malignant hereditary entities. Clinical manifestations of MEN 2B include medullary thyroid cancer, pheochromocytoma, gastrointestinal ganglioneuromatosis, and musculoskeletal and ophthalmologic lesions. Metastases to the prostate from the cancers of other organs are extremely rare. There are only a few cases of metastases to the prostate gland, originating from medullary thyroid cancer, found in literature, especially associated with MEN 2B syndrome. In this case report, we present the extremely rare case of a 28-year-old patient, diagnosed with MEN 2B syndrome, with medullary thyroid cancer metastasis to the prostate. Although a few reports of medullary thyroid cancer metastasis into the prostate gland can be found in the literature, to our knowledge, this is the first case of a laparoscopic radical prostatectomy procedure performed as a metastasectomy to treat the prostatic metastasis. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, performed as a metastasectomy, for the treatment of metastatic cancer, is an extremely rare surgical indication with distinctive requirements and difficulties. The extraperitoneal access enables the realization of the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy procedure even in the cases of patients with a history of multiple intra-abdominal operations.

The definition of ideal training of a urology resident from two different perspectives: trainees vs professors. Is there agreement in their idea of good training?

Introduction: At the end of their residency program, urology trainees should reach the minimum skills required to be able to work by themselves and within a team. To achieve this objective, it is fundamental that the training involves not only surgical activities, but also theoretical, academic, and relational ones. What is the perfect balance between these activities within the ideal urological training? This study aims to evaluate the concordance in different concepts of good urological training between different perspectives (trainees vs professors). Material and methods: Between January and December 2020 the same survey was distributed via email to 967 urology trainees and urology tutors. The survey investigated 5 educational fields: theoretical, clinical, surgical, relational, and simulation. For each field, specific questions investigated the importance of different activities and the training outcomes considered fundamental to be reached by a resident. The questions were evaluated by responders through a Likert 10-point scale. Results: The survey was completed by 155 trainees (58.9%, Group A) and 108 tutors (41.1%, Group B) from 26 different countries. Relative to the tutors, residents assigned statistically significantly lower scores to prostate biopsy (median score 9.11 vs 9.24), robotic simulator training (5.66 vs 5.93), on-call duties with consultants (6.85 vs 7.99), as well as all aspects of relational training (e.g., proper dialogue with colleagues: 7.95 vs 8.88). Conversely, residents assigned statistically significantly higher scores, albeit below sufficiency, to the performance of robotic prostatectomy as a first operator (4.45 vs 4.26). Finally, no discrepancies between residents' and tutors' scores were recorded regarding the remaining items of clinical training (e.g., urodynamics, outpatient clinic, ward duties) and surgical training (e.g., major open, laparoscopic and endoscopic surgical training; all p values >0.05). Conclusions: There was partial concordance between trainees and tutors regarding the activities that should be implemented and the skills that should be achieved during a urological residency. The residents aimed for more surgical involvement, while the tutors and professors, although giving importance to surgical and theoretical training, considered clinical practice as the fundamental basis on which to train future urologists.