ABSTRACT
The management of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) presents a significant clinical challenge, often necessitating treatment intensification due to the potential presence of micrometastases. While radical prostatectomy (RP) constitutes one of the primary treatment modalities, the integration of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies suggests a paradigm shift towards more aggressive treatment strategies, also guided by new imaging modalities like positron emission tomography using prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA-PET). Despite the benefits, treatment intensification raises concerns regarding increased side effects. This review synthesizes the latest evidence on perioperative treatment intensification and de-escalation for high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa patients eligible for surgery. Through a non-systematic literature review conducted via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov, we explored various dimensions of perioperative treatments, including neoadjuvant systemic therapies, adjuvant therapies, and the role of novel diagnostic technologies. Emerging evidence provides more support for neoadjuvant systemic therapies. Preliminary results from studies suggest the potential for treatments traditionally reserved for metastatic PCa to show apparent benefit in a non-metastatic setting. The role of adjuvant treatments remains debated, particularly the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and adjuvant radiotherapy in patients at higher risk of biochemical recurrence. The potential role of radio-guided PSMA lymph node dissection emerges as a cutting-edge approach, offering a targeted method for eradicating disease with greater precision. Innovations such as artificial intelligence and machine learning are potential game-changers, offering new avenues for personalized treatment and improved prognostication. The intensification of surgical treatment in high-risk PCa patients is a dynamic and evolving field, underscored by the integration of traditional and novel therapeutic approaches. As evidence continues to emerge, these strategies will refine patient selection, enhance treatment efficacy, and mitigate the risk of progression, although with an attentive consideration of the associated side effects.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Glans dehiscence (GD) is reportedly a common complication after proximal hypospadias repairs. However, the need for surgical correction is controversial. The aim of this study was to assess awareness, risk factors, and outcome of GD in post-pubertal patients. The agreement with surgeon assessment was also evaluated. METHODS: The design was retrospective. All consecutive patients treated for proximal hypospadias between 2000 and 2011 were included. The presence of GD was self-reported, and the participants could optionally upload a photograph for surgeon assessment. Cosmetic and functional outcomes were assessed by validated questionnaires (HOSE, PPPS, KINDL®, IIEF-5). Results were compared between patients with and without GD. RESULTS: Of 219 patients, 34 (16%) participated. Fourteen of them (41%) self-reported GD. Eighteen patients (8%) also uploaded a photograph and, in ten of them (56%), the surgeon noted the presence of GD with poor agreement [k = - 0.444 (95 CI - 0.856 to - 0.033)] with patient report. Patients self-reporting GD had had more frequently a penile curvature at diagnosis (12/14 = 86%, p = 0.01), and had undergone a single-staged repair (100% vs. 65%, p = 0.03). No difference was found in cosmetic and functional outcomes. Results were similar also comparing groups with and without GD as assessed by the surgeon. CONCLUSION: GD was a common finding after severe hypospadias repair. It was more common in case of surgeon assessment with poor agreement between patients and surgeons. GD did not prove to have clear clinical implications. Therefore, in our opinion, surgical repair of GD should be recommended only on patients request.