Prognostic value of intraductal carcinoma for adjuvant radiotherapy candidates after radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prognostic significance of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens and predictive value of IDC-P for biochemical recurrence and adjuvant therapy decision. METHOD: We retrospectively evaluated patients who were performed RP between 2000 and 2014. Among, 67 patients who had stage pT3a tumour with negative surgical margin (Group 1, n = 35) and who had stage pT2 tumour with positive surgical margin (Group 2, n = 32) were included in the study. RP specimens were re-evaluated for the presence of IDC-P component and other prognostic factors. In both the groups, prognostic factors were compared according to the presence of IDC-P and biochemical recurrence status. RESULTS: In Group 1, IDC-P was detected in five cases and biochemical recurrence was detected in three cases. Patients with IDC-P showed significantly higher biochemical recurrence than those without IDC-P (P = .002). In univariate analysis, IDC-P was found to be significantly associated with worse progression-free survival (P < .001). In Group 2, IDC-P was detected in four cases and biochemical recurrence was detected in 10 cases. Also, tumour volume was significantly higher in patients with IDC-P than those without IDC-P (P = .02). IDC-P was also significantly associated with worse progression-free survival in Group 2 (P = .033). CONCLUSIONS: In both the groups, IDC-P was a prognostic factor for progression-free survival and/or biochemical recurrence. Especially in these patients, the presence of IDC-P might be helpful for postoperative adjuvant therapy management decision.

Nation-wide analysis of the impact of Covid-19 pandemic on daily urology practice in Turkey.

OBJECTIVE: To present a nation-wide analysis of the workload of urology departments in Turkey week-by-week during Covid-19 pandemic. METHODOLOGY: The centres participating in the study were divided into three groups as tertiary referral centres, state hospitals and private practice hospitals. The number of outpatients, inpatients, daily interventions and urological surgeries were recorded prospectively between 9-March-2020 and 31-May-2020. All these variables were recorded for the same time interval of 2019 as well. The weekly change of the workload of urology during pandemic period was evaluated, also the workload of urology and the distributions of certain urological surgeries were compared between the pandemic period and the same time interval of the year 2019. RESULTS: A total of 51 centres participated in the study. The number of outpatients, inpatients, urological surgeries and daily interventions were found to be dramatically decreased by the 3rd week of pandemics in state hospitals and tertiary referral centres; however, the daily urological practice were similar in private practice hospitals throughout the pandemic period. When the workload of urology in pandemic period and the same time interval of the year 2019 were compared, a huge decrease was observed in all variables during pandemic period. However, temporary measures like ureteral stenting, nephrostomy placement and percutaneous cystostomy have been found to increase during Covid-19 pandemic compared with normal life. CONCLUSIONS: Covid-19 pandemic significantly affected the routine daily urological practice likewise other subspecialties and priority was given to emergent and non-deferrable surgeries by urologists in concordance with published clinical guidelines.