Significant prostate cancer risk after MRI-guided biopsy showing benign findings: Results from a cohort of 381 men.

BACKGROUND: MRI-guided biopsy (MGB) contributes to the diagnosis of clinically significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa). However, there are no clear recommendations for the management of men after a negative MGB. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of csPCa after a first negative MGB. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2020, we selected men with a PI-RADS score ≥ 3 on MRI and a negative MGB (showing benign findings) performed for suspected prostate cancer. MGB (targeted and systematic biopsies) was performed using fully integrated mobile fusion imaging (KOELIS). The primary endpoint was the rate of csPCa (defined as an ISUP grade ≥ 2) diagnosed after a first negative MGB. RESULTS: A total of 381 men with a negative MGB and a median age of 65 (IQR: 59-69, range: 46-85) years were included. During the median follow-up of 31 months, 124 men (32.5%) had a new MRI, and 76 (19.9%) were referred for a new MGB, which revealed csPCa in 16 (4.2%) of them. We found no statistical difference in the characteristics of men diagnosed with csPCa compared with men with no csPCa after the second MGB. CONCLUSION: We observed a risk of significant prostate cancer in 4% of men two years after a negative MRI-guided biopsy. Performing a repeat MRI could improve the selection of men who will benefit from a repeat MRI-guided biopsy, but a clear protocol is needed to follow these patients.

Trasplante renal abierto frente a trasplante renal asistido por robot: revisión sistemática del grupo de trabajo de trasplante renal de la sección de Jóvenes Urólogos Académicos (YAU) de la Asociación Europea de Urología (EAU) / Open versus robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: A systematic review by the European Association of Urology (EAU) – Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Kidney Transplant Working Group

Introducción En los últimos 20 años se ha evaluado el uso de la robótica en el campo del trasplante renal como abordaje miniinvasivo a esta población especialmente vulnerable. Al tratarse de un campo relativamente novedoso, pocos estudios han comparado el trasplante renal abierto (TRA) y el trasplante renal asistido por robot (TRAR), la mayoría en cohortes pequeñas. Para ampliar los conocimientos actuales, hemos querido reunir en este documento datos comparativos de TRA frente a TRAR en una revisión sistemática. Métodos Se realizó una revisión sistemática de acuerdo con la declaración de Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Se realizaron búsquedas en las bases de datos Medline, Embase y Cochrane para identificar todos los estudios que informaran sobre los resultados postoperatorios del TRAR frente al TRA. Resultados Un total de 2.136 pacientes de 13 estudios fueron incluidos. La mediana de edad de los receptores fue de 42,6 años (TRA: 43,5 años y TRAR: 40,3 años). La mediana de la tasa de trasplante renal preventivo fue de 27,1% (TRA: 23,3% y TRAR: 33,2%). La mediana del tiempo quirúrgico total y de recalentamiento fueron: 235 y 49 min, respectivamente, en la población TRA; 250 y 60 min en la población TRAR. Las tasas de complicaciones postoperatorias fueron: 26,2% en la población TRA y 17,8% en la población TRAR. Las tasas de retraso en la función del injerto fueron: 4,9% en la población TRA y 2,3 en la población TRAR. Los resultados funcionales a medio plazo y la supervivencia del paciente y del injerto fueron similares entre las poblaciones TRA y TRAR. Conclusión Esta revisión sistemática demostró que el TRAR puede asociarse a una menor incidencia de retraso en la función del injerto y de complicaciones quirúrgicas postoperatorias, así como a unos resultados funcionales a medio plazo y una supervivencia del paciente y del injerto similares, en comparación con el TRA para los pacientes con enfermedad renal terminal (AU)

Introduction In the last 20 years, robotic assisted procedures were evaluated in the field of kidney transplantation to provide a mini-invasive approach for this particularly fragile population. As a relatively new issue, few studies compared open kidney transplantation (OKT) and robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT), mostly in small cohorts. To improve current knowledge, we wanted here to gather comparative data of OKT vs RAKT in a systematic review. Methods A systematic review was performed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify all studies reporting post-operative outcomes of RAKT versus OKT. Results A total of 2,136 patients in 13 studies were included. Median recipient age was 42.6 years (OKT: 43.5 years and RAKT: 40.3 years). Median preemptive kidney transplantation rate was 27.1% (OKT: 23.3% and RAKT: 33.2%). Median total operative time and rewarming were respectively: 235 and 49 minutes in OKT population; 250 and 60 minutes in RAKT population.Post-operative complications rates were: 26.2% in OKT population and 17.8% in RAKT population. Delayed graft function rates were: 4.9% in OKT population and 2.3 in RAKT population. Mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival were similar in OKT and RAKT population. Conclusion This systematic review showed that RAKT may be associated with a lower incidence of delayed graft function and post-operative surgical complications and similar mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival, compared to OKT for end-stage renal disease patients (AU)

Open versus robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: A systematic review by the European Association of Urology (EAU) - Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Kidney Transplant Working Group.

INTRODUCTION: In the last 20 years, robotic assisted procedures were evaluated in the field of kidney transplantation to provide a mini-invasive approach for this particularly fragile population. As a relatively new issue, few studies compared open kidney transplantation (OKT) and robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT), mostly in small cohorts. To improve current knowledge, we wanted here to gather comparative data of OKT vs RAKT in a systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify all studies reporting post-operative outcomes of RAKT versus OKT. RESULTS: A total of 2136 patients in 13 studies were included. Median recipient age was 42.6 years (OKT: 43.5 years and RAKT: 40.3 years). Median preemptive kidney transplantation rate was 27.1 % (OKT: 23.3 % and RAKT: 33.2 %). Median total operative time and rewarming were respectively: 235 and 49 min in OKT population; 250 and 60 min in RAKT population. Post-operative complications rates were: 26.2 % in OKT population and 17.8 % in RAKT population. Delayed graft function rates were: 4.9 % in OKT population and 2.3 in RAKT population. Mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival were similar in OKT and RAKT population. CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed that RAKT may be associated with a lower incidence of delayed graft function and post-operative surgical complications and similar mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival, compared to OKT for end-stage renal disease patients.

French AFU Cancer Committee Guidelines - Update 2022-2024: management of kidney cancer.

AIM: To update the recommendations for the management of kidney cancers. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted from 2015 to 2022. The most relevant articles on the diagnosis, classification, surgical treatment, medical treatment and follow-up of kidney cancer were selected and incorporated into the recommendations. Therefore, the recommendations were updated while specifying the level of evidence (high or low). RESULTS: The gold standard for the diagnosis and evaluation of kidney cancer is contrast-enhanced chest and abdominal CT. MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound are indicated in special cases. Percutaneous biopsy is recommended in situations where the results will influence the therapeutic decision. Renal tumours should be classified according to the pTNM 2017 classification, the WHO 2022 classification and the ISUP nucleolar grade. Metastatic kidney cancer should be classified according to the IMDC criteria. Partial nephrectomy is the gold standard treatment for T1a tumours and can be performed by an open approach, by laparoscopy or by robot-guidance. Active surveillance of tumours less than 2cm in size can be considered regardless of the patient's age. Ablative therapies and active surveillance are options in elderly patients with comorbidity. T1b tumours should be treated by partial or radical nephrectomy depending on the complexity of the tumour. Radical nephrectomy is the first-line treatment for locally advanced cancers. Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab should be considered in patients at intermediate and high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy. In metastatic patients: Immediate cytoreductive nephrectomy may be offered to oligometastatic patients in combination with local treatment of metastases if this can be complete and delayed cytoreductive nephrectomy can be proposed for patients with a complete response or a significant partial response. Medical treatment should be proposed as first-line therapy for patients with a poor or intermediate prognosis. Surgical or local treatment of metastases can be proposed in case of single or oligo-metastases. The recommended first-line drugs for metastatic patients with clear cell renal carcinoma are the combinations axitinib/pembrolizumab, nivolumab/ipililumab, nivolumab/cabozantinib and lenvatinib/pembrolizumab. Cabozantinib is the recommended first-line treatment for patients with metastatic papillary carcinoma. Cystic tumours should be classified according to the Bosniak classification. Surgical removal should be proposed as a priority for Bosniak III and IV lesions. It is recommended that patient monitoring be adapted to the aggressiveness of the tumour. CONCLUSION: These updated recommendations are a reference that will allow French and French-speaking practitioners to improve kidney cancer management.

Assessment of oncological and functional outcomes of retropubic radical prostatectomy: An academic center experience.

PURPOSE: To report perioperative, pathological, oncological and functional outcomes of a contemporary series of retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), performed by one experienced surgeon. METHODS: We analyzed data from a prospectively gathered database of consecutive patients who were treated by an RRP as first-line treatment for localized prostate cancer, from January 2014 to December 2019, in a single French academic center. RESULTS: Overall, 364 patients were included. Median age and PSA were 65.7 years and 8.0ng/mL. According to D'Amico risk classification, 13.7% patients had a low-risk prostate cancer, 41.5% a favorable intermediate-risk, 23.4% an unfavorable intermediate-risk and 21.4% a high-risk prostate cancer. The rates of pT2 and pT3 were 48.6% (n=177) and 51.4% (n=187), respectively. The rates of non-nerve sparing surgery (NSS), unilateral NSS and bilateral NSS were 19.5% (n=71), 32.7% (n=119) and 47.8% (n=174). Total positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was 12.6% (n=46). Total pT2 PSM and pT3 PSM rates were 0.6% (n=1) and 24.1% (n=45) and achieved a statistical difference (P<0.001). At a median follow-up of 1.9-year, biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurred in 47 (12,9%) patients. Extracapsular extension was associated with a poor BCR-free survival as compared to organ confined disease (P<0.0001). At 2.7 years of follow-up, urinary continence rate was 88% (322/364). After exclusion of non-NSS RRP and non-interpretable questionnaires (score 1-4), median IIEF-5 score was 16 (8-20). CONCLUSION: Retropubic radical prostatectomy ensures optimal pathological and functional results, in a current predominantly population of intermediate-risk prostate cancer and high-risk prostate cancer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

[Living-donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: French academic center experience]. / Transplantation rénale robot-assistée avec donneur vivant : expérience d'un centre universitaire français.

INTRODUCTION: The main objective was to report the intra-, post-operative and functional outcomes of living-donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT), performed by a surgeon skilled in robotic surgery. The secondary objective was to compare the results of RAKT, based on the surgeon's experience. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from consecutive patients who underwent living-donor RAKT from July 2015 to March 2020 and compared the results of RAKT according to the surgeon's experience (group 1: 1-14th RAKT versus group 2: 15-29th RAKT). RESULTS: Twenty-nine living-donor RAKT were performed. The median age and BMI of the recipients were: 57.0 (44.0-66.0) years and 32.7 (23.5-39.6)kg/m2. The median overall operative time and median console time were: 140.0 (122.5-165.0) and 120.0 (107.5-137.5) minutes. The median rewarming time, arterial, venous and urinary anastomoses durations were: 35.0 (27.5-45.0), 15.0 (11.0-20.0), 12.0 (10.0-16.0), 20.0 (16.0-23.0) minutes. Two (6.9%) minor and 5 (17.2%) major (Clavien-Dindo≥III) postoperative complications occurred. At 2 years of follow-up, patient and transplant survival was 100% (n=29) and 93.1% (n=27). After the 14th RAKT, the rewarming time (P=0.01) and venous anastomosis duration (P=0.004) were statistically shorter. CONCLUSION: Living-donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation, performed by a surgeon skilled robotic surgery, ensures good functional results in the medium term. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

[Knowledge, practices and expectations in the management of overactive bladder in general practice and gynecology in France]. / Connaissances, pratiques et attentes pour la prise en charge de l'hyperactivité vésicale en France.

INTRODUCTION: Overactive bladder (OAB) is a clinical syndrome characterized by urgency to urinate, with or without urinary incontinence, often associated with nycturia and pollakiuria. The aim of this practice survey is to identify diagnostic modalities and treatment circuits according to the patient's clinical profile and to practitioner's specialty. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 262 physicians practicing in France: 181 general practitioners (GPs) and 81 gynecologists. RESULTS: Urinary disorders were more easily addressed with patients by gynecologists than GPs. Behavioral therapy was the most widely used therapeutic measure, however half of the patients abandoned it. In oldest women and men of all ages, drugs were commonly prescribed, nevertheless only 4 out of 10 patients continued the treatment beyond 6months, according to the physicians. Incontinence was the symptom for which patients were in most need of relief. GPs and gynecologists expressed a need for training, practical tools and recommendations related to OAB. CONCLUSION: Patients and doctors are reluctant to talk about urinary disorders. Non-urologist physicians such as GPs and gynecologists, as health professionals best placed to detect and diagnose OAB, are in demand for training, practical tools and recommendations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Migration in last decade to high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: There is controversy around prostate cancer (PCa) screening through the use of PSA, due to the risk of overtreatment. The current trend observed in various European and American studies is a decrease in the number of radical prostatectomy (RP) in low-risk PCa and an increase for intermediate or locally advanced diseases. The objective of this study was to observe the migration of the pathological stages from radical prostatectomy (RP) over 10 years in France through 2 French centers. METHODS: It was a multicentric retrospective study, where all the RP realized in 2 French tertiary centers, in a laparoscopic or retropubic approach for each of the years 2005, 2010 and 2015 were included. Preoperative data (age, PSA, clinical stage, number of positive biopsies, Gleason biopsy score) and postoperative data (pTNM, pathological Gleason score (pGS)) were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: In all, 1282 RP were realized (503 in 2005, 403 in 2010, 376 in 2015). Respectively between 2005, 2010, 2015 the average number of positive biopsy increased significantly from 2.30 vs. 2.88 vs. 5.3 (P=0.0001). The distribution of D'Amico's risk evolves with time: low-risk: 49.9 vs. 44.4 vs. 15.7% (P=0.0001); intermediate risk: 40.95 vs. 43.92 vs. 64.1% (P=0.0001) and high-risk: 9.15 vs. 11.66 vs. 20.2% (P=0.0001) between 2005, 2010 and 2015 respectively. pGS evolved to higher score with SG<7: 22.8 vs. 29.9 vs. 7.1% et SG≥7: 77.2 vs. 70.1 vs. 92.9% (P=0.001). Also, pTNM increased to non-organ-confined disease: pT2: 66.9 vs. 51.9 vs. 48.7%; pT3: 33.1 vs. 48.1 vs. 51.3% (P=0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study showed a change in the management of PCa since new recommendations from medical authorities about PSA screening and evolving of conservative treatment. Number of RP increase for higher risk PCa. This change corresponds to better patient selection for RP: decrease for low-risk and increase for high-risk organ-confined disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

[Partial nephrectomy vs. radical nephrectomy for tumor>7cm]. / Résultats de la néphrectomie partielle pour les tumeurs de plus de 7cm : comparaison avec la néphrectomie élargie.

INTRODUCTION: The usefulness of partial nephrectomy (PN) has been demonstrated for the treatment of renal tumor<7cm and it is now the standard treatment for such lesions. However, few studies are available regarding tumors≥T2. The objective of this study was to assess PN results for the treatment of renal tumors>7cm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective two-center study was performed, including 170 patients treated. Thirty-two patients underwent PN and 138 radical nephrectomy (RN) for renal cT2 tumors between 2004 and 2014. The biological and clinical characteristics including perioperative morbidity as well as the survival rate were compared between these 2 groups. RESULTS: The median age was 59.5 years and the median follow-up was 47 months. More cT2b tumors were treated through RN (34.1% vs. 12.5%, P=0.01). The postoperative decrease in creatinine clearance was higher for the RN group (-24.3mL/min vs. -16.8; P=0.04). This difference was no longer significant at last follow-up. Perioperative complications were more frequent in the PN group (50.0% vs. 18.1%; P=0.008), and more severe (Clavien≥3 18.7% vs. 5.1%, P=0.01). No difference was found regarding the overall survival. Surgical margins were more frequent in the PN group (9.1% vs. 0.85%; P=0.01). CONCLUSION: Our results suggested the feasibility of PN for renal tumors>7cm, involving however a higher perioperative complication risk. Cautious patient selection appeared to be required for the indication of PN for large tumors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.