Role of the 4Kscore test as a predictor of reclassification in prostate cancer active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Management of active surveillance (AS) in low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients could be improved with new biomarkers, such as the 4Kscore test. We analyze its ability to predict tumor reclassification by upgrading at the confirmatory biopsy at 6 months. METHODS: Observational, prospective, blinded, and non-randomized study, within the Spanish National Registry on AS (AEU/PIEM/2014/0001; NCT02865330) with 181 patients included after initial Bx and inclusion criteria: PSA ≤10 ng/mL, cT1c-T2a, Grade group 1, ≤2 cores, and ≤5 mm/50% length core involved. Central pathological review of initial and confirmatory Bx was performed on all biopsy specimens. Plasma was collected 6 months after initial Bx and just before confirmatory Bx to determine 4Kscore result. In order to predict reclassification defined as Grade group ≥2, we analyzed 4Kscore, percent free to total (%f/t) PSA ratio, prostate volume, PSA density, family history, body mass index, initial Bx, total cores, initial Bx positive cores, initial Bx % of positive cores, initial Bx maximum cancer core length and initial Bx cancer % involvement. Wilcoxon rank-sum test, non-parametric trend test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate established differences between groups of reclassification. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients met inclusion criteria. Eighteen patients (13.1%) were reclassified at confirmatory Bx. The %f/t PSA ratio and 4Kscore showed differences between the groups of reclassification (Yes/No). Using 7.5% as cutoff for the 4Kscore, we found a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 29%, with no reclassifications to Grade group 3 for patients with 4Kscore below 7.5% and 2 (6%) missed Grade group 2 reclassified patients. Using this threshold value there is a biopsy reduction of 27%. Additionally, 4Kscore was also associated with changes in tumor volume. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings suggest that the 4Kscore may be a useful tool in the decision-making process to perform a confirmatory Bx in active surveillance management.

[Updated analysis of the efficacy of therapeutic options in primary vesicoureteral reflux]. / Análisis actualizado sobre la efectividad de las opciones terapéuticas del reflujo vesico-ureteral primario.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study is to perform a systematic review of the therapeutic management of primary VUR in pediatric urology. METHODS: A systematic review of the articles published in all of the available databases has been performed, including scientific evidence-based medicine criteria. Inclusion criteria concerning basic quality of the articles were considered essential, as well as exclusion criteria to be able to reject the articles. RESULTS: A critic reading of selected articles, and statistical study of grouped data was performed according to the type of treatment and benefits contributed by each treatment, and also to their undesirable effects. CONCLUSIONS: The following Conclusions were drawn from the results obtained and from the analysis of the texts. Both medical and surgical treatment present similar effectiveness concerning resolution of grades I, II and III VUR, and the former one is the recommended initial treatment following diagnosis. Endoscopic treatment is exactly as effective as open surgery for grades I, II and III with fewer undesirable secondary effects. There are no differences concerning the efficacy of the different injected substances. Not enough evidences exist for degrees IV and V that may recommend or advise against any of the treatments. In any degree of VUR, open surgical treatment is superior as far as medical treatment is concerned only regarding the number of acute pyelonephritis episodes during follow-up. This conclusion cannot be applied on endoscopic treatment.

Análisis actualizado sobre la efectividad de las opciones terapéuticas del reflujo vesico-ureteral primario / Updated analysis of the efficacy of therapeutic options in primary vesicoureteral reflux

Objetivo: El propósito principal de nuestro trabajo fue realizar una Revisión Sistemática (RS) sobre el manejo terapéutico del Reflujo Vésico Ureteral Primario (RVUP). Métodos: Para ello se ha realizado una RS de los artículos aparecidos en todas las bases de datos disponibles, aplicando unos criterios de inclusión y exclusión de calidad mínima imprescindible. Resultados: Se ha realizado lectura crítica de los artículos seleccionados y el estudio estadístico correspondiente de los datos agrupados, según el tipo de tratamiento y beneficios aportados, así como sus efectos indeseables. Conclusiones: El tratamiento médico y el quirúrgico presentan la misma efectividad en la resolución de los grados I, II y III de RVUP, recomendándose el primero de ellos como tratamiento inicial tras el diagnóstico. El manejo endoscópico es igual de efectivo que la cirugía abierta, con menores efectos secundarios, sin haber encontrado diferencias entre las distintas sustancias analizadas para la inyección. Para los reflujos de alto grado IV y V no existen evidencias suficientes que aconsejen o desaconsejen cualquiera de los tratamientos. El tratamiento quirúrgico abierto, para cualquier grado de RVU, sólo presenta superioridad con respecto al tratamiento médico en el número de episodios de pielonefritis aguda durante el seguimiento. Esta afirmación no es posible aplicarla para el tratamiento endoscópico (AU)

Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to perform a systematic review of the therapeutic management of primary VUR in pediatric urology. Methods: A systematic review of the articles published in all of the available databases has been performed, including scientific evidence-based medicine criteria. Inclusion criteria concerning basic quality of the articles were considered essential, as well as exclusion criteria to be able to reject the articles. Results: A critic reading of selected articles, and statistical study of grouped data was performed according to the type of treatment and benefits contributed by each treatment, and also to their undesirable effects. Conclusions: The following Conclusions were drawn from the results obtained and from the analysis of the texts. Both medical and surgical treatment present similar effectiveness concerning resolution of grades I, II and III VUR, and the former one is the recommended initial treatment following diagnosis. Endoscopic treatment is exactly as effective as open surgery for grades I, II and III with fewer undesirable secondary effects. There are no differences concerning the efficacy of the different injected substances. Not enough evidences exist for degrees IV and V that may recommend or advise against any of the treatments. In any degree of VUR, open surgical treatment is superior as far as medical treatment is concerned only regarding the number of acute pyelonephritis episodes during follow-up. This con-clusion cannot be applied on endoscopic treatment (AU)