Lower baseline testosterone level is related to earlier development of castration resistance in metastatic prostate cancer: a multi-center cohort study.

Purpose: In the era of concurrent combination therapy in metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer, the impact of the testosterone level before initiating androgen deprivation therapy on treatment outcome is still uncertain. We aimed to investigate its effect on time-to-castration-resistance in a metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer cohort. Methods: This is a multi-center retrospective study of 5 databases from China, Japan, Austria and Spain including 258 metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer patients with androgen deprivation therapy initiated between 2002 and 2021. Baseline testosterone was divided into high and low groups using 12 nmol/L as cutoff level. Primary outcome was time-to-castration-resistance. Secondary outcomes were survival functions. Kaplan-Meier method was employed to evaluate the correlation between baseline testosterone and time-to-castration-resistance. Subgroup analysis was performed to elucidate the effect of upfront combination-therapy and metastatic volume. Results: Median age was 72 years. Median follow-up time was 31 months. Median pre-treatment prostate-specific-antigen level was 161 ng/mL. Majority of case were graded as International-Society-of-Urological-Pathology grade 5 (63.6%). 57.8% patients had high volume disease and 69.0% received upfront combination treatment. 44.6% of the cohort developed castration-resistance. The low testosterone group demonstrated shorter mean-time-to-castration-resistance (19.0 vs 22.4 months, p=0.031). The variance was more significant in patients without combination therapy (13.2 vs 26.3 months, p=0.015). Cancer-specific and overall survival were inferior in the low baseline testosterone level group without receiving combination therapy (p=0.001). Conclusions: Lower pre-treatment testosterone level is correlated to shorter time-to-castration resistance and worse survival in metastatic prostate cancer patients without upfront combination therapy. Those with low baseline testosterone should be encouraged to adopt combination therapy to delay progression.

The Prognostic Role of Preoperative PSMA PET/CT in cN0M0 pN+ Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Study.

CONTEXT: Despite negative preoperative conventional imaging, up to 10% of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) harbor lymph-node involvement (LNI) at radical prostatectomy (RP). The advent of more accurate imaging modalities such as PET/CT improved the detection of LNI. However, their clinical impact and prognostic value are still unclear. We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of preoperative PET/CT in patients node positive (pN+) at RP. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We retrospectively identified cN0M0 patients at conventional imaging (CT and/or MRI, and bone scan) who had pN+ PCa at RP at 17 referral centers. Patients with cN+ at PSMA/Choline PET/CT but cN0M0 at conventional imaging were also included. Systemic progression/recurrence was the primary outcome; Cox proportional hazards models were used for multivariate analysis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We included 1163 pN+ men out of whom 95 and 100 had preoperative PSMA and/or Choline PET/CT, respectively. ISUP grade ≥4 was detected in 66.6%. Overall, 42% of patients had postoperative PSA persistence (≥0.1 ng/mL). Postoperative management included initial observation (34%), ADT (22.7%) and adjuvant RT+/-ADT (42.8%). Median follow-up was 42 months. Patients with cN+ on PSMA PET/CT had an increased risk of systemic progression (52.9% vs. 13.6% cN0 PSMA PET/CT vs. 21.5% cN0 at conventional imaging; P < .01). This held true at multivariable analysis: (HR 6.184, 95% CI: 3.386-11-295; P < .001) whilst no significant results were highlighted for Choline PET/CT. No significant associations for both PET types were found for local progression, BCR, and overall mortality (all P > .05). Observation as an initial management strategy instead of adjuvant treatments was related with an increased risk of metastases (HR 1.808; 95% CI: 1.069-3.058; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: PSMA PET/CT cN+ patients with negative conventional imaging have an increased risk of systemic progression after RP compared to their counterparts with cN0M0 disease both at conventional and/or molecular imaging.

The impact of a second MRI and re-biopsy in patients with initial negative mpMRI-targeted and systematic biopsy for PIRADS ≥ 3 lesions.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the proportions of detected prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa), as well as identify clinical predictors of PCa, in patients with PI-RADS > = 3 lesion at mpMRI and initial negative targeted and systematic biopsy (initial biopsy) who underwent a second MRI and a re-biopsy. METHODS: A total of 290 patients from 10 tertiary referral centers were included. The primary outcome measures were the presence of PCa and csPCa at re-biopsy. Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate predictors of PCa and csPCa, adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Forty-two percentage of patients exhibited the presence of a new lesion. Furthermore, at the second MRI, patients showed stable, upgrading, and downgrading PI-RADS lesions in 42%, 39%, and 19%, respectively. The interval from the initial to repeated mpMRI and from the initial to repeated biopsy was 16 mo (IQR 12-20) and 18 mo (IQR 12-21), respectively. One hundred and eight patients (37.2%) were diagnosed with PCa and 74 (25.5%) with csPCa at re-biopsy. The presence of ASAP on the initial biopsy strongly predicted the presence of PCa and csPCa at re-biopsy. Furthermore, PI-RADS scores at the first and second MRI and a higher number of systematic biopsy cores at first and second biopsy were independent predictors of the presence of PCa and csPCa. Selection bias cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent PI-RADS ≥ 3 at the second MRI is suggestive of the presence of a not negligible proportion of csPca. These findings contribute to the refinement of risk stratification for men with initial negative MRI-TBx.

Prognostic impact of serum testosterone in metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In daily practice, there is an unmet medical need for biomarkers that facilitate therapeutic decision-making in the metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) scenario. Although recent studies have highlighted the potential of testosterone as a prognostic and predictive marker in prostate cancer, the evidence is controversial. The objective of this review was to summarize and analyze the scientific evidence regarding the prognostic role of basal testosterone levels in patients with mHSPC. METHODS: A systematic review was performed. Three authors selected the articles from Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library electronic databases. Risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RECENT FINDINGS: Most of the selected articles suggest that low testosterone levels before starting hormonal blockade imply a worse prognosis for patients with mHSPC. However, the quality of the evidence is poor, the studies are heterogeneous, and it is not possible to meta-analyze most of the published results. SUMMARY: Testosterone is an accessible and affordable biomarker. If it were correctly demonstrated that it harbors a prognostic and/or predictive role in the mHSPC setting, it could represent an advance in decision-making in these patients. Well designed prospective studies are needed to correctly answer this question.

The Changing Face of cN0M0 Prostate Cancer Being Found With pN+ After Surgery in the Contemporary Era: Results of an International European Survey on Disease Management.

INTRODUCTION: The urological community's opinion over the management of men being found with pathologically positive nodes (pN+) following radical prostatectomy (RP) performed with curative intent after preoperative negative conventional staging (cN0M0) has never been assessed. This remains crucial, especially considering the advent of novel imaging modalities. Our aim was to investigate the current opinion on management of pN+ cN0M0 prostate cancer (PCa) in the European urological community. METHODS: Following validation, a 31-item survey, complying with the Cherries checklist, was distributed using a web link from December 2021 to April 2022 to 10 urological societies mailing list. Social media (Twitter, Facebook) were also used. RESULTS: We received 253 replies. The majority were Urologists (96.8%), younger than 60 (90.5%); 5.2% did not have access to PET-scans; 78.9% believed pN+ is a multifaceted category; 10-years CSS was marked as 71 to 95% by 17.5%. Gold standard management was stated not being ADT by 80.8% and being RT±ADT by 52.3%. Early sRT±ADT was considered an option vs. aRT±ADT by 72.4%. In case of BCR 71% would perform and decide management based on PSMA-PET whilst 3.7% would not perform PSMA-PET. pN+ management is still unclear for 77.1%. On multivariate analysis PSMA-PET availability related to a lower and higher likelihood of considering aRT±ADT as standard and of considering early salvage versus aRT respectively (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The Urological community has an acceptable awareness of pN+ disease and management, although it may overestimate disease aggressiveness. The majority consider pN+ PCa as a multifaceted category and rely on a risk-adapted approach. Expectant compared to immediate upfront management and new imaging modalities are increasingly considered.

Oncological outcomes of cribriform histology pattern in prostate cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Changes applied to the Prostate cancer (PCa) histopathology grading, where patients with cribriform patterns (CP) may be categorized as grade group 2 and could hypothetically be surveilled. However, CP has been associated with worse oncological outcomes. The aim of our study is to systematically review and meta-analyze the available evidence on CP in PCa patients. METHODS: This analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022298473). We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) indexes, keyword searches, and publication types until December 2021. The search terms included: "prostate", "prostate cancer" and "cribriform". We also searched reference lists of relevant articles. Eligible studies included published journal articles that provided quantitative data on the association between cribriform patterns at radical prostatectomy and the presence of extra-prostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), positive surgical margins (PSM), biochemical recurrence (BCR) or cancer specific mortality (CSM). RESULTS: Overall, 31 studies were included for the quantitative analysis. All articles have been published during a span of 11 years (2011-2022) with a mean month of follow-up of 62.87 months. The mean quality of these studies, assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale was 6.27. We demonstrated that CP was associated with greater risk of EPE (odds ratio [OR] 1.96; P < 0.0001), SVI (OR: 2.89; p < 0.01), and PSM (OR: 1.88; p < 0.0007). Our analyses showed that CP was associated with greater risk of BCR (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.14; p < 0.01) and of CSM (HR: 3.30, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The presence of CP is associated with adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy and worse biochemical recurrence and cancer specific mortality. These results highlight the importance of a better pathologic report of CP to advise clinician for a strict follow-up in PCa patients.

Addressing the Relationship Between Testosterone Levels and Urethral Stricture: A Case-Control Study.

PURPOSE: Hypoandrogenism may have an association with urethral stricture. This study aimed to identify and quantify the association between testosterone levels and urethral stricture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A case-control study was conducted from January 2019 to January 2021. The case group included patients diagnosed with anterior urethral stricture who visited our urethral office of the urology department, while the control group included patients who visited our practice due to clinical conditions unrelated to voiding. In both groups, a 10 cc blood sample collection was scheduled between 7:30 and 9:30 a.m. The outcome was case/control status. The exposure variables were total testosterone, free testosterone, bioavailable testosterone, and hypoandrogenism (total testosterone < 300 ng/dL). The adjusted ORs were calculated for each exposure. Age, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and thyroxine levels were considered possible confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 149 cases (mean age 59.5) were compared to 67 controls (64.3). Urethral stricture cases showed significantly lower mean total testosterone than controls (394 ng/dL vs 488 ng/dL). Similarly, the hypoandrogenism rate was significantly higher in the urethral stricture group (26% vs 7.5%). Each 100 unit increase in total testosterone was related to a 34% decrease in the odds of urethral stricture (adjusted OR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51-0.86). Similarly, each increase of 1 unit of free testosterone and 10 units of bioavailable testosterone was associated with a decrease of 18% and 10%, respectively. A strong direct relationship was observed between hypoandrogenism and urethral stricture (adjusted OR 4.01, 95% CI: 1.37-11.7). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates an independent association between hypoandrogenism and anterior urethral stricture.

Exchange of cellular components between platelets and tumor cells: impact on tumor cells behavior.

Background: Platelets are active players in tumorigenesis, although the exact interactive mechanisms and their direct impact on tumor cells remain largely unknown. Methods: Bidirectional transference of lipids, proteins and RNA between platelets and tumor cells and its impact on tumor cell behavior and tumor process are analyzed in this work. Phenotypic, genetic and functional modifications induced by platelets were analyzed both in tumor cell lines and in circulating tumor cells (CTCs). Results: Data from these assays showed that platelets transferred structural components to tumor cells with higher efficiency than tumor cells to platelets (p = 0.001). This biological interplay occurred by direct contact, internalization or via extracellular vesicles. As a result, tumor cells acquired platelet markers (CD61 and CD42), showed decreased EpCAM, expressed epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition markers, and increased proliferation rates. Moreover, we were able to detect CD61 in CTCs from early and advanced prostate cancer. Conclusions: Our results demonstrated, for the first time, that platelets educate tumor cells by highly efficient transference of lipids, proteins and RNA through different mechanisms. These results suggest that tumor cells and CTCs might acquire highly dynamic and aggressive phenotypes due to platelets interaction including EMT, stem-like phenotype and high proliferative rates.

Serum biomarkers for diagnosis and characterization of prostate cancer. / Biomarcadores plasmáticos en el diagnóstico y caracterización del cáncer de próstata.

PSA is the most widely used diagnosticand prognostic biomarker in prostate cancer (PCa).However, its lack of specificity has generated the needto search for new complementary markers. In thisscenario, blood plasma constitutes one of the sourcesof search for new markers, which have been tried tobe combined with PSA and other clinical variables inorder to develop tests that increase their diagnosticspecificity.This narrative review of the literature provides anoverview of commercially available plasma biomarkers and tests for use in different clinical settingsfor PCa. The most studied markers to help select theappropriate patients for initial and / or repeat biopsyhave been: PHI, 4K, STHLM3. These markers havebeen oriented towards the diagnosis of the so-calledclinically signifi cant PCa, trying to validate and calibratetheir algorithms in different populations. Giventhe development and evolution in the diagnosis of PCa,there is still a lack of evidence of the impact of magneticresonance imaging (MRI) when used in combinationwith these new markers, as well as its possiblerole in the screening of the disease and not only in theearly diagnosis process. Furthermore, there are only asmall number of studies that have directly comparedthese tests with each other and with PSA, so there isnot enough evidence to know which test has the bestproperties in each clinical scenario. In order to clarifythe true diagnostic role of these new biomarkers, newprospective, comparative studies in different populationsare absolutely necessary to evaluate their clinicalutility in combination with MRI and fusion biopsy.

El PSA es el biomarcador diagnóstico ypronóstico más ampliamente utilizado en cáncer deprostata (CaP). Sin embargo, su falta de especificidadha generado la necesidad de buscar nuevos marcadorescomplementarios. En este escenario, el plasmasanguíneo constituye una de las fuentes de búsquedade nuevos marcadores, los cuales han tratado decombinarse con el PSA y otras variables clínicas conel objeto de desarrollar tests que aumentaran su especificidaddiagnóstica.En esta revisión narrativa de la literatura se proporcionauna descripción general de los biomarcadoresplasmáticos y tests disponibles comercialmentepara ser utilizados en diferentes contextos clínicosdel CaP. Los test más estudiados para ayudar a seleccionarlos pacientes adecuados para la biopsia inicialy / o repetida han sido: PHI, 4K, STHLM3. Estos testse han orientado hacia el diagnóstico del denominadoCaP clínicamente significativo, intentando validary calibrar sus algoritmos en diferentes poblaciones.Dado el desarrollo y evolución en el diagnóstico deCaP, aún existe una falta de evidencia del impacto de la resonancia magnética (RM) al ser empleada encombinación con estos nuevos marcadores, así comosu posible papel en el screening de la enfermedad yno solo en el proceso de diagnóstico precoz. Además,solo se dispone de una pequeña cantidad de estudiosque hayan comparado directamente estos test entreellos y con el PSA, de modo que no existe evidenciasuficiente para saber qué test tiene mejores propiedadesen cada escenario clínico. En el escenarioactual, para poder aclarar el verdadero papel diagnósticode estos nuevos biomarcadores, son absolutamentenecesarios nuevos estudios prospectivos,comparativos y en diferentes poblaciones, que evalúensu utilidad clínica en combinación con la RM yla biopsia fusión.

Biomarkers to personalize treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617 in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer - a state of the art review.

Radioligand therapy with Lutetium-177 (177Lu)-Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) has shown to prolong survival in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). One of the major challenges for clinicians in the future is to select those patients who would benefit most from this therapy to position it in the treatment landscape of mCRPC. This, in turn, will lead to the delivery of personalized therapies. In this narrative review article we summarize recent studies investigating both predictive and prognostic clinical, imaging-based, and molecular biomarkers to predict treatment response to 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy with the aim of identifying men who should be considered for this approach. Of note, the evidence on the role of biomarkers currently relies on small retrospective trials and their validation in larger prospective cohorts is necessary before these results can be translated in the clinical practice.

Biomarcadores plasmáticos en el diagnóstico y caracterización del cáncer de próstata / Serum biomarkers for diagnosis and characterization of prostate cáncer

El PSA es el biomarcador diagnóstico y pronóstico más ampliamente utilizado en cáncer deprostata (CaP). Sin embargo, su falta de especificidadha generado la necesidad de buscar nuevos marcadores complementarios. En este escenario, el plasmasanguíneo constituye una de las fuentes de búsqueda de nuevos marcadores, los cuales han tratado decombinarse con el PSA y otras variables clínicas conel objeto de desarrollar tests que aumentaran su especificidad diagnóstica.En esta revisión narrativa de la literatura se proporciona una descripción general de los biomarcadores plasmáticos y tests disponibles comercialmentepara ser utilizados en diferentes contextos clínicosdel CaP. Los test más estudiados para ayudar a seleccionar los pacientes adecuados para la biopsia inicialy / o repetida han sido: PHI, 4K, STHLM3. Estos testse han orientado hacia el diagnóstico del denominado CaP clínicamente significativo, intentando validary calibrar sus algoritmos en diferentes poblaciones.Dado el desarrollo y evolución en el diagnóstico deCaP, aún existe una falta de evidencia del impacto de la resonancia magnética (RM) al ser empleada encombinación con estos nuevos marcadores, así comosu posible papel en el screening de la enfermedad yno solo en el proceso de diagnóstico precoz. Además,solo se dispone de una pequeña cantidad de estudiosque hayan comparado directamente estos test entreellos y con el PSA, de modo que no existe evidenciasuficiente para saber qué test tiene mejores propiedades en cada escenario clínico. En el escenarioactual, para poder aclarar el verdadero papel diagnóstico de estos nuevos biomarcadores, son absolutamente necesarios nuevos estudios prospectivos,comparativos y en diferentes poblaciones, que evalúen su utilidad clínica en combinación con la RM yla biopsia fusión. (AU)

PSA is the most widely used diagnosticand prognostic biomarker in prostate cancer (PCa).However, its lack of specificity has generated the needto search for new complementary markers. In thisscenario, blood plasma constitutes one of the sourcesof search for new markers, which have been tried tobe combined with PSA and other clinical variables inorder to develop tests that increase their diagnosticspecificity.This narrative review of the literature provides anoverview of commercially available plasma biomarkers and tests for use in different clinical settingsfor PCa. The most studied markers to help select theappropriate patients for initial and / or repeat biopsyhave been: PHI, 4K, STHLM3. These markers havebeen oriented towards the diagnosis of the so-calledclinically signifi cant PCa, trying to validate and calibrate their algorithms in different populations. Giventhe development and evolution in the diagnosis of PCa,there is still a lack of evidence of the impact of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) when used in combination with these new markers, as well as its possiblerole in the screening of the disease and not only in theearly diagnosis process. Furthermore, there are only asmall number of studies that have directly comparedthese tests with each other and with PSA, so there isnot enough evidence to know which test has the bestproperties in each clinical scenario. In order to clarifythe true diagnostic role of these new biomarkers, newprospective, comparative studies in different populations are absolutely necessary to evaluate their clinicalutility in combination with MRI and fusion biopsy. (AU)

Features and management of men with pN1 cM0 prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and lymphadenectomy: a systematic review of population-based evidence.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To investigate the features and optimal management of pN+ cM0 prostate cancer (PCa) according to registry-based studies. RECENT FINDINGS: Up to 15% of PCa patients harbor lymph node invasion (pN+) at radical prostatectomy plus lymph node dissection. Nonetheless, the optimal management strategy in this setting is not well characterized. SUMMARY: We performed a systematic review including n = 13 studies. Management strategies comprised 13 536 men undergoing observation, 11 149 adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (aADT), 7,075 adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) +aADT and 705 aRT. Baseline features showed aggressive PCa in the majority of men. At a median follow-up ranging 48-134months, Cancer-related death was 5% and overall-mortality 16.6%. aADT and aRT alone had no cancer-specific survival or overall survival advantages over observation only and over not performing aRT, respectively. aADT plus aRT yielded a survival benefit compared to observation and aADT, which in one study, were limited to certain intermediate-risk categories. Age, Gleason, Charlson score, positive surgical margins, pathological stage, and positive nodes number, but not prostate specific antigen, were most relevant prognostic factors. Our work further confirmed pN+ PCa is a multifaceted disease and will help future research in defining its optimal management based on different risk categories to maximize survival and patient's quality of life.

Cross-Resistance to Abiraterone and Enzalutamide in Castration Resistance Prostate Cancer Cellular Models Is Mediated by AR Transcriptional Reactivation.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and novel hormonal agents (NHAs) (Abiraterone and Enzalutamide) are the goal standard for metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. Although ADT is initially effective, a subsequent castration resistance status (CRPC) is commonly developed. The expression of androgen receptor (AR) alternative splicing isoforms (AR-V7 and AR-V9) has been associated to CRPC. However, resistance mechanisms to novel NHAs are not yet well understood. Androgen-dependent PCa cell lines were used to generate resistant models to ADT only or in combination with Abiraterone and/or Enzalutamide (concomitant models). Functional and genetic analyses were performed for each resistance model by real-time cell monitoring assays, flow cytometry and RT-qPCR. In androgen-dependent PCa cells, the administration of Abiraterone and/or Enzalutamide as first-line treatment involved a critical inhibition of AR activity associated with a significant cell growth inhibition. Genetic analyses on ADT-resistant PCa cell lines showed that the CRPC phenotype was accompanied by overexpression of AR full-length and AR target genes, but not necessarily AR-V7 and/or AR-V9 isoforms. These ADT resistant cell lines showed higher proliferation rates, migration and invasion abilities. Importantly, ADT resistance induced cross-resistance to Abiraterone and/or Enzalutamide. Similarly, concomitant models possessed an elevated expression of AR full-length and proliferation rates and acquired cross-resistance to its alternative NHA as second-line treatment.

Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer-Current State and Future Perspectives.

With the therapeutic landscape of advanced prostate cancer rapidly evolving and oncological benefits being shown for a plethora of new agents and indications, health-related quality of life (HRQOL)-associated evidence is still subpar. In the current comprehensive review, we discuss the importance of HRQOL for patients with advanced PC (metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC)), and present the most frequently used tools to evaluate HRQOL in recent randomized trials. Furthermore, we discuss the ease of use of these validated questionnaires for clinicians and try to focus on the suggested appropriate use in clinical practice, as well as potential strategies for improvement of HRQOL evaluation in these clinical scenarios of advanced prostate cancer.

[Emergency surgery during COVID-19 pandemia.] / Cirugía de urgencia en urología durante la pandemia Covid-19.

INTRODUCTION: The crisis in the SARSCoV-2 coronavirus causing COVID-19 is putting health systems around the world to the test. In a great effort to standardize the management and treatment guidelines, the different health authorities and scientific associations have tried to issue recommendations on how to act in this new and complex scenario. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the existing evidence and recommendations about urological emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic situation. Furthermore, we propose a general action protocol for these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The document is based ont he scarce evidence on SARS / Cov-2 and the experience of the authors in the management of COVID-19 in their institutions, including specialists from Andalusia, Cantabria, Madrid and the Basque Country. A web and PubMed search was performed using the keywords "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID19",  "COVID Urology", "COVID19 surgery" and "emergency care". A narrative review of the literature was carried out until April 30, 2020, including only articles and documents written in Spanish and English. After the nominal group technique modified due to the extraordinary restrictions, a first draft was made to unify criteria. Finally, a definitive version was made, agreed by all the authors on May 12, 2020. RESULTS: General principles of action are set out, as well as specific recommendations for the most frequent urgent urological procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Given the exceptional nature of the situation, there is a lack of evidence regarding the optimal management of the patient with urgent urological pathology. The information is changing, as the epidemiological knowledge of the disease advances. The establishment of multidisciplinary surgical committees that develop and implement action protocols appropriate to the different resources and particular situations of each center is recommended. Likewise, these committees must individually assess each possible urological surgical emergency situation and ensure compliance with protective measures for the patient and other healthcare personnel.

INTRODUCCIÓN: La crisis del coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 causante del COVID-19 está poniendoa prueba los sistemas sanitarios de todo el mundo. En un gran esfuerzo por estandarizar las pautas de manejo y tratamiento, las distintas autoridades sanitarias y asociaciones científicas han tratado de dictar unas recomendaciones sobre como actuar en este nuevo y complejo escenario.OBJETIVO: Sintetizar la evidencia y recomendaciones existentes acerca de la cirugía de urgencia urológica durante la situación de pandemia COVID-19. Además, proponemos un protocolo de actuación general para estos pacientes. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: El documento se basa en la escasa evidencia sobre SARS/Cov-2 y la experiencia de los autores en el manejo de COVID-19 en sus instituciones incluyendo especialistas de Andalucía, Cantabria, Madrid y País Vasco. Se realizó una búsqueda web y en PubMed utilizando las palabras clave "SARSCoV-2", "COVID19", "COVID Urology", "COVID19 surgery" y "emergency care". Se realizó una revisión narrativa de la literatura hasta el día 30 de Abril de2020 incluyendo solo artículos y documentos escritos en lengua española e inglesa. Tras técnica de grupo nominal modificada debido a las restricciones extraordinarias se realizó un primer borrador para unificar criterios. Finalmente, se realizó una versión definitiva, consensuada por todos los autores el 12 Mayo 2020. RESULTADOS: Se exponen unos principios generales de actuación, así como unas recomendaciones específicas para los procedimientos urológicos urgentes más frecuentes.CONCLUSIONES: Dado el carácter excepcional de la situación, existe un déficit de evidencia respecto al óptimo manejo del paciente con patología urológica urgente. La información es cambiante, según avanza el conocimiento epidemiológico de la enfermedad. Es recomendable el establecimiento de comités multidisciplinares quirúrgicos que desarrollen e implementen protocolos de actuación adecuados a los distintos recursos y situaciones particulares de cada centro. Del mismo modo, estos comités deben evaluar de forma individualizada cada posible situación de urgencia quirúrgica urológica y velar por el cumplimiento de las medidas de protección para el paciente y resto del personal sanitario.

[Prostate cancer and COVID-19 pandemia: Current recommendations.] / Cáncer de próstata y la pandemia Covid-19. Recomendaciones ante una nueva realidad.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this publicationis to provide recommendations in the management of prostate cancer (PC) in a new reality framework based on the presence of COVID-19 disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The document is based on the scarce evidence on SARS/Cov-2 and the experience of the authors in handling COVID-19 in their institutions, including specialists from Andalusia, Cantabria, Catalonia, Madrid and the Valencian Community. RESULTS: The authors defined different priorities for the different clinical situations in PC. Emergency/urgency (life-threatening or urgent even in normal situation), highpriority/elective urgency (potentially dangerous if postponed for more than 1 month), intermediate/electivepriority (it is recommended not to delay more than 6 months), low priority/delayed (can be postponed more than 6 months). According to this classification, the working panel agreed on the distribution of the different diagnostic, therapeutic and follow-up scenarios for PC. The risk of severe morbidity as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection may out weigh the risk of PC morbidity/mortalityin many men; therefore, in the short term it is unlikely that delays in diagnosis or treatment can led to worse cancer outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a challenge for our health system, which raises several considerations in the treatment of patients with PC. The redistribution of surgical procedures according to the degrees of priority is essential during the period of the pandemic and the transition to the new normality. The change of the out-clinics with the adequate security measures for healthcare practitioners and patients, andt he development of a telemedicine program is highly recommended.

OBJETIVO: El objetivo de esta publicaciónes proporcionar recomendaciones en el manejo del cáncer de próstata (CP) en el marco de la nueva realidad que supone la presencia de la COVID-19.MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: El documento se basa en la escasa evidencia sobre SARS/CoV-2 y la experiencia de los autores en el manejo de la COVID-19 en sus instituciones incluyendo especialistas de Andalucía, Cantabria, Cataluña, Madrid y Comunidad Valenciana. RESULTADOS: Los autores definieron diferentes prioridades para los distintos supuestos clínicos en CP. Emergencia/urgencia (riesgo vital o urgencia aún en situación de normalidad), alta prioridad/urgencia electiva (potencialmente peligrosa si se pospone más de 1mes), prioridad intermedia/electiva (se recomienda no retrasar más de 6 meses), baja prioridad/demorable (se puede posponer más de 6 meses). Acorde a esta clasificación, el grupo de trabajo consensuó la distribución de los diferentes escenarios diagnósticos, terapéuticos y de seguimiento del CP. El riesgo de morbilidad grave como resultado de la infección por SARS-CoV-2puede superar el riesgo de morbi-mortalidad por CP en muchos hombres; por lo tanto, a corto plazo es pocoprobable que los retrasos en el diagnóstico o tratamiento conduzcan a peores resultados oncológicos. CONCLUSIONES: La pandemia COVID-19 ha resultado en un desafío para nuestro sistema de salud, lo que plantea varias consideraciones en el tratamiento de pacientes con CP. La planificación de los procedimientos quirúrgicos en función de los grados de prioridades imprescindible durante el periodo de pandemia y transición a la nueva normalidad. La reorganización de las consultas incluyendo la adaptación a las medidas de seguridad para profesionales y pacientes y el desarrollo de un programa de telemedicina es altamente recomendable.

[Reconstructive surgery protocol recommendations during COVID-19 pandemia.] / Recomendaciones de actuación en cirugía reconstructiva urológica durante la pandemia Covid-19.

OBJECTIVES: Offer some recommendations or guidelines during the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of diagnosis, treatment and follow-upin the field of Reconstructive Urology. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The document is based on the evidence on SARS/Cov-2 and the authors' experience in managing COVID-19 in their institutions, including specialists from Andalusia, Madrid, Cantabria,the Valencian Community and Catalonia. A web and PubMed search was performed using "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19", "COVID-19 Urology", "COVID19 urology complications", "COVID-19 reconstructive surgery".A narrative review of the literature was carried out (5/17/2020) and after the nominal group technique modified due to the extraordinary restrictions, a first draft was made to unify criteria and reach a quick consensus. Finally, a definitive version was made, agreed by all the authors (5/22/2020). RESULTS: The authors defined the following surgical priorities for Urological Reconstructive Surgery: Emergency/Urgency (life-threatening or emergencies still in anormal situation), Elective Urgency/High priority (potentially dangerous pathology if postponed for more than 1month), Elective Surgery/Intermediate priority (pathology with little probability of being dangerous but it is recommended not to delay more than 6 months), Delayed surgery/Low priority (non-dangerous pathology if it is postponed for more than 6 months). According to this classification, the Working Group agreed on the distribution of the different surgical scenarios of Reconstructive Urology. In addition, consensus was reached on recommendations regarding the diagnosis and follow-up of pathology in the field of Reconstructive Urology. CONCLUSIONS: Tools should be implemented to facilitate the gathering of the medical visit and diagnostic tests. Redistribution of surgical procedures based on priority degrees is necessary during the pandemic and transition period. The use of telemedicine is essential forfollow-up, by computer, telephone or videoconference.

OBJETIVOS: Establecer unas recomendaciones o guía de actuación durante la evolución de la pandemia COVID-19 en cuanto al diagnóstico, tratamiento y seguimiento en el campo de la Urología Reconstructiva.MATERIAL y MÉTODO: El documento se basa en la evidencia sobre SARS/Cov-2 y la experiencia de los autores en el manejo de COVID-19 en sus instituciones, incluyendo especialistas de Andalucía, Madrid, Cantabria, Comunidad Valenciana y Cataluña. Se realizó una búsqueda web y en PubMed utilizando "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19", "COVID-19 Urology", "COVID19 urology complications", "COVID-19 reconstructive surgery". Se realizó una revisión narrativa de  la literatura (17/5/2020) y tras la técnica de grupo nominal modificada debido a las restricciones extraordinarias, se realizó un primer borrador para unificar criterios y llegar a un rápido consenso. Finalmente, se realizó una versión definitiva, consensuada por todos los autores el 22/5/2020. RESULTADOS: Los autores definieron para la Cirugía Urológica Reconstructiva las siguientes prioridades quirúrgicas: Emergencia/Urgencia (Riesgo vital o urgencias aún en situación de normalidad), Urgencia Electiva/Alta prioridad (Patología potencialmente peligros asi se pospone más de 1 mes), Cirugía Electiva/Prioridad intermedia (Patología con poca probabilidad de ser peligrosa pero se recomienda no retrasar más de 6 meses), Cirugía demorable/Baja prioridad (Patología no peligrosa si se pospone más de 6 meses). Acorde a esta clasificación, el Grupo de Trabajo consensuó la distribución de los diferentes escenarios quirúrgicos de la Urología Reconstructiva. Además, se llegó a consenso sobre recomendaciones en cuanto al diagnóstico y seguimiento de la patología en el ámbito de la Urología Reconstructiva. CONCLUSIONES: Deben implementarse mecanismos que faciliten la agrupación de la visita médica y pruebas diagnósticas. La redistribución de los procedimientos quirúrgicos en función de los grados de prioridad es imprescindible durante el periodo de pandemia y de transición. El empleo de la telemedicina es necesario para el seguimiento, mediante vía informática, telefónica o videoconferencia.

Cirugía de urgencia en urología durante la pandemia Covid-19 / Emergency surgery during COVID-19 pandemia

INTRODUCCIÓN: La crisis del coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 causante del COVID-19 está poniendoa prueba los sistemas sanitarios de todo el mundo. En un gran esfuerzo por estandarizar las pautas de manejo y tratamiento, las distintas autoridades sanitarias y asociaciones científicas han tratado de dictar unas recomendaciones sobre como actuar en este nuevo y complejo escenario. OBJETIVO: Sintetizar la evidencia y recomendaciones existentes acerca de la cirugía de urgencia urológica durante la situación de pandemia COVID-19. Además, proponemos un protocolo de actuación general para estos pacientes. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: El documento se basa en la escasa evidencia sobre SARS/Cov-2 y la experiencia de los autores en el manejo de COVID-19 en sus instituciones incluyendo especialistas de Andalucía, Cantabria, Madrid y País Vasco. Se realizó una búsqueda web y en PubMed utilizando las palabras clave "SARSCoV-2", "COVID19", "COVID Urology", "COVID19 surgery" y "emergency care". Se realizó una revisión narrativa de la literatura hasta el día 30 de Abril de2020 incluyendo solo artículos y documentos escritos en lengua española e inglesa. Tras técnica de grupo nominal modificada debido a las restricciones extraordinarias se realizó un primer borrador para unificar criterios. Finalmente, se realizó una versión definitiva, consensuada por todos los autores el 12 Mayo 2020. RESULTADOS: Se exponen unos principios generales de actuación, así como unas recomendaciones específicas para los procedimientos urológicos urgentes más frecuentes. CONCLUSIONES: Dado el carácter excepcional de la situación, existe un déficit de evidencia respecto al óptimo manejo del paciente con patología urológica urgente. La información es cambiante, según avanza el conocimiento epidemiológico de la enfermedad. Es recomendable el establecimiento de comités multidisciplinares quirúrgicos que desarrollen e implementen protocolos de actuación adecuados a los distintos recursos y situaciones particulares de cada centro. Del mismo modo, estos comités deben evaluar de forma individualizada cada posible situación de urgencia quirúrgica urológica y velar por el cumplimiento de las medidas de protección para el paciente y resto del personal sanitario

INTRODUCTION: The crisis in the SARSCoV-2 coronavirus causing COVID-19 is putting health systems around the world to the test. In a great effort to standardize the management and treatment guidelines, the different health authorities and scientific associations have tried to issue recommendations on how to act in this new and complex scenario. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the existing evidence and recommendations about urological emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic situation. Furthermore, we propose a general action protocol for these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The document is based on the scarce evidence on SARS/Cov-2 and the experience of the authors in the management of COVID-19 in their institutions, including specialists from Andalusia, Cantabria, Madrid and the Basque Country. A web and PubMed search was performed using the keywords "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID19", "COVID Urology", "COVID19 surgery" and "emergency care". A narrative review of the literature was carried out until April 30, 2020, including only articles and documents written in Spanish and English. After the nominal group technique modified due to the extraordinary restrictions, a first draft was made to unify criteria. Finally, a definitive version was made, agreed by all the authors on May 12, 2020. RESULTS: General principles of action are set out, as well as specific recommendations for the most frequent urgent urological procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Given the exceptional nature of the situation, there is a lack of evidence regarding the optimal management of the patient with urgent urological pathology. The information is changing, as the epidemiological knowledge of the disease advances. The establishment of multidisciplinary surgical committees that develop and implement action protocols appropriate to the different resources and particular situations of each center is recommended. Likewise, these committees must individually assess each possible urological surgical emergency situation and ensure compliance with rotective measures for the patient and other healthcare personnel