BJU International最新文献

Objective: To analyse the management and outcomes of individuals diagnosed with prostate cancer either before or after organ transplantation, as the impact of organ transplantation and associated immunosuppression on the incidence, progression, and mortality of prostate cancer remains an area of substantial clinical interest and uncertainty.

Patients and methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients from two tertiary care centres who had solid organ transplantation and were diagnosed with prostate cancer before or after organ transplantation. Data collected included demographics and clinical information.

Results: The cohort consisted of 110 patients with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age at prostate cancer diagnosis of 62 (56.6-67.2) years and a median (IQR) age at transplantation of 58.6 (52.7-65.3) years. Renal transplantation was the most common (54%). The median (IQR) prostate-specific antigen concentration at prostate cancer diagnosis was 6.2 (4.5-10) ng/mL, and the distribution of American Urological Association risk groups was: low risk, 36%; intermediate risk, 50%; and high risk, 14%. In all, 45 (41%) patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer prior to transplantation. Management included radical prostatectomy (RP; 62%), prostate radiotherapy (RT; 13%), and active surveillance (AS; 18%). During a median (IQR) follow-up of 5.8 (2.5-10) years from prostate cancer diagnosis, one (2%) patient developed metastatic disease. In all, 65 (59%) patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer subsequent to organ transplantation. Management included AS (29%), RT (45%), and RP (15%). During a median (IQR) follow-up of 5.3 (1-8.4) years, three patients (5%) developed metastatic disease. There were no deaths from prostate cancer.

Conclusion: A diagnosis of localised prostate cancer should not preclude solid organ transplantation, and the presence of a transplant does not appear to substantially impact risk of prostate cancer progression.

Objective: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness of bedside or office-based ureteric stent insertion.

Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols (PRISMA-P) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 guidelines, we searched PubMed/the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Dimensions for English-language studies from 1978 to April 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on primary ureteric stent placements outside of the operating theatre (OT).

Results: A total of 15 studies involving 2072 stents were included. Success rates for correctly positioned stents in bedside or office-based insertions ranged from 60% to 95.8%, with most studies reporting ≥80% success rates. Common failure reasons included impacted stones and difficulty identifying the ureteric orifice. Pain and tolerability were assessed using various methods, with validated tools indicating moderate pain levels, but most patients would undergo the procedure again under local anaesthesia. Complication rates were generally low, with minor complications such as haematuria or postoperative fever being the most common. Procedural costs were significantly lower in non-OT settings, with estimates indicating savings of up to four-fold.

Conclusion: Bedside or office-based ureteric stent insertion is a viable alternative to OT procedures, offering high success rates, manageable pain levels, low complication rates, and substantial cost savings. This approach is particularly advantageous in settings with limited OT access, highlighting its potential for broader adoption in urological practice. Future research should focus on standardising pain assessment methods and randomised studies.