Explore the vast range of titles available.

Management of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) has undergone a paradigm shift with next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors. However, direct comparative data are not available to inform treatment decisions and/or guideline recommendations. Therefore, we performed network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments. Multiple databases were searched for articles published before June 2020. Studies that compared overall and/or metastasis-free and/or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (OS/MFS/PSA-PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in nmCRPC patients were considered eligible. Three studies (n = 4117) met our eligibility criteria. Formal network meta-analyses were conducted. For MFS, apalutamide, darolutamide, and enzalutamide were significantly more effective than placebo, and apalutamide emerged as the best option (P score: 0.8809). Apalutamide [hazard ratio (HR): 0.85, 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.77–0.94] and enzalutamide (HR: 0.86, 95% CrI: 0.78–0.95) were both significantly more effective than darolutamide. For PSA-PFS, all three agents were statistically superior to placebo, and apalutamide emerged as the likely preferred option (P score: 1.000). Apalutamide (HR: 0.71, 95% CrI: 0.69–0.74) and enzalutamide (HR: 0.76, 95% CrI: 0.74–0.79) were both significantly more effective than darolutamide. For AEs (including all AEs, grade 3 or grade 4 AEs, grade 5 AEs, and discontinuation rates), darolutamide was the likely best option. Apalutamide and enzalutamide appear to be more efficacious agents for therapy of nmCRPC, while darolutamide appears to have the most favorable tolerability profile. These findings may facilitate individualized treatment strategies and inform future direct comparative trials.

PurposeTo systematically review the literature evaluating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC and meta-analyse available data. We also compared the diagnostic accuracy of MDCTU to other radiologic modalities.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. A systematic research using Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science libraries was performed on November 1st, 2018. We included all original articles investigating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC using histopathology as the reference standard for true positives and an unsuspicious clinical follow-up of at least 1 year for true negatives.ResultsOverall, 13 studies comprising 1233 patients were eligible and included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. In patient-based analyses, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 92% (CI 0.85–0.96) and 95% (CI 0.88–0.98), respectively. The reported sensitivity in the per-lesion analysis ranged between 91 and 97%. All studies reporting segment-based analysis demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (> 90%). While one study reported higher accuracy of retrograde ureteropyelography than MDCTU (97% vs. 94%), another study demonstrated an inferior accuracy of intravenous pyelogram compared to MDCTU. Findings on the accuracy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging compared to MDCTU were inconsistent.ConclusionMDCTU has excellent diagnostic performance in detecting UTUC and ruling-out suspicious upper urinary tract lesions in per-patient and per-lesion-based analyses. We confirm the choice of MDCTU as the radiologic diagnostic modality of choice for work-up of suspicious upper urinary tract lesions providing valuable information in patient counseling, decision-making, and treatment planning.

BackgroundSalvage lymph node dissection (sLND) for nodal recurrence in prostate cancer (PCa) patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) is still not recommended in current guidelines, because of the diagnostic inaccuracy of current conventional imaging. To assess the performance of [68Ga] Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen conjugate 11 positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) in detecting PCa lymph node metastasis using pathologic confirmation through sLND.MethodsLiterature search was conducted using the MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library on November 11th, 2018 to identify the eligible studies. Studies were eligible if they investigated the diagnostic performance of PSMA-PET before sLND in PCa patients with BCR and reported the number of true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative on a lesion-based and/or field-based analyses to compare with histopathologic findings in sLND specimens.ResultsFourteen studies published between 2015 and 2018 comprising 462 patients were selected in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The positive predictive value of PSMA-PET before sLND on a patient-based analysis ranged between 0.70 and 0.93. The pooled sensitivity using lesion-based and field-based analyses were 0.84 (95%CI: 0.61–0.95) and 0.82 (95%CI: 0.72–0.89), respectively. The pooled specificity using lesion-based and field-based analyses were 0.97 (95%CI: 0.95–0.99) and 0.95 (95%CI: 0.70–0.99), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio using lesion-based and field-based analyses were 189 (95%CI: 39–920) and 82 (95%CI: 8–832), respectively.ConclusionsPSMA-PET before sLND provided highly accurate performance with clinically relevant high positive and negative predictive values for detecting lymph node disease in patients with BCR after local treatment with curative intent for PCa. PSMA-PET can identify the patients who are likely to benefit from sLND and possibly direct to lesion or region-based dissection.

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic from the research and science community has been vigorous, with information being released faster than that of any other event in human history. Articles related to the virus were being rapidly published by January 2020. A small fraction of these publications comprised reports of prospective clinical trials (0.25%), and many of these trials have imparted conflicting conclusions, leading to confusion among the public and the scientific community. Additionally, the pandemic has raised many serious scientific and ethical concerns related to clinical research. In this review, we divided the conduct of clinical research trials into three steps and critically reviewed each step, along with the challenges and obstacles arising amid the ongoing crisis. The clinical research steps we reviewed include (1) clinical trial design factors such as social and scientific value, feasibility, single vs. multicenter trials, randomization, control groups, endpoints, off-label and compassionate use of medications, data analysis, and verifying the integrity of data; (2) ethical issues such as committee approvals, efficiency, virtual visits and remote monitoring, informed consent, shipping investigational products, and external monitoring and audits; and (3) publication and sharing of preprints, press releases, social media, and misinformation. The COVID-19 pandemic is adversely affecting existing clinical trials for other ailments and diseases, including cancer, with most trials being delayed or deferred. Although urgency is needed to communicate effective treatment and prevention strategies for COVID-19, research efforts should maintain the same high-quality core ethical principles that governed human subject research before the pandemic. Despite the catastrophic devastation caused by the pandemic, the adoption of more flexible, cost-effective methods of conducting clinical trials (without compromising ethical conduct, safety, or data integrity, while maintaining research efficiency) represents a potential silver lining. Streamlining clinical research will help to congruently address other important health issues, despite the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.

BackgroundPreoperative blood-based inflammatory biomarkers have been suggested to improve staging and prognostication in patients with upper-tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is the most studied blood-based biomarker. NLR is an indicator of systemic inflammation and has been shown to be associated with a poor prognosis in various malignancies. The aim of this study was to analyze the current evidence regarding the prognostic significance of preoperative NLR in patients undergoing radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for UTUC to assess its prognostic potential.Materials and methodsA systematic search of Web of Science, Medline/PubMed and Cochrane library was performed on the 1st of October, 2017. Studies were deemed eligible if they compared patients with high NLR before surgical treatment for UTUC to patients with low NLR to determine its predictive value for survival using multivariable logistic regression analysis. We performed a formal meta-analysis for cancer-specific survival (CSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsNine studies including a total of 4385 patients assessing the importance of NLR were included in this meta-analysis. The cut-off NLR varied in the eligible studies ranging from 2 to 3. Increased pretreatment NLR predicted OS (pooled HR 1.64 95% CI; 1.23–2.17), RFS (pooled HR 1.60 95% CI; 1.16–2.20) and CSS (pooled HR 1.73 95% CI; 1.23–2.44) in multivariable analyses.ConclusionIn this meta-analysis, preoperative blood-based NLR is associated with worse prognosis in patients who underwent RNU for UTUC. NLR could be used to improve clinical decision making regarding RNU vs. kidney-sparing surgery, extent of lymphadenectomy, perioperative systemic therapy and follow-up schedule.

Objectives The clinical course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is often aggressive, with unfavorable outcomes for those with comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to assess the prevalence and risk factors of COVID-19 infection, mortality, and post-infection lung fibrosis in patients with COVID-19 infection who had T2DM. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we included adult patients with T2DM who attended an endocrinology clinic and underwent testing for COVID-19 infection. Results Among 1039 included patients, the mean age was 59.5 ± 11.0 years and 429 (41.3%) were men. Overall, 87.1% of patients had received COVID-19 vaccination and 32.3% had confirmed COVID-19 infection. The COVID-19-related mortality was 3.0% and rate of post-COVID-19 lung fibrosis was 19.1%. Vaccination was associated with lower COVID-19-related mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0–0.3) and post-COVID-19 lung fibrosis risk (OR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1–0.9). Conclusion Patients with T2DM exhibited a high prevalence of COVID-19 infection and associated mortality. However, COVID-19 vaccines were beneficial in reducing the risks of COVID-19-related mortality and post-infection lung fibrosis in these patients. COVID-19 vaccines and boosters are recommended for patients with T2DM. Further studies involving larger study populations are necessary to validate these findings.

IntroductionThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prognostic value of testosterone in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).Materials and methodsPubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were systematically searched until December 2019, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Review and Meta-analysis statement. The endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsWe identified 11 articles with 4206 patients for systematic review and nine articles with 4136 patients for meta-analysis. Higher testosterone levels were significantly associated with better OS (pooled HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58–0.95) and better PFS (pooled HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30–0.87). Subgroup analyses based on the treatment type revealed that higher testosterone levels were significantly associated with better OS in CRPC patients treated with androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs) (pooled HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55–0.75), but not in those treated with chemotherapy (pooled HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53–1.14).ConclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated that the PFS and OS were significantly greater in patients with CRPC in those with higher testosterone levels than that of those with lower testosterone levels. In the subgroup analyses, lower testosterone levels were a consistently poor prognostic factor for OS in patients treated with ARTAs, but not in those treated with chemotherapy. Therefore, higher testosterone levels could be a useful biomarker to identify patient subgroups in which ARTAs should be preferentially recommended in the CRPC setting.

PurposeTo investigate the prognostic value of preoperative serum albumin to globulin ratio (AGR) in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) treated with transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURB) with or without intravesical therapy (IVT).Materials and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 1,096 consecutive patients with NMIBC. Levels of albumin and globulin were obtained before TURB and used to calculate the preoperative AGR level. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the prognostic effect of preoperative AGR on oncologic outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients based on the European Association of Urology (EAU) risk groups for NMIBC.ResultsLow AGR levels were observed in 389 (35.5%) patients. The median follow-up was 63.7 months (IQR 25.3–111). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, low AGR was associated with increased risk of progression to muscle-invasive BCa (MIBC) (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.22–2.68, P = 0.003). The addition of AGR only minimally improved the discrimination ability of a base model that included established clinicopathologic features (C-index = 0.7354 vs. C-index = 0.7162). Low preoperative AGR was not significantly associated with the risk of disease recurrence (P = 0.31). In subgroup analyses based on patients’ EAU risk groups, low preoperative AGR was not associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS) (P = 0.59) or progression-free survival (PFS) (P = 0.22) in any of the risk groups. Additionally, in patients treated with Bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG) for intermediate- or high-risk NMIBC, low AGR failed to predict disease recurrence or progression.ConclusionPreoperative serum AGR levels independently predicted the risk of disease progression in patients with NMIBC. However, it was not found to be associated with either RFS or PFS in NMIBC patients based on their EAU risk group. This marker seems to have a limited role in NMIBC at the present time. However, further research is needed to investigate this marker in combination with other systemic inflammatory markers to help improve prediction in this heterogeneous group of patients.

PurposeWe assessed the prognostic value of systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) to refine risk stratification of the heterogeneous spectrum of patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC)MethodsIn this multi-institutional cohort, preoperative blood-based SII was retrospectively assessed in 1117 patients with NMIBC who underwent transurethral resection of bladder (TURB) between 1996 and 2007. The optimal cut-off value of SII was determined as 580 using the best Youden index. Cox regression analyses were performed. The concordance index (C-index) and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to assess the discrimination of the predictive models.ResultsOverall, 309 (28%) patients had high SII. On multivariable analyses, high SII was significantly associated with worse PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23–2.77; P = 0.003) and CSS (HR 2.53; 95% CI 1.42–4.48; P = 0.001). Subgroup analyses, according to the European Association of Urology guidelines, demonstrated the main prognostic impact of high SII, with regards to PFS (HR 3.39; 95%CI 1.57–7.31; P = 0.002) and CSS (HR 4.93; 95% CI 1.70–14.3; P = 0.005), in patients with intermediate-risk group; addition of SII to the standard predictive model improved its discrimination ability both on C-index (6% and 12%, respectively) and DCA. In exploratory intergroup analyses of patients with intermediate-risk, the improved discrimination ability was retained the prediction of PFS and CSS.ConclusionPreoperative SII seems to identify NMIBC patients who have a worse disease and prognosis. Such easily available and cheap standard biomarkers may help refine the decision-making process regarding adjuvant treatment in patients with intermediate-risk NMIBC.

PurposeTo summarize the available evidence on the survival and pathologic outcomes after deferred radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).MethodsThe PubMed database and Web of Science were searched in November 2020 according to the PRISMA statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they reported the survival and pathologic outcomes of patients treated with deferred RP for intermediate- and high-risk PCa compared to the control group including those patients treated with RP without delay. ResultsOverall, nineteen studies met our eligibility criteria. We found a significant heterogeneity across the studies in terms of definitions for delay and outcomes, as well as in patients’ baseline clinicopathologic features. According to the currently available literature, deferred RP does not seem to affect oncological survival outcomes, such as prostate cancer-specific mortality and metastasis-free survival, in patients with intermediate- or high-risk PCa. However, the impact of deferred RP on biochemical recurrence rates remains controversial. There is no clear association of deferring RP with any of the features of aggressive disease such as pathologic upgrading, upstaging, positive surgical margins, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node invasion. Deferred RP was not associated with the need for secondary treatments.ConclusionsOwing to the different definitions of a delayed RP, it is hard to make a consensus regarding the safe delay time. However, the current data suggest that deferring RP in patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa for at least around 3 months is generally safe, as it does not lead to adverse pathologic outcomes, biochemical recurrence, the need for secondary therapy, or worse oncological survival outcomes.