No abstract

Objective To compare the clinical validity and utility of Likert assessment and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) v2 in the detection of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer. Patients and Methods A total of 489 pre‐biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) scans in consecutive patients were subject to prospective paired reporting using both Likert and PI‐RADS v2 by expert uro‐radiologists. Patients were offered biopsy for any Likert or PI‐RADS score ≥4 or a score of 3 with PSA density ≥0.12 ng/mL/mL. Utility was evaluated in terms of proportion biopsied, and proportion of clinically significant and insignificant cancer detected (both overall and on a ‘per score’ basis). In those patients biopsied, the overall accuracy of each system was assessed by calculating total and partial area under the receiver‐operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The primary threshold of significance was Gleason ≥3 + 4. Secondary thresholds of Gleason ≥4 + 3, Ahmed/UCL1 (Gleason ≥4 + 3 or maximum cancer core length [CCL] ≥6 or total CCL≥6) and Ahmed/UCL2 (Gleason ≥3 + 4 or maximum CCL ≥4 or total CCL ≥6) were also used. Results The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 66 (60–72) years and the median (IQR) prostate‐specific antigen level was 7 (5–10) ng/mL. A similar proportion of men met the biopsy threshold and underwent biopsy in both groups (83.8% [Likert] vs 84.8% [PI‐RADS v2]; P = 0.704). The Likert system predicted more clinically significant cancers than PI‐RADS across all disease thresholds. Rates of insignificant cancers were comparable in each group. ROC analysis of biopsied patients showed that, although both scoring systems performed well as predictors of significant cancer, Likert scoring was superior to PI‐RADS v2, exhibiting higher total and partial areas under the ROC curve. Conclusions Both scoring systems demonstrated good diagnostic performance, with similar rates of decision to biopsy. Overall, Likert was superior by all definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer. It has the advantages of being flexible, intuitive and allowing inclusion of clinical data. However, its use should only be considered once radiologists have developed sufficient experience in reporting prostate mpMRI.

Although radiotherapy to the prostate for cancer is effective, recurrence occurs in 10-15% within 5 years. Traditional salvage treatments for men with radiorecurrent prostate cancer comprise of watchful waiting (WW) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or radical prostatectomy (RP). Neither strategy provides ideal therapeutic ratios. Salvage focal ablation is an emerging option. We performed a systematic review of the Medline and Embase databases for studies reporting outcomes of focal salvage brachytherapy (sBT), cryotherapy (sCT) or high-intensity focused ultrasound (sHIFU) for radiorecurrent prostate cancer (conception to April 2019). Results were screened for inclusion against predetermined eligibility criteria. Certain data were extracted, including rates of biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS), metastasis, conversion to second-line therapies and adverse events. Of a total 134 articles returned from the search, 15 studies (14 case series and 1 comparative study) reported outcomes after focal sBT [5], sCT[7] and sHIFU [3]. Cohort size varied depending on intervention, with eligible studies of sBT being small case series. Median follow-up ranged from 10 to 56 months. Although pre-salvage demographics were similar [median age range, 61-75 years; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) range, 2.8-5.5 ng/mL], there was heterogeneity in patient selection, individual treatment protocols and outcome reporting. At 3 years, BDFS ranged from 61% to 71.4% after sBT, 48.1-72.4% after sCT and 48% after sHIFU. Only studies of sCT reported 5-year BDFS, which ranged from 46.5% to 54.4%. Rates of metastasis were low after all salvage modalities, as were conversion to second-line therapies (although this was poorly reported). Grade 3 adverse events were rare. This systematic review indicates that salvage focal ablation of radiorecurrent prostate cancer provides acceptable oncological outcomes and is well tolerated. Unfortunately, there is heterogeneity in the study design of existing evidence. Level 1 research comparing salvage focal therapies to existing wholegland strategies is needed to further establish the role of these promising treatments.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Cosmetic or aesthetic surgery is defined as 'operations or other procedures that revise or change the appearance, colour, texture, structure or position of bodily features to achieve what patients perceive to be more desirable'. It differs from reconstructive surgery in that patients do not suffer from surgical pathology, but come to a surgeon desiring alteration of appearance to achieve an improvement. It has been said that cosmetic surgery patients differ from those presenting to other surgeons, in that instead of hoping that they do not need an operation, in cosmetic surgery the wish to undergo surgery is the patient's primary motivation for the consultation.There are distinctive risks in cosmetic surgery. The focus is on an individual surgeon, rather than a system of institutional care delivery. The surgeon's assessment and selection of patients is crucial to the avoidance of subsequent dissatisfaction. Mainstream surgical training concentrates on the acquisition of knowledge and technical competencies: the cosmetic surgeon's armamentarium must include in addition superlative communication skills and a degree of psychological awareness which will allow exclusion of those patients for whom it is unlikely that satisfaction can be achieved. It may circumvent disaster for the surgeon to say 'no'.Awareness of inherent clinical risks and the ability to manage them are crucial to successful practice, as is the surgeon's commitment to support and encourage the patient throughout the entire process. There is, however, the potential for extremely high levels of satisfaction for both surgeon and patient if pitfalls are avoided, and risks are managed appropriately within a positive doctor -patient relationship.

Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ASCC) is a rare cancer that has a rapidly increasing incidence in areas with highly developed economies. ASCC is strongly associated with HIV and there appears to be increasing numbers of younger male persons living with HIV (PLWH) diagnosed with ASCC. This is a retrospective cohort study of HIV positive and HIV negative patients diagnosed with primary ASCC between January 2000 and January 2020 in a demographic group with high prevalence rates of HIV. One Hundred and seventy six patients were included, and clinical data was retrieved from multiple, prospective databases. A clinical subgroup was identified in this cohort of younger HIV positive males who were more likely to have had a prior diagnosis of Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia (AIN). Gender and HIV status had no effect on staging or disease-free survival. PLWH were more likely to develop a recurrence (p < 0.000) but had a longer time to recurrence than HIV negative patients, however this was not statistically significant (46.1 months vs. 17.5 months; p = 0.077). Patients known to have a previous diagnosis of AIN were more likely to have earlier staging and local tumour excision. Five-year Disease-Free Survival was associated with tumour size and the absence of nodal or metastatic disease (p < 0.000).