The aim of this review was to summarize the current evidence and to highlight the main issues future research needs to address regarding prostate cancer (PCa) treatment in renal transpant recipients (RTRs). We conducted a search of AMED, Medline and Embase up to 17 November 2016 to investigate oncological and functional outcomes of PCa treatment in RTR. Type and use/protocols of immunosuppression and peri-operative antibiotic drugs were also assessed. The search was implemented manually. Exclusion criteria were absence of full text or absence of information that allowed us to differentiate oncological and/or functional outcomes of each therapeutic approach used. We included 241 patients from 27 retrospective studies published between 1991 and 2016; seven of the studies were case-control and 20 were case series. We also considered nine case reports published between 1999 and 2016. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 120 months. PCa was organ-confined, with Gleason score ≤6 in 75.2% and 60.4% of patients. Surgery was the most frequent treatment used (n = 186), for which cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) rates were both 96.8%. Functional outcomes, including continence and erectile function, and complications were less frequently reported and were generally similar to those reported for radical prostatectomy (RP) in non-RTRs. Other treatment methods in the patients included in the review were radiotherapy (RT) ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; n = 34; OS 88.2%; CSS 88.2%), ADT alone (n = 14; OS 42.9%; CSS 64.3%), brachytherapy (BT; n = 11; OS and CSS 100%), watchful waiting (n = 4) and active surveillance (n = 1). Overall no treatment-related graft loss occurred. Immunosuppression and antibiotic schemes were poorly reported and inconsistent. Outcomes of PCa treatment in RTRs are encouraging and do not appear to be inferior to those of non-RTR. RP was the most commonly assessed approach, whilst RT, BT and ADT were less frequent. Immunosuppression and antibiotic use were poorly reported and highly variable. High-quality studies are needed because the current level of evidence is low, and our results should therefore be interpreted with caution.

Objectives: Chronic prostatitis syndrome is a bothering and poorly understood condition. Many patients report genitourinary pain and Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms as a main complaint. Many different pharmacological or behavioural therapies are prescribed in daily clinical practice, but efficacy data are still lacking. The aim of our study was to test the efficacy and safety of a transrectal delivered association of Boswellia resin extract and propolis derived polyphenols for the relief of prostatitis - like symptoms. Materials and methods: Patients affected by chronic/recurrent prostatitis - like symptoms were prospectively enrolled in our study from December, 2016 to December, 2018. Patients were screened at baseline through clinical examination and validated questionnaires administration: Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (CPSI), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 18; prostatitis symptoms persisting for at least 3 of the last 6 months; CPSI pain domain score ≥ 5; previous negative Meares-Stamey test. Treatment consisted on the administration of 1 suppository containing Boswellia resin extract and propolis derived polyphenols, once a day for 20 days. The primary endpoint of the study was the improvement of quality of life after treatment, defined by a reduction of ≥ 2 points, or ≥ 25%, of mean CPSI pain domain score, compared to baseline. Secondary endpoints were the improvement of post-treatment CPSI total score and the analysis of treatment - related adverse events. All patients were re-evaluated 1 month after treatment. Results: 40 patients were enrolled in our study. Median age (Inter - Quartile Range IQR) was 51.5 (41.5-63.2) years. Mean baseline CPSI scores were: 22.15 (total score), 9.67 (pain domain), 5.15 (micturition domain) and 7.35 (quality of life domain), respectively. No significant adverse events were reported. At 1 month follow-up, CPSI scores appeared modified as follows: 16.40 (total score, p = 0.001); 6.92 (pain domain; p = 0.001; 4.02 (micturition domain, p = 0.09); 5.45 (quality of life domain, p = 0.002). Mean CPSI pain domain score reduction was -2.75 points (-28.5%). Mean CPSI total score reduction was -5.75 points (-26%). Conclusions: The association of Boswellia resin extract and propolis derived polyphenols can reduce genitourinary pain and then improve quality of life of men affected by bothersome prostatitis - like symptoms.

No abstract

Introduction and hypothesis The main objective of the study is to assess the efficacy and safety of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) during pregnancy. Methods We retrospectively enrolled patients who underwent SNM implantation in our center and subsequently became pregnant. The indication for SNM, timing of device de-activation (if performed), course of pregnancy and urological complications, duration of labor, childbirth term, delivery mode, congenital abnormalities and SNM dysfunctions after delivery were recorded. Results Fourteen pregnancies were recorded among 11 women undergoing SNM. Indications for device implantation were urinary retention (7 cases) and dysfunctional voiding (4 cases). Two patients carried on two and three pregnancies, respectively, with the device turned off since the first trimester. They both had to return to self-catheterization and developed recurring urinary tract infections. No major urological complications were recorded among the remaining nine women that kept the device on during pregnancy. A cesarean section was performed in four cases for obstetric reasons, and in seven cases it was planned by the urologist and gynecologist to avoid lead damage/displacement. Three pregnancies resulted in a vaginal delivery, and no association with term of delivery or duration of labor was observed. No congenital abnormalities related to SNM or lead displacement are reported, and only one patient required device removal because of significant loss of efficacy after childbirth. Conclusions The use of SNM during pregnancy appears to be safe, without morbidity for the fetus. Moreover, risks associated with switching the device off may be greater than benefits and justify maintaining the electrical stimulation throughout pregnancy.

No abstract