Abbreviations & Acronyms LUTS = lower urinary tract symptoms MMS = metal-mesh stents MUO = malignant ureteral obstruction PCN = percutaneous nephrostomy TUS = tandem ureteral stents UTI = urinary tract infection Abstract: Extrinsic malignant compression of the ureter is not uncommon, often refractory to decompression with conventional polymeric ureteral stents, and frequently associated with limited survival. Alternative options for decompression include tandem ureteral stents, metallic stents and metal-mesh stents, though the preferred method remains controversial. We reviewed and updated our outcomes with tandem ureteral stents for malignant ureteral obstruction, and carried out a PubMed search using the terms "malignant ureteral obstruction," "tandem ureteral stents," "ipsilateral ureteral stents," "metal ureteral stent," "resonance stent," "silhouette stent" and "metal mesh stent." A comprehensive review of the literature and summary of outcomes is provided. The majority of studies encountered were retrospective with small sample sizes. The evidence is most robust for metal stents, whereas only limited data exists for tandem or metal-mesh stents. Metal and metal-mesh stents are considerably more expensive than tandem stenting, but the potential for less frequent stent exchanges makes them possibly cost-effective over time. Urinary tract infections have been associated with all stent types. A wide range of failure rates has been published for all types of stents, limiting direct comparison. Metal and metal-mesh stents show a high incidence of stent colic, migration and encrustation, whereas tandem stents appear to produce symptoms equivalent to single stents. Comparison is difficult given the limited evidence and heterogeneity of patients with malignant ureteral obstruction. It is clear that prospective, randomized studies are necessary to effectively scrutinize conventional, tandem, metallic ureteral and metal-mesh stents for their use in malignant ureteral obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Men with locally (LAPCa) or regionally advanced (RAPCa) prostate cancer are at high risk of death from their disease. Clinical guidelines support multi-modal approaches, which include radical prostatectomy (RP) followed by radiotherapy (XRT) or radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, limited data exists comparing these substantially different treatment approaches. Using SEER-Medicare data, we compare survival outcomes and adverse effects associated with RP+XRT vs XRT+ADT in these men. METHODS: SEER-Medicare data was queried for men with cT3-T4, N0, M0 (LAPCa) or cT3-T4, N1, M0 (RAPCa) prostate cancer. Propensity score methods were used to balance cohort characteristics between treatment arms. Survival analyses were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: From 1992 to 2009, 13,856 men (≥65 years) were diagnosed with LAPCa or RAPCa, of which 6.1% received RP+XRT vs 23.6% who received XRT+ADT. At a median follow-up of 14.6 years, there were 2189 deaths in the cohort, of which 702 were secondary to prostate cancer. Irrespective of tumor stage and Gleason score, adjusted 10-year prostate cancer-specific survival and 10-year overall survival favored men who underwent RP+XRT when compared to XRT+ADT. However, RP+XRT vs. XRT+ADT was associated with higher rates of erectile dysfunction (28% vs. 20%, p=0.0212, respectively) and urinary incontinence (49% vs. 19%, p<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Men with LAPCa or RAPCa treated initially with RP+XRT had a lower risk of prostate cancer-specific death and improved overall survival when compared to those men treated with XRT+ADT, but experienced higher rates of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence.

Ureteral stent pain is common and multiple modalities have been studied and are in clinical use for its treatment. Care should be taken to avoid placement of stents if possible, with continual reassessment of indications to maintain stents in patients. Relative heterogeneity among studies and small sample sizes make creating specific evidence-based pain management recommendations challenging. Alpha-blockers, antimuscarinics, and NSAIDs are all generally well tolerated and effectively reduce symptoms, but patient-specific factors must be the paramount consideration when choosing monotherapy or combination therapy. Future studies are needed to better define ideal material characteristics and pharmacologic treatments.

Our experience with the TUS, the largest to date, demonstrated that they are highly successful in both benign and malignant causes of obstruction, comparing favorably with metallic ureteral stents. Stent failure may be predictive for shorter survival.

RAL or LAP UNC is feasible, safe, and comparable to the open technique with some perioperative benefit in EBL, LOS, and stent duration.

Background In May 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate‐specific antigen (PSA)–based screening for prostate cancer (PCa), assigning it a grade D. This decision then was modified in 2018 to a grade C for men aged 55 to 69 years. The authors hypothesized that changes in screening practices would reduce survival outcomes for both Black and White men but maintain racial discrepancies in outcomes. Methods Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, the authors examined PCa‐specific survival based on race and year of diagnosis. The period between January 2010 and December 2012 was categorized as the pre‐USPSTF era, whereas the period between January 2014 and December 2016 was classified as the post‐USPSTF era. The year 2013 was considered the transition year and was excluded from the analysis. Results A total of 49,388 men were identified in the pre‐USPSTF era who were diagnosed with PCa, approximately 83.7% of whom were White and 16.3% of whom were Black. In the post‐USPSTF era, a total of 41,829 men were diagnosed with PCa, approximately 82.7% of whom were White and 17.3% of whom were Black. When compared with the pre‐USPSTF era, men diagnosed in the post‐USPSTF era were found to have more adverse clinical features. In the pre‐USPSTF era, White men were less likely to die of PCa than Black men. This survival disparity between White and Black men was no longer observed in the post‐USPSTF era. Conclusions In men diagnosed with PCa between 2014 and 2016, a survival disparity between White and Black men was not observed due to a decrease in survival among White men while the survival of Black men remained steady.

A 24-hour urinalysis alone does not accurately predict stone type. However, it may be used in conjunction with other variables to predict stone composition.

Background Stage III renal cell carcinoma (RCC) encompasses both lymph node‐positive (pT1‐3N1M0) and lymph node–negative (pT3N0M0) disease. However, prior institutional studies have indicated that among patients with stage III disease, those with lymph node disease have worse oncologic outcomes and experience survival that is similar to that of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV disease. The objective of the current study was to validate these findings using a large, nationally representative sample of patients with kidney cancer. Methods Patients with AJCC stage III or stage IV RCC were identified using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). Patients were categorized as having lymph node‐positive stage III (pT1‐3N1M0), lymph node–negative stage III (pT3N0M0), or stage IV metastatic (pT1‐3 N0M1) disease. Cox proportional hazards models compared outcomes while adjusting for comorbidities. Kaplan‐Meier estimates illustrated relative survival when comparing staging groups. Results A total of 8988 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 6587 patients classified as having lymph node–negative stage III disease, 2218 as having lymph node‐positive stage III disease, and 183 as having stage IV disease. Superior survival was noted among patients with lymph node–negative stage III disease, but similar survival was noted between patients with lymph node‐positive stage III and stage IV RCC, with 5‐year survival rates of 61.9% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 60.3%‐63.4%), 22.7% (95% CI, 20.6%‐24.9%), and 15.6% (95% CI, 11.1%‐23.8%), respectively. Conclusions Current RCC staging systems group pT1‐3N1M0 and pT3N0M0 disease as stage III disease. However, the results of the current validation study suggest the need for further stratification and even placement of patients with pT1‐3N1M0 disease into the stage IV category. Staging that accurately reflects oncologic prognosis may help clinicians better counsel and select patients who might derive the most benefit from lymphadenectomy, adjuvant systemic therapy, more rigorous imaging surveillance, and clinical trial participation.