Assessing the Burden of Nondeferrable Major Uro-oncologic Surgery to Guide Prioritisation Strategies During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from Three Italian High-volume Referral Centres

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to an unprecedented emergency scenario for all aspects of health care, including urology. At the time of writing, Italy was the country with the highest rates of both infection and mortality. A panel of experts recently released recommendations for prioritising urologic surgeries in a low-resource setting. Of note, major cancer surgery represents a compelling challenge. However, the burden of these procedures and the impact of such recommendations on urologic practice are currently unknown. To fill this gap, we assessed the yearly proportion of high-priority major uro-oncologic surgeries at three Italian high-volume academic centres. Of 2387 major cancer surgeries, 32.3% were classified as high priority (12.6% of radical nephroureterectomy, 17.3% of nephrectomy, 33.9% of radical prostatectomy, and 36.2% of radical cystectomy cases). Moreover, 26.4% of high-priority major cancer surgeries were performed in patients at higher perioperative risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥3), with radical cystectomy contributing the most to this cohort (50%). Our real-life data contextualise ongoing recommendations on prioritisation strategies during the current COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for better patient selection for surgery. We found that approximately two-thirds of elective major uro-oncologic surgeries can be safely postponed or changed to another treatment modality when the availability of health care resources is reduced. PATIENT SUMMARY: We used data from three high-volume Italian academic urology centres to evaluate how many surgeries performed for prostate, bladder, kidney, and upper tract urothelial cancer can be postponed in times of emergency. We found that approximately two-thirds of patients with these cancers do not require high-priority surgery. Conversely, of patients requiring high-priority surgery, approximately one in four is considered at high perioperative risk. These patients may pose challenges in allocation of resources in critical scenarios such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Forecasting the Future of Urology Practice: A Comprehensive Review of the Recommendations by International and European Associations on Priority Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Context

The unprecedented health care scenario caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has revolutionized urology practice worldwide.

Objective

To review the recommendations by the international and European national urological associations/societies (UASs) on prioritization strategies for both oncological and nononcological procedures released during the current emergency scenario.

Evidence acquisition

Each UAS official website was searched between April 8 and 18, 2020, to retrieve any document, publication, or position paper on prioritization strategies regarding both diagnostic and therapeutic urological procedures, and any recommendations on the use of telemedicine and minimally invasive surgery. We collected detailed information on all urological procedures, stratified by disease, priority (higher vs lower), and patient setting (outpatient vs inpatient). Then, we critically discussed the implications of such recommendations for urology practice in both the forthcoming “adaptive” and the future “chronic” phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evidence synthesis

Overall, we analyzed the recommendations from 13 UASs, of which four were international (American Urological Association, Confederation Americana de Urologia, European Association of Urology, and Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand) and nine national (from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, The Netherlands, and the UK). In the outpatient setting, the procedures that are likely to impact the future burden of urologists’ workload most are prostate biopsies and elective procedures for benign conditions. In the inpatient setting, the most relevant contributors to this burden are represented by elective surgeries for lower-risk prostate and renal cancers, nonobstructing stone disease, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Finally, some UASs recommended special precautions to perform minimally invasive surgery, while others outlined the potential role of telemedicine to optimize resources in the current and future scenarios.

Conclusions

The expected changes will put significant strain on urological units worldwide regarding the overall workload of urologists, internal logistics, inflow of surgical patients, and waiting lists. In light of these predictions, urologists should strive to leverage this emergency period to reshape their role in the future.

Patient summary

Overall, there was a large consensus among different urological associations/societies regarding the prioritization of most urological procedures, including those in the outpatient setting, urological emergencies, and many inpatient surgeries for both oncological and nononcological conditions. On the contrary, some differences were found regarding specific cancer surgeries (ie, radical cystectomy for higher-risk bladder cancer and nephrectomy for larger organ-confined renal masses), potentially due to different prioritization criteria and/or health care contexts. In the future, the outpatient procedures that are likely to impact the burden of urologists’ workload most are prostate biopsies and elective procedures for benign conditions. In the inpatient setting, the most relevant contributors to this burden are represented by elective surgeries for lower-risk prostate and renal cancers, nonobstructing stone disease, and benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on urology residency training in Italy

In the global emergency scenario caused by COVID-19 pandemic, the Urology residents' training might be critically affected. To provide insights on this issue, a 25-item online Survey was sent to all Italian residents one month after the first case of COVID-19 in Italy, to evaluate their routine involvement in "clinical" (on-call duty, outpatient visits, diagnostic procedures) and "surgical" (endoscopic, open and minimally invasive surgery) training activities before and during the COVID-19 period. Overall, 351 of 577 (60.8%) residents completed the Survey. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of residents routinely involved in "clinical" and "surgical" activities ranged from 79.8% to 87.2% and from 49.3% to 73.5%, respectively. In the COVID-19 period, the proportion of residents experiencing a severe reduction (>40%) or complete suppression (>80%) of training exposure ranged between 41.1% and 81.2% for "clinical" activities while between 44.2% and 62.1% for "surgical" activities. This reduction was even more pronounced for residents attending the final year of training. Our study is the first to provide real-life data on how Urology residency training can be impaired during an emergency period. To address this challenge, strategies aiming to increase the use of telemedicine, "smart learning" programs and tele-mentoring of surgical procedures, are warranted.

Seminal Vesicle Tumor Microenvironment

Primary diseases of the seminal vesicles (SV) are very rare entities.Nonneoplastic lesions of the seminal vesicles include amyloidosis, inflammation, calcification and calculi, radiation-induced changes, and basal cell proliferation.Seminal vesicles are frequently involved by tumors originating elsewhere, in particular by prostatic adenocarcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and rectal adenocarcinoma. On the contrary, primary tumors of the seminal vesicles are rare. Among these, the most common is seminal vesicle adenocarcinoma. To date, less than 100 cases have been reported in literature. Morphologically, primary SV adenocarcinoma is described as a papillary or sheetlike growth architecture, with trabecular and glandular patterns, composed by hobnail tumor cells, frequently with mucinous differentiation. On the contrary, mesenchymal tumors include benign lesions such as leiomyoma, schwannoma, fibroma, paraganglioma, solitary fibrous tumor, cystadenoma, and mixed epithelial and stromal tumors (MEST).Cystadenoma is a rare benign tumor, while MESTs are biphasic tumors with stromal and benign epithelial components. Histological features such as stromal atypia, mitotic activity, nuclear pleomorphism, and tumor necrosis distinct MEST in low-, intermediate-, and high-grade tumors.In recent years, multiple studies reported a link between tumorigenesis and tumor microenvironment. In this regard, the molecular mechanisms connecting prostate cancer (PCa) progression and the host microenvironment have been described and include extracellular matrix (ECM), myofibroblasts, cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), neuroendocrine cells, adipose tissue, and the immune-modulatory cells. Of note, only one study evaluated the influence of seminal vesicle's tumor microenvironment (SVME) on prostate cancer cells so far. Besides, in vivo experiments in NOD/SCID mice clarified the influence of SVME on PCa progression. As such, the injection of PC3 cells into the prostate or the SV resulted in different tumor aggressiveness, and the incidence of retroperitoneal lymph node metastases was significantly higher in mice models receiving SV injection. These findings demonstrated that SVs (rather than the prostate) offer a stimulating tumor microenvironment for growth and invasion of prostate cancer cells.

Hepatitis B Surface Antigen Seropositive Men in Serodiscordant Couples: Effects on the Assisted Reproductive Outcomes

Purpose

To evaluate the influence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in men of serodiscordant couples on the reproductive outcomes.

Materials and Methods

A total of 134 infertile couples were included in this retrospective single-center cohort study. Sixty-six couples had hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-seropositive men and seronegative partners, while 68 couples were controls with both seronegative men and women. Overall, 134 fresh in-vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments were performed. As the main outcome measures, on the day of the fresh IVF/ICSI cycle, we assessed seminal parameters Before and after sperm preparation techniques. Two-pronuclear (2PN) fertilization, 1-2-3PN fertilization, cleavage, miscarriage, pregnancy and live birth rates were collected.

Results

No significant differences were found between groups in terms of oocytes retrieved, oocytes injected and embryos obtained (p=0.64, p=0.97, and p=0.40, respectively). The 2PN fertilization rate (FR) was comparable among groups (p=0.51). The 1-2-3PN FR was significantly lower in the HBsAg group than in the control group (66.6% vs. 69.7%, respectively). The clinical pregnancy per cycle, implantation, miscarriage and live birth rate were comparable between the HBsAg group and the control group. The median sperm concentration/ml and total sperm count, measured at baseline and after sperm preparation, was comparable between groups (p>0.05). There was a trend toward significant lower progressive motility (35.0% vs. 55.0%; p<0.05) in the HBsAg group at baseline and after sperm preparation (p<0.05).

Conclusions

HBV infected men have the same chance to became father, compared to seronegative patients.

Surgical margin follow-up after nephron-sparing surgery: the possible role of CEUS

PURPOSE

To evaluate the possible role of CEUS in the management of patients who underwent nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) and presented questionable findings on the surgical margins at the CECT follow-up exam.

METHODS

In our retro-prospective study, we included 952 patients with small renal masses (SRMs) treated with NSS between 2012 and 2015 and followed with CECT for at least 3 years at Careggi University Hospital. Twenty-two of them presented solid masses on the site of surgery with questionable enhancement at CECT and were further studied with CEUS. This examination was followed by a quantitative analysis of the enhancement pattern.

RESULTS

Out of the 22 masses, 18 were considered possible granulomas, presenting slow wash-in and low enhancement peaks compared to the surrounding parenchyma and persistent delayed wash-out at CEUS. Four lesions presented a suspicious malignant enhancement pattern, with rapid wash-in, high peak and rapid wash-out. In accordance with instructions from the urologist, the first group of 18 patients was strictly monitored, revealing that the mass dimensions and enhancement pattern were stable for at least 3 years of follow-up, while the other 4 patients underwent a second intervention and their masses were confirmed as tumor recurrence at the histopathological evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

CEUS can play a key role in the surgical margin follow-up after NSS when a suspicious enhancing mass is detected by CECT, giving an accurate depiction of the enhancement pattern and thus helping the clinician in the management of the patient.