[Management of malignant ureteral obstruction.]

OBJECTIVE

To describe the different therapeutic alternatives in malignant ureteral obstruction (MUO), and to analyze short and long-term results.

METHODS

We conducted a bibliographic search about MUO in Spanish and English languages in PubMed and Google Scholar. We examined the most relevant reviews, original manuscripts and their respective citations. Last search was on April 2016.

RESULTS

Polymeric double J stent is the cheapest and most accessible internal urinary diversion, but has also the shortest duration. Early and late failure rates were 0-35% and 14-49% respectively. Mean time to late failure was 3-12 months. Percutaneous nephrostomy is the safest alternative in terms of failure rates, though it has frequent complications such as tube dislodgement, and may have a negative effect on quality of life. The only metallic double J stent with enough bibliographic background is the Resonance® stent. Early failure was 0-15% and late failure 4-41%, with a mean time to late failure of 2.6-13 months. Regarding metallic stents, Memokath 051® has obtained the best results, with 0-5% early failure rates, 19-49% late failures and mean time to late failure of 7-11 months. In patients with polymeric double J stent failure, patients benefited from tandem double J stents, metallic double J catheters or metallic stents, avoiding the need of a percutaneous nephrostomy. The evidence level was low in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Results in MUO are very heterogeneous and have a low evidence level. Factors that influence results include stent characteristics, status and prognosis of the obstructive condition and probably patient and physician's preferences. Polymeric double J stents seem to have higher early and late failure rates than metallic double J catheters and metallic stents. Even though, the difference is not clearly evident. Prospective, multicenter, multidisciplinary trials are necessary to elucidate convenience and adequate selection of each type of stent.

The role of radical prostatectomy as an initial approach for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer

CONTEXT

The treatment of high-risk prostate cancer requires a multimodal approach to improve control of the disease. There is still no consensus as to the initial strategy of choice. The aim of this study is to review the results of radical prostatectomy as first step in management of patients with high-risk disease.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

A search was conducted on PubMed of English and Spanish texts. We included those studies that reported the results of radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk prostate cancer, as well as those that compared radical prostatectomy with other treatment alternatives. The last search was conducted in November 2015.

SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE

The advantages of radical prostatectomy include a better pathological analysis, more accurate staging, better local control of the disease and better follow-up and adjuvant therapy strategies. When compared with external radiation therapy plus hormonal blockade, the patients who underwent prostatectomy had greater chances of healing and longer cancer-specific survival. The patients who most benefit from this approach are younger, have fewer comorbidities and no evidence of organ metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

The available scientific evidence to date is not without bias and confounders; however, they appear to favour radical prostatectomy as the initial approach of choice for high-risk prostate cancer.