Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: what does it mean?

ABSTRACT Background Radical prostatectomy (RP) has been used as the main primary treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) for many years with excellent oncologic results. However, approximately 20-40% of those patients has failed to RP and presented biochemical recurrence (BCR). Prostatic specific antigen (PSA) has been the pivotal tool for recurrence diagnosis, but there is no consensus about the best PSA threshold to define BCR until this moment. The natural history of BCR after surgical procedure is highly variable, but it is important to distinguish biochemical and clinical recurrence and to find the correct timing to start multimodal treatment strategy. Also, it is important to understand the role of each clinical and pathological feature of prostate cancer in BCR, progression to metastatic disease and cancer specific mortality (CSM). Review design A simple review was made in Medline for articles written in English language about biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Objective To provide an updated assessment of BCR definition, its meaning, PCa natural history after BCR and the weight of each clinical/pathological feature and risk group classifications in BCR, metastatic disease and CSM.

Evaluation of the Spies TM modalities image quality

Introduction The Spies™ system (Karl-Storz®) was introduced into digital ureteroscopy to improve endoscopic vision. To date, there is no data to either indicate which of the Spies modalities is better for improving diagnosis and treatment procedures, nor to compare the modalities in terms of image quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the image quality of five Spies™ modalities (SM) to the standard white light in an in-vitro model. Materials and Methods Two standardized grids and 3 stones of different composition were recorded in white light and the 5SM (Clara, Chroma, Clara+Chroma), Spectra A and B) using 4 standardized aqueous scenarios. Twelve templates were done in order to simultaneously compare the same objective in the different modalities. Six urologists, five medical students, five urology residents, and five persons not involved with urology evaluated each video on a scale of 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good). Results Comparing white light to SM, subjects scored better the quality of Clara and Clara+Chroma than white light (p=0.0139 and p<0.05) and scored worse Spectra A and B (p=0.0005 and p=0.0023)). When comparing Clara to the other SM, it was ranked equivalent to Clara+Chroma (p=0.67) and obtained a higher rank than Chroma, Spectra A and B (p<0.05, p=0.0001 and p=0.0001). In the multivariate analysis mean scores were higher among urologists. Conclusion In all analyzed scenarios, the subjects ranked Clara and Clara+Chroma as the modalities with better image quality compared to white light.