Impact of the time elapsed between prostate biopsy and surgery on the accuracy of nomograms predicting lymph node invasion in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

We aimed to investigate whether the performance characteristics of available nomograms predicting lymph node invasion (LNI) in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) change according to the time elapsed between diagnosis and surgery. We identified 816 patients who underwent RP with extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) after combined prostate biopsy at 6 referral centers. We plotted the accuracy (ROC-derived area under the curve [AUC]) of each Briganti nomogram according to the time elapsed between biopsy ad RP. We then tested whether discrimination of the nomograms improved after accounting for the time elapsed between biopsy ad RP. The median time between biopsy and RP was 3 months. The LNI rate was 13%. The discrimination of each nomogram decreased with increasing time elapsed between biopsy and surgery, where the AUC of the 2019 Briganti nomogram was 88% vs. 70% for men undergoing surgery <2 vs. >6 months from the biopsy. The addition of the time elapsed between biopsy ad RP improved the accuracy of all available nomograms (P < 0.003), with the Briganti 2019 nomogram showing the highest discrimination. Clinicians should be aware that the discrimination of available nomograms decreases according to the time elapsed between diagnosis and surgery. The indication of ePLND should be carefully evaluated in men below the LNI cut-off who had a diagnosis more than 6 months before RP. This has important implications when considering the longer waiting lists related to the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare systems.

The impact of COVID-19 on the male genital tract: a qualitative literature review of sexual transmission and fertility implications.

The angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor (ACE2) appears to be widely expressed in cells in the testes, predominantly in spermatogonia, Sertoli cells, and Leydig cells, and its co-expression with transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2) is essential for the entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For this reason, the male reproductive system could be considered a potential target for SARS-CoV-2, as well as a possible reservoir of infection. However, to date, there is very little evidence about the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen and testicular samples. The aim of this paper was to review the current evidence regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on male fertility and sexual health, with a particular focus on reproductive hormones, the presence of the virus in seminal fluid and testis, and its impact on fertility parameters. We found very limited evidence reporting the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen and testicular samples, and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on reproductive hormones and fertility parameters is unclear. The quality of the examined studies was poor due to the small sample size and several selection biases, precluding definitive conclusions. Hence, future well-designed prospective studies are needed to assess the real impact of SARS-CoV-2 on male reproductive function.

Exploring the Diversity and Predictors of Histopathological Findings Across the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group Priority Groups for Patients with Renal Tumors: Implications for Individualized Prioritization of Renal Cancer Care.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group (GORRG) defined priority groups to guide the prioritization of surgery for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In this study we explored the diversity and predictors of histopathological findings across the EAU GORRG priority groups using a large database of 1734 consecutive patients undergoing elective surgery for nonmetastatic renal masses between 2017 and 2020 at a referral institution. Overall, 940 (54.2%), 358 (20.6%), and 436 (25.2%) patients were classified as low-, intermediate-, and high-priority, respectively. The low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups significantly differed regarding all primary histopathological outcomes: benign histology (21.6% vs 15.9% vs 6.4%; p < 0.001); non-organ-confined disease (5.0% vs 19.0% vs 45.4%; p < 0.001); and adverse pathological features according to validated prognostic models (including the median Leibovich score for clear-cell RCC: 0 vs 2 vs 4; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, beyond the EAU GORRG priority groups, specific patient and/or tumor-related characteristics were independent predictors of the aforementioned histopathological outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, our study shows for the first time the value of the EAU GORRG priority groups from a histopathological standpoint and supports implementation of such a prioritization scheme beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENT SUMMARY: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Association of Urology designed a scheme to prioritize patients needing surgery for kidney cancer according to their tumor characteristics and symptoms. We used results from our hospital database to test the scheme and found that the priority classification can be used to predict cancer outcomes after surgery. This scheme may be useful in prioritizing kidney cancer surgeries after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing urological elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national overview across 28 Italian institutions.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the safety of elective urological surgery performed during the pandemic by estimating the prevalence of COVID-19-like symptoms in the postoperative period and its correlation with perioperative and clinical factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this multicenter, observational study we recorded clinical, surgical and postoperative data of consecutive patients undergoing elective urological surgery in 28 different institutions across Italy during initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic (between February 24 and March 30, 2020, inclusive). RESULTS: A total of 1943 patients were enrolled. In 12%, 7.1%, 21.3%, 56.7% and 2.6% of cases an open, laparoscopic, robotic, endoscopic or percutaneous surgical approach was performed, respectively. Overall, 166 (8.5%) postoperative complications were registered, 77 (3.9%) surgical and 89 (4.6%) medical. Twenty-eight (1.4%) patients were readmitted to hospital after discharge and 13 (0.7%) died. In the 30 days following discharge, fever and respiratory symptoms were recorded in 101 (5.2%) and 60 (3.1%) patients. At multivariable analysis, not performing nasopharyngeal swab at hospital admission (HR 2.3; CI 95% 1.01-5.19; p = 0.04) was independently associated with risk of developing postoperative medical complications. Number of patients in the facility was confirmed as an independent predictor of experiencing postoperative respiratory symptoms (p = 0.047, HR:1.12; CI95% 1.00-1.05), while COVID-19-free type of hospitalization facility was a strong independent protective factor (p = 0.02, HR:0.23, CI95% 0.07-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Performing elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic does not seem to affect perioperative outcomes as long as proper preventive measures are adopted, including nasopharyngeal swab before hospital admission and hospitalization in dedicated COVID-19-free facilities.

Urology Residency Training at the Time of COVID-19 in Italy: 1 Year After the Beginning.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to significant changes in urology practice and residency programs. One year ago, the first nationwide survey on this topic showed a dramatic impact of the acute phase of the pandemic on residents' training activities. Aiming to assess for the first time how the COVID-19 scenario reshaped the pattern of urology training over a whole pandemic year, a cross-sectional, 38-item, web-based survey was developed. Residents scored the percentage decrease of their involvement in various clinical and surgical activities during the period of March 2020-March 2021 (as compared with the pre-COVID period). Overall, 312/585 (53.3%) residents from 27 schools of urology were included. The proportions of those experiencing a significant decrease of training exposure were 13.6%, 28.8%, 26.7%, 46.9%, 37.6%, and 33.3% (as compared with 40.2%, 85.8%. 82.3%, 69.7%, 59.7%, and 50.2% in the previous survey) for on-call activities, outpatient visits, diagnostic procedures, endoscopic surgery, open surgery, and minimally invasive surgery, respectively. The most impactful reductions in training activities were reached by final-year residents. Our findings highlight that, even if less burdensome than expected, urology residency training (especially in endoscopic surgery) was highly affected throughout the whole past year. This critical gap of skills may jeopardize residents' training even beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we assessed whether the training activities of Italian urology residents were impacted negatively by a whole year of COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020-March 2021). We also compared our results with those reported in a previous survey evaluating how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic changed the training pattern of urology residents during the peak of the outbreak in March 2020. We found a critical decrease in residents' activities (especially for those in their final years of residency and for surgical procedures) that, even if lower than expected, might negatively impact their education and training in the future.

How Can the COVID-19 Pandemic Lead to Positive Changes in Urology Residency?

The COVID-19 outbreak, in a few weeks, overloaded Italian hospitals, and the majority of medical procedures were postponed. During the pandemic, with hospital reorganization, clinical and learning activities performed by residents suffered a forced remodulation. The objective of this study is to investigate how urology training in Italy has been affected during the COVID-19 era. In this multi-academic study, we compared residents' training during the highest outbreak level with their previous activity. Overall 387 (67.1%) of the 577 Italian Urology residents participated in a 72-h anonymous online survey with 36 items sent via email. The main outcomes were clinical/surgical activities, social distancing, distance learning, and telemedicine. Clinical and learning activity was significantly reduced for the overall group, and after categorizing residents as those working only in COVID hospitals, both "junior" and "senior" residents, and those working in any of three geographical areas created (Italian regions were clustered in three major zones according to the prevalence of COVID-19). A significant decrease in outpatient activity, invasive diagnostic procedures, and endoscopic and major surgeries was reported. Through multivariate analysis, the specific year of residency has been found to be an independent predictor for all response modification. Being in zone 3 and zone 2 and having "senior" resident status were independent predictors associated with a lower reduction of the clinical and learning activity. Working in a COVID hospital and having "senior" resident status were independent predictors associated with higher reduction of the outpatient activity. Working in zone 3 and having "senior" resident status were independent predictors of lower and higher outpatient surgical activity, respectively. Working in a COVID hospital was an independent predictor associated with robotic surgical activity. The majority of residents reported that distance teaching and multidisciplinary virtual meetings are still not used, and 44.8% reported that their relationships with colleagues decreased. The COVID-19 pandemic presents an unprecedented challenge, including changes in the training and education of urology residents. The COVID era can offer an opportunity to balance and implement innovative solutions that can bridge the educational gap and can be part of future urology training.

Deferring Elective Urologic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Patients' Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the perspective of urological patients on the possibility to defer elective surgery due to the fear of contracting COVID-19. METHODS: All patients scheduled for elective urological procedures for malignant or benign diseases at 2 high-volume centers were administered a questionnaire, through structured telephone interviews, between April 24 and 27, 2020. The questionnaire included 3 questions: (1) In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, would you defer the planned surgical intervention? (2) If yes, when would you be willing to undergo surgery? (3) What do you consider potentially more harmful for your health: the risk of contracting COVID-19 during hospitalization or the potential consequences of delaying surgical treatment? RESULTS: Overall, 332 patients were included (51.5% and 48.5% in the oncology and benign groups, respectively). Of these, 47.9% patients would have deferred the planned intervention (33.3% vs 63.4%; P < .001), while the proportion of patients who would have preferred to delay surgery for more than 6 months was comparable between the groups (87% vs 80%). These answers were influenced by patient age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (in the Oncology group) and by the underlying urological condition (in the benign group). Finally, 182 (54.8%) patients considered the risk of COVID-19 potentially more harmful than the risk of delaying surgery (37% vs 73%; P < .001). This answer was driven by patient age and the underlying disease in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reinforce the importance of shared decision-making before urological surgery, leveraging patients' values and expectations to refine the paradigm of evidence-based medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Quarantine on Sexual Life in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to evaluate how individual and couple's sexuality had changed during the COVID-19 pandemic-related quarantine. METHODS: A quantitative correlational research study was conducted, using a web-based survey. RESULTS: About 1576 participants were involved: 1018 women (64.6%) and 558 men (35.4%). A significant decline in the mean well-being scores during the quarantine, compared to before, was reported. A positive correlation between the well-being scores and the number of sexual intercourse (SI) before and during the quarantine was found. The mean number of SI decreased significantly during the quarantine. The main reasons were: poor privacy (43.2%) and lack of psychological stimuli (40.9%). About 1124 respondents (71.3%) did not report sexual desire (SD) reduction. A positive association between SD and SI during the quarantine was found. About 61.2% did not report autoerotism reduction. In those who reported decreased masturbation activity, the main causes were poor privacy (46.4%) and lack of desire (34.7%). We found that men presented lower SD during the quarantine, than women (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Potentially, the more time available might lead couples to reconnect at an intimate level and to improve their sexuality. However, the majority of quarantined participants experienced reduced number of SI per week, with poor household privacy and lack of psychological stimuli as cited causes, even as a majority did not report reduced autoeroticism.

Research and Policy Impact of Trials Published by the UK National Institute of Health Research (2006-2015) How sexual medicine is facing the outbreak of COVID-19: experience of Italian urological community and future perspectives

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment aims to inform and support healthcare decision making, and trials are part of that process. The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of a sample of trials in a meaningful but robust fashion. METHODS: All randomized controlled trials funded and published by the UK National Institute of Health Research in the Health Technology Assessment journal series and other peer-reviewed journals were identified for 2006 to 2015. Citation analysis was performed for all trials, and quantitative content analysis was undertaken on a purposive sample to determine whether impact could be categorized as "instrumental"(ie, having a clear influence on key research and policy publications). RESULTS: The search identified 133 relevant trials. The citation rate per trial was 102.97. Of the 133 trials, 129 (98%) were cited in 1 or more systematic reviews or meta-analyses (mean per trial = 7.18, range = 0-44). Where they were cited, the trials were used in some form of synthesis 63% of the time. Ninety-one of the 133 (68%) trials were found to be cited in 1 or more guidance or policy document (mean per trial = 2.75, range = 0-26) and had an instrumental influence 41% of the time. The publication of these trials'results in journals other than the Health Technology Assessment journal appears to enhance the discoverability of the trial data. Altmetric.com proved to be very useful in identifying unique policy and guidance documents. CONCLUSION: These trials have impressive citation rates, and a sizeable proportion are certainly being used in key publications in a genuinely instrumental manner.

COMMENT ON: Hospital care in Departments defined as COVID-free: A proposal for a safe hospitalization protecting healthcare professionals and patients not affected by COVID-19.

The COVID-19 outbreak dramatically changed hospital everyday life, impairing the course of previous routine activity, also in urology. In the next months, together with keeping the focus on the prevention of contagion recrudescence, the health care system will face another stringent issue, i.e. to restore all the services not COVID-related. Leonardi et al. in their paper report an equilibrate overview on the incoming "Phase 2", in order to set up so-called COVID-free hospitals and departments. The authors offer an insight from a practical point of view, detailing protocols for any of the steps of the path of care, from the outpatient visit to surgery.

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.

Desire for parenthood at the time of COVID-19 pandemic: an insight into the Italian situation.

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic lifestyle change on couples of reproductive age and on their desire for parenthood.Materials and methods: A quantitative correlational research study, based on a web survey, was conducted among Italian men and women in heterosexual stable relationships, aged between 18 and 46 years. The self-administered Italian version questionnaire was created using Google Forms and posted on chats and social networks.The mood of participants before and during the quarantine was assessed using a scale from 1 to 10 (1 = no wellbeing; 10 = total wellbeing). Couples' quality of life and their reproductive desire were evaluated.Results: 1482 respondents were included: 944 women (63.7%) and 538 men (36.3%). A significant trend toward reduced mean wellbeing scores during the quarantine, compared to before, was found (p < .01). From 18.1% participants who were planning to have a child before the pandemic, 37.3% abandoned the intention, related to worries of future economic difficulties (58%) and consequences on pregnancy (58%). Of 81.9% who did not intend to conceive, 11.5% revealed a desire for parenthood during quarantine than before (p < .01), related to will for change (50%) and need for positivity (40%). 4.3% of these actually tried to get pregnant. Stratifying by age, a trend toward older ages was found in the desire for parenthood before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (p < .05).Conclusions: COVID-19 pandemic is impacting on the desire for parenthood. It is unknown whether these findings will result in a substantial modification of birth rate in the near future.

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.