Frequency and clinicopathologic features of renal low-grade oncocytic tumour and eosinophilic vacuolated tumour: reclassification of 605 eosinophilic tumours including patients managed with active surveillance.

AIMS: Low-grade oncocytic tumour (LOT) and eosinophilic vacuolated tumour (EVT) are recently described emerging entities, which demonstrate distinct features but are not yet recognised as separate neoplasms in the fifth WHO classification. Published series to date have been largely multi-institutional and based on surgically resected tumours. This study aims to determine the frequency, clinicopathologic features and outcome of LOT and EVT in a single institutional series of oncocytic/eosinophilic renal neoplasms, including patients managed with active surveillance and non-surgical intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cases were identified from a consecutive institutional series of in-house renal tumours diagnosed on biopsy and/or nephrectomy (2003-2023). Tumours with a diagnosis or differential diagnosis of oncocytoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma or oncocytic neoplasm not otherwise specified (including LOT, EVT and tumours with overlapping hybrid features) were retrospectively reviewed and classified/reclassified.In total, 605 oncocytic/eosinophilic renal neoplasms were reviewed, among which 33 LOT (5.5%) and 5 EVT (0.8%) were identified. LOT were CK7+, CD117- and GATA3+ (94%). EVT were CD117+, CK7 focal+ (80%) and cathepsin K+ (80%). At the median follow-up of 34 months (range 2-253) and 56 months (range 8-90) for LOT and EVT, respectively, there was no evidence of recurrence following ablation/surgical resection, metastasis or death from disease for all patients, including the 22 managed with active surveillance (20 LOT and 2 EVT). CONCLUSIONS: LOT and EVT comprised a minority of oncocytic renal neoplasms in this series. We report a large institutional series including patients managed non-surgically, with no adverse outcome, adding to the existing literature indicating a benign outcome.

Evaluation of Benefits and Harms of Surgical Treatments for Post-radical Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: No meta-analysis has comprehensively addressed both benefits and harms, or the certainty of evidence of the implantable continence devices used in men to treat postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits and harms of surgical treatments for patients suffering from PPI and assess the certainty of evidence. The primary benefit was cure (one or fewer pad per day), and the primary harm was reoperations defined by surgical procedures following implantation. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We perform a search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and gray literature. We included observational studies addressing PPI surgical interventions if they involved cohorts of ≥50 participants. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach provided the framework for certainty of evidence assessment informed by value and preference judgments provided by patients, and an advocacy group member (Canadian Cancer Society). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of 85 observational studies involving 13 100 patients, three addressed bulking agents, 35 male synthetic slings, ten adjustable continence therapies (ACTs), and 37 artificial urinary sphincters (AUSs). Cure was 26.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.6-51.4, I2 = 92.8%, very-low-quality evidence) for bulking agents, 58.6% (95% CI: 51.3-65.5, I2 = 89.1%, low-quality evidence) for slings, 63.2% (95% CI: 57.6-68.5, I2 = 22.5%, very-low-quality evidence) for ACT, and 74.0% (95% CI:61.2-83.7, I2 = 92.1%, very-low-quality evidence) for AUS. Estimated rates of reoperation were 5.8% (95% CI: 1.9-11.6, I2 = 94.1%, moderate-quality evidence) for slings, 23.8% (95% CI: 5.9-61.0, I2 = 95.5%, low-quality evidence) for ACT, and 22.2% (95% CI: 15.2-31.3, I2 = 92.3%, high-quality evidence) for AUS. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence regarding the benefits of surgical interventions for PPI remains mainly uncertain while suggesting important harms. These results should guide consent procedures for PPI surgery in the context of shared decision-making, with disclosure of the uncertainty of evidence. PATIENT SUMMARY: Despite being used worldwide, available evidence regarding the benefits of surgeries to treat postprostatectomy urinary incontinence remains mainly uncertain while suggesting important harms. This highlights the need for a more rigorous evaluation process for commercially available surgical devices.

Evaluation of benefits and harms of surgical treatments for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Background: Post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI) is a frequent and feared complication that can affect approximately 25% of patients. Between 1 and 10% of patients suffering from PPI will require surgery. The effectiveness of the available surgical interventions has only been compared in a few randomized controlled trials and the available reviews have important limitations regarding both benefits and harms that make them insufficient to inform decision-making. The aim of the study is to provide systematic summaries of benefits and harms of contemporary surgical treatment options for PPI through systematic review and meta-analysis using GRADE methodology and reporting in accord with the PRISMA-P statement. Methods: Studies pertaining to bulking agents, male synthetic slings, compressive balloon systems (ProACT) or artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) used for the treatment of patients suffering from PPI will be included. A systematic search will be conducted using the OVID and PubMED platforms in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases, and reference lists of relevant reviews and guidelines. Trained independent reviewers will conduct study selection and data extraction. Outcomes will include the number of pads used per day, the 24-h pad weight test, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) and the Incontinence Quality of Life (IQOL) as possible benefits and the reoperations, the Clavien-Dindo complications and the other reported adverse events as the harms. When possible, pooled analyses will be completed. Risk of bias will be assessed using the CLARITY tools and a new tool for the before-and-after studies without a control group. Finally, study heterogeneity will be assessed, publication bias will be evaluated with funnel plots and quality of evidence rated for each outcome. Discussion: Our study will address patient-important outcomes and will be useful in clinical decision-making as well as identifying key elements for future research. Study registration: PROSPERO: CRD42018073923 05/12/2018.