Antioxidant treatment for oligoasthenoteratozoospermia and varicocele: a DBPC trial to evaluate the impact of age and body mass index.

ABSTRACT: Oxidative stress is one of the main mechanisms responsible for male infertility. Various conditions such as varicocele, obesity, advanced age, and lifestyle can lead to an increase in reactive oxygen species, causing an oxidative imbalance in the reproductive environment. Spermatozoa are sensitive to reactive oxygen species and require energy to carry out their main function of fertilizing the egg. Excessive reactive oxygen species can affect sperm metabolism, leading to immobility, impaired acrosome reaction, and cell death, thereby impairing reproductive success. This double-blind randomized study evaluated the effect of supplementation with L-carnitine, acetyl-L-carnitine, vitamins, and other nutrients on semen quality in 104 infertile patients with or without varicocele, while also investigating the impact of factors such as obesity and advanced age on treatment. Sperm concentration significantly increased in the supplemented group compared to the placebo group (P = 0.0186). Total sperm count also significantly increased in the supplemented group (P = 0.0117), as did sperm motility (P = 0.0120). The treatment had a positive effect on patients up to 35 years of age in terms of sperm concentration (P = 0.0352), while a body mass index (BMI) above 25 kg m-2 had a negative effect on sperm concentration (P = 0.0110). Results were not showing a net benefit in stratifying patients in accordance with their BMI since sperm quality increase was not affected by this parameter. In conclusion, antioxidant supplementation may be beneficial for infertile patients and has a more positive effect on younger patients with a normal weight.

External Validation of the IMPROD-MRI Volumetric Model to Predict the Utility of Systematic Biopsies at the Time of Targeted Biopsy.

Background: The aim of this study was to validate externally a nomogram that relies on MRI volumetric parameters and clinical data to determine the need for a standard biopsy in addition to a target biopsy for men with suspicious prostate MRI findings. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of 469 biopsy-naïve men who underwent prostate biopsies. These biopsies were guided by pre-biopsy multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) and were performed at two different institutions. We included men with a PIRADSsv 2.1 score from 3 to 5. Each patient underwent both an MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy of identified MRI-suspicious lesions and a systematic biopsy according to our protocol. The lesion volume percentage was determined as the proportion of cancer volume on MRI relative to the entire prostate volume. The study's outcomes were iPCa (Gleason Grade Group 1) and csPCa (Gleason Grade Group > 1). We evaluated the model's performance using AUC decision curve analyses and a systematic analysis of model-derived probability cut-offs in terms of the potential to avoid diagnosing iPCa and to accurately diagnose csPCa. Results: The nomogram includes age, PSA value, prostate volume, PIRADSsv 2.1 score, percentage of MRI-suspicious lesion volume, and lesion location. AUC was determined to be 0.73. By using various nomogram cut-off thresholds (ranging from 5% to 30%), it was observed that 19% to 58% of men could potentially avoid undergoing standard biopsies. In this scenario, the model might miss 0% to 10% of diagnosis of csPCa and could prevent identifying 6% to 31% of iPCa cases. These results are in line with findings from the multi-institutional external validation study based on the IMPROD trial (n = 122) and the MULTI-IMPROD trial (n = 262). According to DCA, the use of this nomogram led to an increased overall net clinical benefit when the threshold probability exceeded 10%. Conclusions: This study supports the potential value of a model relying on MRI volumetric measurements for selecting individuals with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who would benefit from undergoing a standard biopsy in addition to a targeted biopsy.

Foggia Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator 2.0: A Novel Risk Calculator including MRI and Bladder Outlet Obstruction Parameters to Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies.

Risk calculator (RC) combining PSA with other clinical information can help to better select patients at risk of prostate cancer (PCa) for prostate biopsy. The present study aimed to develop a new Pca RC, including MRI and bladder outlet obstruction parameters (BOOP). The ability of these parameters in predicting PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa: ISUP GG ≥ 2) was assessed by binary logistic regression. A total of 728 patients were included from two institutions. Of these, 395 (54.3%) had negative biopsies and 161 (22.11%) and 172 (23.6%) had a diagnosis of ISUP GG1 PCa and csPCa. The two RC ultimately included age, PSA, DRE, prostate volume (pVol), post-voided residual urinary volume (PVR), and PIRADS score. Regarding BOOP, higher prostate volumes (csPCa: OR 0.98, CI 0.97,0.99) and PVR ≥ 50 mL (csPCa: OR 0.27, CI 0.15, 0.47) were protective factors for the diagnosis of any PCa and csPCa. AUCs after internal validation were 0.78 (0.75, 0.82) and 0.82 (0.79, 0.86), respectively. Finally, decision curves analysis demonstrated higher benefit compared to the first-generation calculator and MRI alone. These novel RC based on MRI and BOOP may help to better select patient for prostate biopsy after prostate MRI.

Prostate cancer biomarkers: a practical review based on different clinical scenarios.

Traditionally, diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer (PCa) have been based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, digital rectal examination (DRE), and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy. Biomarkers have been introduced into clinical practice to reduce the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-grade PCa and increase the success of personalized therapies for high-grade and high-stage PCa. The purpose of this review was to describe available PCa biomarkers and examine their use in clinical practice. A nonsystematic literature review was performed using PubMed and Scopus to retrieve papers related to PCa biomarkers. In addition, we manually searched websites of major urological associations for PCa guidelines to evaluate available evidence and recommendations on the role of biomarkers and their potential contribution to PCa decision-making. In addition to PSA and its derivates, thirteen blood, urine, and tissue biomarkers are mentioned in various PCa guidelines. Retrospective studies have shown their utility in three main clinical scenarios: (1) deciding whether to perform a biopsy, (2) distinguishing patients who require active treatment from those who can benefit from active surveillance, and (3) defining a subset of high-risk PCa patients who can benefit from additional therapies after RP. Several validated PCa biomarkers have become commercially available in recent years. Guidelines now recommend offering these tests in situations in which the assay result, when considered in combination with routine clinical factors, is likely to affect management. However, the lack of direct comparisons and the unproven benefits, in terms of long-term survival and cost-effectiveness, prevent these biomarkers from being integrated into routine clinical use.