[Sophisticated surgical management of distinctive patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)]. / Differenziertes operatives Management unterschiedlicher Patienten mit benignem Prostatasyndrom (BPS).

Herein we describe four clinical scenarios. For the standard patient (prostate volume 30-80 ml, life expectancy >10 years) transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) remains the standard of care, while endoscopic enucleation is a valuable alternative. Patients with a relevant middle lobe profit most from TURP, endourological enucleation procedures, or laser vaporization. In the case of the absence or a moderate-sized middle lobe and the absence of severe bladder outlet obstruction (BOO), minimally invasive procedures such as Rezum®, UroLift® or prostate artery embolization (PAE) can be offered. Patients have to be informed that long-term data on this specific indication are lacking. Particularly younger men requiring BPH surgery are interested in preserving ejaculatory function. In the presence of severe BOO, ejaculatory-protective TURP or endoscopic enucleation by preserving the pericollicular region or aquablation are the methods of choice providing an antegrade ejaculation in 60-90% of cases. Rezum®, AquaBeam®, and UroLift® enable preservation of ejaculation in almost 100%; data on PAE with this respect are more controversial. For patients with a small prostate and significant post void residual, a thorough preoperative work-up, including urodynamics and bladder/detrusor wall thickness measurement, is of great importance. Desobstructive surgery provides satisfactory short- and midterm outcome, yet the long-term outcome is disappointing and remains to be determined in greater detail. The broad spectrum of therapeutic options enables today an individualized minimally invasive or surgical management of BPH considering patient wishes, anatomical factors or urodynamic factors. The time of a "one therapy fits all" strategy is definitely history.

[Use of synthetic slings and mesh implants in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and prolapse : Statement of the Working Group on Urological Functional Diagnostics and Female Urology of the Academy of the German Society of Urology]. / Einsatz von synthetischen Band- und Netzimplantaten bei der Behandlung von Belastungsinkontinenz und Descensus genitalis der Frau : Stellungnahme des Arbeitskreises Urologische Funktionsdiagnostik und Urologie der Frau der Akademie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Urologie.

Due to a safety alert issued by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2011 for transvaginal mesh implants to treat female prolapse as a result of numerous reports of complications such as infection, chronic pain, dyspareunia, vaginal erosion, shrinkage and erosion into other organs nearly all industrial products have been withdrawn from the market in the meantime. The United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand extended warnings and prohibitions even on the implantation of midurethral slings (TVT, TOT). In view of these current international controversies regarding the use of implanted materials for the treatment of stress incontinence and prolapse and the lack of clear guidelines for the use of biomaterials, the opinion of the Working Group on Urological Functional Diagnostics and Female Urology should provide clarity. The Opinion is based on the SCENIHR Report of the "European Commission's Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks", the "Consensus Statement of the European Urology Association and the European Urogynaecological Association on the Use of Implanted Materials for Treating Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Stress Urinary Incontinence" and in compliance with relevant EAU and national guidelines and the opinion of the Association for Urogynaecology and Plastic Pelvic Floor Reconstruction (AGUB eV). In addition, recommendations are given for the future handling of implants of slings and meshes for the treatment of stress incontinence and prolapse from a urologic viewpoint.

[Diagnostic procedures and diagnostic strategy for lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia : An overview]. / Diagnostik und diagnostische Strategie beim benignen Prostatasyndrom : Ein Überblick.

BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) is the most common condition affecting the lower urinary tract of men. Evidence-based assessment is the basis for an ideal treatment approach. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the current status of diagnostic measures for LUTS/BPH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Descriptive review of the literature on the diagnosis of LUTS/BPH. RESULTS: A medical history inquiring about LUTS/BPH symptoms and burden as well as a standardized and validated symptom questionnaire such as the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) are the basis of the assessment. A physical examination including a rectal exam and the ultrasonography of the lower and upper urinary tract are also part of the basic diagnostic workup. Prostate size is ideally measured by transrectal ultrasound. Serum prostate-specific antigen measurement may help to estimate the prostate size and the risk fo progression. It can also be helpful in the detection of prostate cancer. Urine dipstick or sediment is used to exclude urinary tract infection, hematuria, or glucosuria. Voiding dysfunction can be detected by uroflowmetry. In addition to the aforementioned examinations, further tests such as frequency-voiding charts, multichannel urodynamic evaluation, measurement of detrusor wall thickness and X­ray imaging of the upper urinary tract as well as a cystoscopy may be offered if needed. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostics of LUTS/BPH consist of basic exams as well as optional exams and can be used to assess the progression risk, to identify complications and to offer the ideal treatment.

[Fake News BPH - what is really true!] / Hartnäckige Mythen zum Thema BPS ­ und was davon wirklich stimmt!

BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) is the fourth most common and the fifth most costly disease in men aged 50 years or older. Despite the high prevalence of LUTS/BPH in clinical practice and evidence-based guideline recommendations, there are still plenty of misconceptions on the terminology and pathophysiology of the disease, leading to false assumptions and malpractice. OBJECTIVES: Listing of commonly used false assumptions and clarification of the correct terminology and pathophysiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Critical reflection of 12 selected fake news based on PubMed search. RESULTS: Average prostate weight in healthy men is 20 g but varies between 8-40 g. The BPH-disease does not progress in stages; therefore, the BPH-classifications according Alken or Vahlensieck should not be used anymore. There is only a weak and inconsistent relationship between bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and prostate size, diverticula/pseudo-diverticula, postvoid residual, urinary retention or renal insufficiency, which is too unreliable for BOO-diagnosis in the individual patient. Urethro-cystoscopy with grading of the degrees of occlusion of the prostatic urethra and bladder trabeculation is insufficient for BOO-diagnosis. There is no clinically relevant reduction of BOO with licensed BPH-drugs and no convincing data that prostate resection (TURP) has to be complete until the surgical capsule in order to obtain optimal results. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons for the persistent use of wrong terminology and pathophysiology are diverse. One reason is lack of implementation of evidence-based guidelines into clinical practice due to lack of knowledge, individual beliefs, costs, availability and reimbursement policies. Another reason is the increasing focus on oncology, coupled with underrepresented education and training on BPH.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor impairs CD8(+) T cell functionality by interfering with central activation elements.

Besides mobilizing stem cells into the periphery, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has been shown to influence various types of innate and adaptive immune cells. For example, it impairs the effector function of cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs). It is assumed that this effect is mediated indirectly by monocytes, regulatory T cells and immunomodulatory cytokines influenced by G-CSF. In this study, isolated G-CSF-treated CD8(+) T cells were stimulated antigen-dependently with peptide-major histocompatibility complex (pMHC)-coupled artificial antigen-presenting cells (aAPCs) or stimulated antigen-independently with anti-CD3/CD28 stimulator beads. By measuring the changes in interferon (IFN)-γ and granzyme B expression at the mRNA and protein level, we showed for the first time that G-CSF has a direct effect on CD8(+) CTLs, which was confirmed based on the reduced production of IFN-γ and granzyme B by the cytotoxic T cell line TALL-104 after G-CSF treatment. By investigating further elements affected by G-CSF in CTLs from stem cell donors and untreated controls, we found a decreased phosphorylation of extracellular-regulated kinase (ERK)1/2, lymphocyte-specific protein tyrosine kinase (Lck) and CD3ζ after G-CSF treatment. Additionally, miRNA-155 and activation marker expression levels were reduced. In summary, our results show that G-CSF directly influences the effector function of cytotoxic CD8(+) T cells and affects various elements of T cell activation.

[S2e guideline of the German urologists: Conservative and pharmacologic treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia]. / S2e-Leitlinie der Deutschen Urologen : Konservative und medikamentöse Therapie des benignen Prostatasyndroms.

This report summarizes the relevant aspects of the S2e guideline of the German Urologists for the conservative and pharmacological treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Recommendations are given regarding watchful waiting, behavioral therapy, phytotherapy and pharmacological mono- and combination therapy. The influence of the different therapeutic options on bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) is described in detail.

[S2e guideline of the German urologists: Instrumental treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia]. / S2e-Leitlinie der Deutschen Urologen : Instrumentelle Therapie des benignen Prostatasyndroms.

This report summarizes the relevant aspects of the S2e guideline of the German Urologists for the instrumental treatment of the lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Recommendations are given regarding open and transurethral procedures (TUR-P, bipolar TUR-P, TUI-P, HE-TUMT, TUNA, and the different Laser techniques). Recommendations are also given concerning intraprostatic stents and injection therapies. The influence of the different therapeutic options on bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) is described in detail.

[Pharmacological treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia]. / Medikamentöse Therapie des benignen Prostatasyndroms.

The pharmacological treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is indicated when men suffer from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) but there are no absolute indications for prostate surgery or severe bladder outlet obstruction. Phytotherapy can be used in men with mild to moderate LUTS and alpha-blockers can quickly and effectively decrease the LUTS and symptomatic disease progression. Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5-I) are an alternative to alpha-blockers when men experience bothersome side effects from alpha-blockers or erectile dysfunction. If patients predominantly have bladder storage symptoms and a small prostate, muscarinic receptor antagonists are a viable treatment option. The combination of alpha-blocker plus muscarinic receptor antagonist is more efficacious in reducing LUTS than the single drugs alone. The 5 alpha-reductase inhibitors (5ARI) can significantly decrease LUTS and disease progression (e.g. acute urinary retention and need for prostate surgery) in men with larger prostates (> 30-40 ml). The combination of 5ARI plus alpha-blocker can reduce LUTS and disease progression more effectively than drug monotherapy. Combination therapy with PDE5-I (tadalafil) plus 5ARI (finasteride) reduces LUTS more substantially than 5ARI alone and, additionally, PDE5-Is reduce the sexual side effects during 5ARI treatment.

Impact of cardiovascular risk factors and related comorbid conditions and medical therapy reported at baseline on the treatment response to tadalafil 5 mg once-daily in men with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: an integrated analysis of four randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trials.

PURPOSE: The influence of cardiovascular risk factors/comorbidities on response to oral once-daily tadalafil 5 mg was explored in men with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH). METHODS: This post hoc analysis pooled data from four double-blind studies in which 1498 men with > 6-mo history of LUTS/BPH were randomised and received either once-daily placebo (n = 746) or tadalafil 5 mg (n = 752) for 12 weeks. Descriptive statistics were reported for changes in total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS voiding and storage subscores, and IPSS quality-of-life (QoL) index. Treatment group differences by baseline clinical and cardiovascular factors and medical therapies were examined using analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Tadalafil was effective in men with LUTS/BPH and cardiovascular risk factors/comorbidities except for patients receiving > 1 antihypertensive medication. Placebo-adjusted least squares (LS) mean improvements in total IPSS were -1.2 (95% CI: -2.5 to -0.0) in men taking > 1 antihypertensive medication vs. -3.3 (95% CI: -4.4 to -2.1) in men taking one medication (interaction p = 0.020). In addition, placebo-adjusted LS mean improvements in total IPSS were -0.2 (95% CI, -2.1 to 1.7) in men who reported use of diuretics vs. -2.8 (95% CI, -3.7 to -1.9) in men who reported taking other antihypertensive medications vs. -2.3 (95% CI, -3.2 to -1.5) in men who reported not using any antihypertensive drug (p-value for interaction = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily tadalafil 5 mg improved LUTS/BPH, regardless of severity, in men with coexisting cardiovascular risk factors/comorbidities, except for patients with history of > 1 drug for arterial hypertension. Use of diuretics may contribute to patients' perception of a negated efficacy of tadalafil on LUTS/BPH. Comorbidities should be considered when choosing the optimal medicine to treat men with LUTS/BPH.

[Urinary incontinence in men]. / Harninkontinenz des Mannes.

Stress urinary incontinence in men is predominantly iatrogenic whereby radical prostatectomy is the most common cause with persistent stress urinary incontinence rates varying between 10 % and 25 %. The first line therapy for postoperative male stress urinary incontinence is physiotherapy, especially pelvic floor muscle rehabilitation. If conservative treatment fails to show sufficient improvement, surgical therapy is recommended. Several treatment options are currently available for the surgical treatment of male stress urinary incontinence including artificial sphincters, adjustable and functional sling systems, bulking agents and implantable balloon systems.

Management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: role of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors.

Several studies have highlighted a strong association between benign prostatic hyperplasia/lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH/LUTS) and erectile dysfunction (ED), particularly in elderly men. Many epidemiological trials, such as in vitro and in vivo studies, have reported the emerging role of metabolic syndrome, including abdominal obesity, impaired glucose metabolism, hypertriglyceridemia, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and hypertension, in the development and progression of urinary and sexual symptoms. Moreover, many authors have focused their studies on the identification of all the shared pathogenetic mechanisms of LUTS/BPH and ED, including alteration of cyclic guanosine monophosphate and RhoA-ROCK pathways or vascular and neurogenic dysfunction. All these are potential targets for proposed phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5-Is). Therefore, several trials have recently been designed to evaluate the role of PDE5-Is alone or in combination with conventional treatment for BPH, such as α-adrenergic blockers, in men affected by LUTS/BPH, with or without ED. Different PDE5-Is are in clinical use worldwide and currently six of them are licensed for the oral treatment of ED. All these compounds differ in pharmacokinetic factors, with influence on drug action, and subsequently in the overall safety and efficacy profile.

PDE5-Is for the Treatment of Concomitant ED and LUTS/BPH.

Epidemiologic data in adult men exhibit a strong relationship between erectile dysfunction (ED) and lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH), indicating that men affected by ED should also be investigated for LUTS/BPH and those presenting with storage or voiding LUTS should be investigated for co-morbid ED. Common pathophysiolgical mechanisms underlying both LUTS/BPH and ED, including alteration of NO/cGMP or RhoA/Rho-kinase signaling and/or vascular or neurogenic dysfunction, are potential targets for proposed phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5-Is). Several randomized controlled trials and only a few reviews including all commercially available PDE5-Is demonstrated the safety and efficacy of these drugs in the improvement of erectile function and urinary symptoms, in patients affected either by ED, LUTS, or both conditions.

Improving the health care of geriatric patients: management of urinary incontinence: a position paper.

A multidisciplinary German expert group met in 2012 to discuss the current status and prospects of health care of geriatric patients with urinary incontinence in Germany. The purpose of this position paper is to raise awareness among health care providers for the challenges associated with adequate management of urinary incontinence in frail elderly. The experts agree that a multidisciplinary collaboration is essential for the successful treatment of urinary incontinence symptoms which are often associated with loss of autonomy and social isolation. For most geriatric patients, usually the general practitioner is the first contact when seeking help. Hence, the general practitioner plays a crucial role in the coordination of diagnosis and treatment. The involved health care providers should have adequate education and training in their respective disciplines and should be networked allowing quick turnaround times. Non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. behavioural interventions) should have been tried before any pharmacotherapy is initiated. If pharmacological treatment of urinary incontinence involves the use of anticholinergic agents, cognitive performance should be monitored regularly. If indicated, anticholinergic agents with a documented efficacy and safety profile, explicitly assessed in the elderly population, should be preferred.

[Intraprostatic injection therapy in patients with benign prostatic syndrome]. / Intraprostatische Injektionstherapien beim benignen Prostatasyndrom.

Intraprostatic injection therapy is a minimally invasive treatment of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia and could be a therapeutic alternative in increasingly older and co-morbid patients. Nowadays only botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT/A), absolute ethanol, NX-1207 and PRX302 are of relevance but none of these substances has yet been authorized for treatment use (off-label use). There have been only three randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) for BoNT/A, whereas none exist for ethanol and the results of existing studies are inconsistent and without convincing proof of efficacy. NX-1207 is a protein with selective pro-apoptotic properties and non-inferiority compared to finasteride has been demonstrated. PRX302 is a modified proaerolysin that can be activated by prostate-specific antigen and is therefore (prostate) cell-specific. Safety and efficacy are well documented; however, intraprostatic injection therapy should presently only be performed in clinical trials, irrespective of the substance used.

[Phytotherapy of benign prostate syndrome and prostate cancer: better than placebo]. / Phytotherapie bei benignem Prostatasyndrom und Prostatakarzinom : Besser als Placebo?

In some countries plant extracts have belonged to the most popular drugs for the treatment of the benign prostatic syndrome (BPS) for decades; however, only few of the large number of published studies meet the criteria of the WHO benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) consensus conference. The few placebo-controlled long-term (study period >6 months) studies suggest a positive effect of some extracts (saw palmetto fruit, ß-sitosterol, urtica, rye grass and a saw palmetto/urtica combination) on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), urinary flow rate, post-void residual volume but effects on prostate volume or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were only inconsistently demonstrable. To date no study has proven an effect on disease progression, such as acute urinary retention or need for surgical interventions. Due to the controversial data various extraction techniques and compositions of various products, neither American, European, British nor German BPH guidelines recommend plant extracts for the indication BPS although some placebo-controlled trials provided encouraging data. Further prospective studies according to WHO standards are required to determine the role of plant extracts for the management of BPS. For the indication of prostate cancer (PCa) plant extracts have been evaluated for disease prevention and management of several tumor stages but none of these studies have provided convincing evidence that plant extracts are superior to placebo and none of the Pica guidelines have recommended their use.Based on current knowledge plant extracts can never supplement evidence-based PCa management and should be used only in addition to the standard treatment. There is no scientific evidence for the use of dietary supplementation with high doses of vitamins or selenium-containing products.

[Primary and secondary prevention of benign prostatic hyperplasia: current knowledge and implications for clinical management]. / Primär- und Sekundärprävention des benignen Prostatasyndroms: Aktueller Wissenstand und Auswirkungen auf die klinische Routine.

Histological benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and the BPH disease are frequent, lead to a reduction of quality of life, are both progressive and potentially associated with complications in the lower and upper urinary tract. A PubMed/MEDLINE search was conducted for the years 1990 to 2011. This article summarizes known selective measures of primary and secondary disease prevention.Measures of primary disease prevention aim to inhibit histological BPH and the development of clinically relevant BPH. Weight loss, regular physical activity, vegetable consumption, alcohol intake, 5α-reductase inhibitors, avoidance of overweight and reduction of fatty food can reduce the probability of histological and clinical BPH. Selective measures of secondary prevention aim to inhibit disease progression and BPH-associated complications. The regular and long-term use of α1-blockers reduces lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and inhibits symptomatic disease progression but cannot prevent BPH-associated complications (e.g. urinary retention or need for prostate surgery). 5α-Reductase inhibitors can reduce the probability of symptomatic disease progression, urinary retention or need for surgery but the combination of α1-blocker and 5α-reductase inhibitor is more efficacious than either monotherapy. Especially older men with enlarged prostates (>40 cm(3)) and elevated serum PSA concentration (>1.6 µg/l) profit from measures of secondary disease prevention.For primary disease prevention, data quality is low and early treatment with 5α-reductase inhibitors is not been approved. For secondary disease prevention, men with risk factors of disease progression should use a treatment containing 5α-reductase inhibitors. Despite several epidemiological and clinical investigations on BPH disease progression no official programme exists in Germany for disease prevention.