Robotic Radical Cystectomy with Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion - Tips and Tricks.

Radical cystectomy represents the standard surgical treatment in case of muscle invasive bladder cancer. During the last two decades a change in the surgical approach of the MIBC has been observed, from open surgery to minimal invasive surgery. Nowadays, in the majority of tertiary urologic centers, robotic radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion represents the standard surgical approach. The aim of the current study is to describe in detail the surgical steps of the robotic radical cystectomy and the reconstruction of the urinary diversion and to present our experience. From the surgical point of view, the most important principles which should guide the surgeon when performing this procedure are: 1. Good working place and access both to the pelvis and abdomen and use of the "technique of spaces" 2. Respect the oncological principles of the surgery with attention to the margin resection and limitation of the risk of tumour spillage; 3. Attention to both the ureter and bowel manipulation in order to avoid grasping lesions; 4. High care in realisation of the uretero-ileal anastomosis so that good long term functional results are achieved. We analyzed our database of 213 patients diagnosed with muscle invasive bladder cancer who underwent minimally invasive radical cystectomy (laparoscopic and robotic approaches) between January 2010 and December 2022. We identified 25 patients for whom the robotic approach was used to perform the surgery. Despite being one of the most challenging urologic surgical procedures, with careful preparation and training, the surgeon is able to achieve the maximum oncological and functional results by performing robotic radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary.

More than Meets the Eye: Using Textural Analysis and Artificial Intelligence as Decision Support Tools in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis-A Systematic Review.

(1) Introduction: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is the main imagistic tool employed to assess patients suspected of harboring prostate cancer (PCa), setting the indication for targeted prostate biopsy. However, both mpMRI and targeted prostate biopsy are operator dependent. The past decade has been marked by the emerging domain of radiomics and artificial intelligence (AI), with extended application in medical diagnosis and treatment processes. (2) Aim: To present the current state of the art regarding decision support tools based on texture analysis and AI for the prediction of aggressiveness and biopsy assistance. (3) Materials and Methods: We performed literature research using PubMed MeSH, Scopus and WoS (Web of Science) databases and screened the retrieved papers using PRISMA principles. Articles that addressed PCa diagnosis and staging assisted by texture analysis and AI algorithms were included. (4) Results: 359 papers were retrieved using the keywords "prostate cancer", "MRI", "radiomics", "textural analysis", "artificial intelligence", "computer assisted diagnosis", out of which 35 were included in the final review. In total, 24 articles were presenting PCa diagnosis and prediction of aggressiveness, 7 addressed extracapsular extension assessment and 4 tackled computer-assisted targeted prostate biopsies. (5) Conclusions: The fusion of radiomics and AI has the potential of becoming an everyday tool in the process of diagnosis and staging of the prostate malignancies.

Analyzing the learning curves of a novice and an experienced urologist for transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the learning curves of transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for two urologists with different backgrounds (Operator 1: experienced, self-trained and Operator 2: novice, trained by a mentor/MRI reading courses). METHODS: A cohort of 400 patients who underwent fusion prostate biopsy in our department was analyzed. The learning curves were assessed in terms of overall and clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates, percentage of positive biopsy cores/targeted and the percentage of PCa tissue on positive targeted cores. RESULTS: Increasing trends were observed for both urologists in terms of all biopsy outcomes during the study time. For the novice urologist, a significant increase was observed for overall PCa detection rate, but not for clinically significant disease (25.44%, P=0.04/15%, P=0.145). Operator 1 showed an increasing diagnosis yield of clinically significant disease up to 104 cases. Similar cancer detection rates were observed when comparing the first and last biopsies performed by both operators. Multivariate analysis adjusted for age, PSA, prostate volume, lesion diameter and PIRADS score showed an increase of PCa detection with 51% for every 52 biopsies performed (P=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: When starting with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy, mentoring and prostate magnetic resonance imaging reading training allow a novice urologist to demonstrate a good initial PCa detection rate. After about 52 cases, he reached a stable PCa and clinically significant PCa detection rate, that was similar to that of an experienced urologist.

Combined Systematic and MRI-US Fusion Prostate Biopsy Has the Highest Grading Accuracy When Compared to Final Pathology.

Background and objectives: Systematic prostate biopsy (SB) has a low Gleason group (GG) accuracy when compared to final pathology. This may negatively impact the inclusion of patients into specific risk groups and treatment choice. The aim of our study was to assess the GG accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion prostate biopsy. Materials and Methods: Of a cohort of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (RP), we selected all patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) via MRI-US fusion biopsy (n = 115). Results: Combined biopsy had the highest rate for GG concordance (61.7% vs. 60.4% for SB vs. 45.3% for MRI-US fusion biopsy) and the lowest for upgrading (20.9% vs. 24.5% for SB vs. 34.9% for MRI-US fusion biopsy), p < 0.0001. No clinical data were predictive for upgrading or downgrading at final pathology. Locally advanced PCa was associated with a high Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score (p = 0.0014) and higher percentages of positive biopsy cores (PBC)/targeted (p = 0.0002) and PBC/total (p = 0.01). Positive surgical margins were correlated with higher percentages of PBC/systematic (p = 0.003) and PBC/total (p = 0.009). Conclusions: Pre-biopsy prostate MRI improves GG concordance between biopsy and RP. Combined biopsy provides the highest grading accuracy when compared to final pathology. Targeted and systematic biopsy data are predictive for adverse pathologic outcomes.

MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: the next step forward!

AIM: For decades, the gold standard technique for diagnosing prostate cancer was the 10 to 12 core systematic transrectal or transperineal biopsy, under ultrasound guidance. Over the past years, an increased rate of false negative results and detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer has been noted, resulting into overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the changes in diagnosis and management of prostate cancer brought by MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. METHODS: A critical review of literature was carried out using the Medline database through a PubMed search, 37 studies meeting the inclusion criteria: prospective studies published in the past 8 years with at least 100 patients per study, which used multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as guidance for targeted biopsies. RESULTS: In-Bore MRI targeted biopsy and Fusion targeted biopsy outperform standard systematic biopsy both in terms of overall and clinically significant prostate cancer detection, and ensure a lower detection rate of insignificant prostate cancer, with fewer cores needed. In-Bore MRI targeted biopsy performs better than Fusion biopsy especially in cases of apical lesions. CONCLUSION: Targeted biopsy is an emerging and developing technique which offers the needed improvements in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer and lowers the incidence of insignificant ones, providing a more accurate selection of the patients for active surveillance and focal therapies.

MRI-US fusion guided prostate biopsy: how I do it.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-guided prostate biopsy have become the standard for pros-tate cancer diagnosis. As their implementation is relatively recent, experience is still limited in various centres. MRI-guided biopsy requires basic knowledge in prostate MRI and ultrasound (US), but also in the image processing protocol specific for each device. Standardization of the method is needed to ensure the best results in terms of diagnosis accuracy. We hereby pre-sent our technique for MRI-US fusion guided prostate biopsy and the outcomes after performing more than 600 procedures.