Amnon Zisman

Introduction: Hypospadias is a syndrome of penile maldevelopment. The primary goal of hypospadias surgery is to create a penis with normal appearance and function. Historically, the outcome of hypospadias repair has been assessed based on the need for reoperation due to urethroplasty complications (UC), including fistula formation, dehiscence, meatal stenosis, or development of a urethral stricture. The Glans–Urethral Meatus–Shaft (GMS) score is a standardized tool to predict UC. Analysis of the cosmetic outcomes of hypospadias repair based on the appearance of the reconstructed penis has been validated, and standardized scores have been published. The Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) score is a validated questionnaire used to assess postoperative cosmetic outcomes. Although predictors of surgical outcomes and UC have been well documented, predictors of optimal cosmetic outcomes are lacking in the literature. Furthermore, reoperation due to cosmetic considerations has been poorly reported. Objective: To identify predictors of cosmetic outcomes after hypospadias repair and to assess the reoperation rate according to cosmetic considerations. Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study included 126 boys who underwent primary hypospadias repair. The severity of hypospadias, degree of penile curvature, glans width, preoperative HOPE, and GMS scores were documented. The standard technique for single-stage repairs, the tubularized incised plate urethroplasty, was performed. The primary endpoint was cosmetic outcomes evaluated by the HOPE score questionnaire six months postoperatively. Optimal cosmetic results were defined by HOPE scores ≥ 57. Results: The study population consisted of the following cases: 87 (69%) subcoronal, 32 (25%) shaft, and 7 (6%) proximal hypospadias. Among the study participants, 102 boys (81%) had optimal cosmetic results (HOPE ≥ 57), and 24 boys (19%) had surgeries with suboptimal cosmetic outcomes (HOPE < 57). Ancillary procedures were performed in 21 boys (16%), of which 14 (11%) were solely for cosmetic considerations, and 7 were secondary to UC. Using the Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis of potential predictors of optimal cosmetic outcomes, the preoperative HOPE score had the highest area under the curve (AUC = 0.79; 95% CI 0.69–0.89, p < 0.001). After multivariable analysis, the degree of penile chordee (p = 0.013), glans width (p = 0.003), GMS score (p = 0.007), and preoperative HOPE score (p = 0.002) were significant predictors of cosmetic outcomes. Although meatal location predicted suboptimal cosmetic results in univariate analysis, it was not a factor in multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Over 80% of boys undergoing hypospadias repair achieved optimal cosmetic outcomes. More than 10% of cases underwent ancillary procedures, secondary solely to cosmetic considerations. Predictors of optimal cosmetic outcomes after hypospadias surgery included degree of chordee, glans width, and preoperative HOPE and GMS scores, which were the best predictors of satisfactory cosmetic results. Although meatal location is the main predictor of UC, it was not a predictor for cosmetic outcomes. Factors affecting cosmetic outcomes should be clearly explained to parents during the preoperative consultation.

Objectives To compare the ability of ⁶⁸Ga -PSMA PET/CT (PSMA PET/CT) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) to exclude lymph node invasion (LNI) in patients who undergo radical prostatectomy (RP). Materials and methods A multicenter cohort of patients who underwent PSMA PET/CT and pelvic mpMRI prior to RP with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) was analyzed. Increased Ga68-PSMA uptake on PET/CT and enlarged (> 10 mm) or abnormal lymph nodes on mpMRI were considered positive findings. The final surgical pathology served as the standard of reference. The negative predictive value (NPV) was calculated for each modality separately, as well as the combined value. Results Included were 89 patients with D’Amico intermediate (45%) or high-risk (55%) prostate cancer. The median number of extracted LN was 9 (IQR 6-14). LNI was found in 12 (13.5%) patients. The NPV of mpMRI, PSMA PET/CT, and the two tests combined were 87%, 89%, and 90%, in the entire cohort, 95%, 97%, and 97% in patients with intermediate-risk disease, and 80%, 82%, and 83% in patients with high-risk disease, respectively. The median diameter of LN missed by both imaging and the median intranodal tumor diameter was 5.5 (IQR 3–10) mm and 1 (IQR 1–3) mm, respectively. Conclusions PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI demonstrated similar performance in excluding pelvic LNI with NPV of approximately 90%. The combination of both tests does not improve NPV significantly. Therefore, even in the era of advanced imaging, PLND is still recommended for accurate staging, especially in the high-risk population.

Hemorrhagic radiation cystitis (HRC) is a significant clinical problem that occurs after pelvic radiation therapy and is often refractory. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) for HRC. Daily 90 minute sessions of HBO at 2 ATM 100% oxygen were given to 32 HRC patients with ASTRO grades 3-4 hematuria. The median age was 72.5 (48-88 years). The median time interval between radiation therapy and HBO was 4 years (1-26 years). The patients received a median of 30 HBO sessions (3-53). Hematuria resolved in 27 patients (84%) and persisted in 5. Cystectomy was required in two, and ileal-conduit and bilateral percutaneous nephrostomies were performed in one and two patients, respectively. With a median follow-up of 12 months (5-74 months), the hematuria cleared completely in 16 patients (59%) and mild hematuria requiring no further treatment recurred in 10 others. Another patient with ASTRO grade 4 hematuria needed bladder irrigation and blood transfusions. Complications included eardrum perforation in four patients and transient vertigo and mild hemoptysis in one case each. None of them required HBO discontinuation. HBO controlled bleeding in 84% of the patients. A durable freedom from significant hematuria was achieved in 96% of the patients. HBO seems to be an effective and safe modality in patients with HRC.

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy among elderly men. Due to its indolent course and the fact that the majority of contemporary patients are diagnosed early, disease progression to metastasis often occurs many years after the initial diagnosis. Elderly men who have concurrent severe illnesses may not experience progression to metastasis during their lifetime. Therefore, it is reasonable to withhold active therapy in some patients avoiding the associated risks, and impact on patient quality of life. Watchful waiting (WW) is an adequate approach in such cases, and has been shown to be associated with a similar overall survival when compared with radical prostatectomy. However, the disease-specific survival was better in patients who had undergone surgery. Prostate cancer patients often find it hard to persist on a WW policy. This is due to their expectation to be treated, to fight, and win the battle over cancer. Consequently, many patients who start on WW drop out and seek active treatment within several years, mostly when PSA elevation is noted. Active surveillance for prostate cancer is a novel approach consisting of avoiding the risks of therapy, while allowing the early detection of those who are prone to progress. In these high-risk individuals delayed active treatment is offered. Active surveillance consists of periodic monitoring of the PSA serum level, digital rectal exam and repeated prostate biopsies. Threshold values for these parameters are pre-defined and active therapy is instituted when such threshold values are met. Preliminary results of active surveillance show that more patients remain on a surveillance regimen as compared with the traditional WW; it is possible to offer curative treatment to individuals who were defined as having high risk by active surveillance parameters, and the disease-specific mortality is similar to that with WW. Active surveillance for prostate cancer is a novel and fascinating approach that may improve our ability to distinguish between patients who have a higher risk and need active therapy, and others in whom the risk for progression remains low and avoiding the risks of therapy is warranted.