-
Arab Journal of Urology 2021: To systematically review the available literature on the long-term effects of sexually transmitted diseases (STIs) on male reproductive functions. A PubMed search was... (Review)
Review
: To systematically review the available literature on the long-term effects of sexually transmitted diseases (STIs) on male reproductive functions. A PubMed search was conducted on 3 January 2021, and as a result, 952 articles were retrieved. Exclusion of irrelevant articles resulted in 36 articles, dating from 1998 to 2020, which were analysed. Only 52.8% of these articles described original research, while the rest were reviews. The majority (26) of the articles dealt with bacterial infections, of which 20 described . There were 11 articles that described research on viruses, with five on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The analysis of the articles showed further that not much new knowledge on the long-term effects on male reproductive functions has been added. The existing knowledge that ascending infections can cause epididymo-orchitis, prostatitis or urethritis was confirmed. Due to epithelial inflammatory responses these infections can result in scarring with resulting infertility due to obstruction. These effects were described for or , as well as for the Zika and SARS-CoV-2 viruses. Even trichomoniasis can lead to long-term compromised male fertility if not treated. In conclusion, problem awareness needs to be raised and more research on this important topic needs to be conducted.
PubMed: 34552793
DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2021.1942414 -
Medicine Oct 2020We systematically evaluated the evidences on oncological and functional outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) as the primary treatment for localized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We systematically evaluated the evidences on oncological and functional outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) as the primary treatment for localized prostate cancer (PCa).
METHODS
A systematic review was used Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from the inception of each database. The review analyzed the oncological and functional outcomes of HIFU in the treatment of PCa. The RevMan 5.3 software was used for quantity analysis incidence of complications.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven articles were included for analysis with a total of 7393 patients. Eighteen studies investigated the whole-gland HIFU, and the duration of follow-up ranged from 2 to 168 months. After whole-gland HIFU, the mean prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir was found to be 0.4 to 1.95 ng/mL and the mean time to PSA nadir was 2.4 to 5.4 months. The rate of positive biopsy after HIFU was 4.5% to 91.1%. Meta-analysis revealed the incidences of urinary incontinence, impotence, urinary obstruction, retention, and infection was 10%, 44%, 15%, 11%, 7%, respectively. Nine studies investigated partial-gland HIFU, and the duration of follow-up was 1 to 131 months. After partial-gland HIFU, the mean PSA nadir was 1.9 to 2.7 ng/mL and the mean time to PSA nadir 5.7 to 7.3 months. The rate of positive biopsy after HIFU in the treatment area was 14% to 37.5%. Meta-analysis revealed the incidences of urinary incontinence, impotence, urinary obstruction, retention, and infection was 2%, 21%, 2%, 9%, 11%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Early evidence suggested the partial-gland HIFU was safer than whole-gland HIFU, and they had similar oncological outcomes. More prospective randomized controlled trials of whole-gland and partial-gland HIFU for PCa was needed.
Topics: High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation; Humans; Male; Postoperative Complications; Prostatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33031318
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022610 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Lower urinary tract symptoms caused by benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) represents one of the most common clinical complaints in men. Physical activity might...
BACKGROUND
Lower urinary tract symptoms caused by benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) represents one of the most common clinical complaints in men. Physical activity might represent a viable first-line intervention for treating LUTS/BPO.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of physical activity for lower urinary tract symptoms caused by benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO).
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP); checked the reference lists of retrieved articles; and handsearched abstract proceedings of conferences with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status from database inception to 6 November 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included published and unpublished randomised controlled and controlled clinical trials that included men diagnosed with LUTS/BPO. We excluded studies in which medical history suggested non-BPO causes of LUTS or prior invasive therapies to physical activity or that used electrical stimulation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We assessed primary outcomes (symptom score for LUTS; response rate, defined as 20% improvement in symptom score; withdrawal due to adverse events) and secondary outcomes (change of medication use; need for an invasive procedure; postvoid residual urine). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies that randomised 652 men over 40 years old with moderate or severe LUTS. The four different comparisons were as follows:Physical activity versus watchful waitingTwo RCTs randomised 119 participants. The interventions included tai chi and pelvic floor exercise. The evidence was overall of very low quality, and we are uncertain about the effects of physical activity on symptom score for LUTS (mean difference (MD) -8.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.2 to -3.1); response rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.80, 95% CI 0.81 to 4.02; 286 more men per 1000, 95% CI 68 fewer to 1079 more); and withdrawal due to adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.69; 0 fewer men per 1000, 95% CI 205 fewer to 345 more).Physical activity as part of self-management programme versus watchful waitingTwo RCTs randomised 362 participants. Pelvic floor exercise was one of multiple intervention components. The evidence was of very low quality, and we are uncertain about the effects of physical activity for symptom score for LUTS (MD -6.2, 95% CI -9.9 to -2.5); response rate (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.32 to 4.21; 424 more men per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 1000 more); and withdrawal due to adverse events (risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.06; 65 fewer men per 1000, 95% CI 65 fewer to 65 fewer).Physical activity as part of weight reduction programme versus watchful waitingOne RCT randomised 130 participants. An unclear type of intense exercise was one of multiple intervention components. The evidence was of very low quality, and we are uncertain about the effects for symptom score for LUTS (MD -1.1, 95% CI -3.5 to 1.3); response rate (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.94; 67 more men per 1000, 95% CI 87 fewer to 313 more); and withdrawal due to adverse events (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.57; 184 more men per 1000, 95% CI 9 more to 459 more).Physical activity versus alpha-blockersOne RCT randomised 41 participants to pelvic floor exercise or alpha-blockers. The evidence was of very low quality, and we are uncertain about the effects for symptom score for LUTS (MD 2.8, 95% CI -0.9 to 6.4) and response rate (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 167 fewer men per 1000, 95% CI 375 fewer to 125 more). The evidence was of low quality for withdrawal due to adverse events; the effects for this outcome may be similar between interventions (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.89; 7 fewer men per 1000, 95% CI 49 fewer to 626 more).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We rated the quality of the evidence for most of the effects of physical activity for LUTS/BPO as very low. We are therefore uncertain whether physical activity affects symptom scores for LUTS, response rate, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Our confidence in the estimates was lowered due to study limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. Additional high-quality research is necessary.
Topics: Adult; Exercise; Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30953341
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012044.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) represent one of the most common clinical complaints in men. Alpha-blockers are widely used... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) represent one of the most common clinical complaints in men. Alpha-blockers are widely used as first-line therapy for men with LUTS secondary to BPO, but up to one third of men report no improvement in their LUTS after taking alpha-blockers. Anticholinergics used in addition to alpha-blockers may help improve symptoms but it is uncertain how effective they are. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of combination therapy with anticholinergics and alpha-blockers in men with LUTS related to BPO.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search of medical literature, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search was 7 August 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with LUTS secondary to BPO, ages 40 years or older, and a total International Prostate Symptom Score of 8 or greater. We excluded trials of men with a known neurogenic bladder due to spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or central nervous system disease, and those examining medical therapy for men who were treated with surgery for BPO. We performed three comparisons: combination therapy versus placebo, combination therapy versus alpha-blockers monotherapy, and combination therapy versus anticholinergics monotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted data according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 studies with 6285 randomized men across three comparisons. The mean age of participants ranged from 54.4 years to 73.9 years (overall mean age 65.7 years). Of the included studies, 12 were conducted with a single-center setting, while 11 used a multi-center setting. We only found short-term effect (12 weeks to 12 months) of combination therapy based on available evidence. Combination therapy versus placebo: based on five studies with 2369 randomized participants, combination therapy may result in little or no difference in urologic symptom scores (mean difference (MD) -2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.55 to 0.08; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of combination therapy on quality of life (QoL) (MD -0.97, 95% CI -2.11 to 0.16; very low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy likely increases adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.47; moderate-certainty evidence); based on 252 adverse events per 1000 participants in the placebo group, this corresponds to 61 more adverse events (95% CI 10 more to 119 more) per 1000 participants treated with combination therapy. Combination therapy versus alpha-blockers alone: based on 22 studies with 4904 randomized participants, we are very uncertain about the effect of combination therapy on urologic symptom scores (MD -2.04, 95% CI -3.56 to -0.52; very low-certainty evidence) and QoL (MD -0.71, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.38; very low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy may result in little or no difference in adverse events rate (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence); based on 228 adverse events per 1000 participants in the alpha-blocker group, this corresponds to 23 more adverse events (95% CI 23 fewer to 78 more) per 1000 participants treated with combination therapy. Combination therapy compared to anticholinergics alone: based on three studies with 1218 randomized participants, we are very uncertain about the effect of combination therapy on urologic symptom scores (MD -3.71, 95% CI -9.41 to 1.98; very low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy may result in an improvement in QoL (MD -1.49, 95% CI -1.88 to -1.11; low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy likely results in little to no difference in adverse events (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.95; moderate-certainty evidence); based on 115 adverse events per 1000 participants in the anticholinergic alone group, this corresponds to 4 fewer adverse events (95% CI 7 fewer to 13 more) per 1000 participants treated with combination therapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the review, combination therapy with anticholinergics and alpha-blockers are associated with little or uncertain effects on urologic symptom scores compared to placebo, alpha-blockers, or anticholinergics monotherapy. However, combination therapy may result in an improvement in quality of life compared to anticholinergics monotherapy, but an uncertain effect compared to placebo, or alpha-blockers. Combination therapy likely increases adverse events compared to placebo, but not compared to alpha-blockers or anticholinergics monotherapy. The findings of this review were limited by study limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision. We were unable to conduct any of the predefined subgroup analyses.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Adult; Aged; Bias; Cholinergic Antagonists; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Middle Aged; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33567116
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012336.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is a well-established surgical method for treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is a well-established surgical method for treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This has traditionally been provided as monopolar TURP (MTURP), but morbidity associated with MTURP has led to the introduction of other surgical techniques. In bipolar TURP (BTURP), energy is confined between electrodes at the site of the resectoscope, allowing the use of physiological irrigation medium. There remains uncertainty regarding differences between these surgical methods in terms of patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of bipolar and monopolar TURP.
SEARCH METHODS
A comprehensive systematic electronic literature search was carried out up to 19 March 2019 via CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP. Handsearching of abstract proceedings of major urological conferences and of reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, and health technology assessment reports was undertaken to identify other potentially eligible studies. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared monopolar and bipolar TURP in men (> 18 years) for management of LUTS secondary to BPO.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent review authors screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed eligible RCTs for risk of bias. Statistical analyses were undertaken according to the statistical guidelines presented in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The quality of evidence (QoE) was rated according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 59 RCTs with 8924 participants were included. The mean age of included participants ranged from 59.0 to 74.1 years. Mean prostate volume ranged from 39 mL to 82.6 mL. Primary outcomes BTURP probably results in little to no difference in urological symptoms, as measured by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months on a scale of 0 to 35, with higher scores reflecting worse symptoms (mean difference (MD) -0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to -0.09; participants = 2531; RCTs = 16; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence (CoE), downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably results in little to no difference in bother, as measured by health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score at 12 months on a scale of 0 to 6, with higher scores reflecting greater bother (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.02; participants = 2004; RCTs = 11; I² = 53%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably reduces transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome events slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30; participants = 6745; RCTs = 44; I² = 0%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to 20 fewer TUR syndrome events per 1000 participants (95% CI 22 fewer to 17 fewer). Secondary outcomes BTURP may carry a similar risk of urinary incontinence at 12 months (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; participants = 751; RCTs = 4; I² = 0%; low CoE, downgraded for study limitations and imprecision), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to four fewer events of urinary incontinence per 1000 participants (95% CI five fewer to 16 more). BTURP probably slightly reduces blood transfusions (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.59; participants = 5727; RCTs = 38; I² = 0%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to 28 fewer events of blood transfusion per 1000 participants (95% CI 34 fewer to 20 fewer). BTURP may result in similar rates of re-TURP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.40; participants = 652; RCTs = 6; I² = 0%; low CoE, downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). This corresponds to one more re-TURP per 1000 participants (95% CI 19 fewer to 48 more). Erectile function as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function score (IIEF-5) at 12 months on a scale from 5 to 25, with higher scores reflecting better erectile function, appears to be similar (MD 0.88, 95% CI -0.56 to 2.32; RCTs = 3; I² = 68%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations) for the two approaches.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
BTURP and MTURP probably improve urological symptoms, both to a similar degree. BTURP probably reduces both TUR syndrome and postoperative blood transfusion slightly compared to MTURP. The impact of both procedures on erectile function is probably similar. The moderate certainty of evidence available for the primary outcomes of this review suggests that there is no need for further RCTs comparing BTURP and MTURP.
Topics: Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Treatment Outcome; Urologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 31792928
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009629.pub4 -
Clinical Genitourinary Cancer Aug 2024High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is regarded as a promising alternative treatment option for localized prostate cancer (PCa) as it has been proposed to offer...
INTRODUCTION
High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is regarded as a promising alternative treatment option for localized prostate cancer (PCa) as it has been proposed to offer similar oncologic control to the standard of care, but with significantly reduced treatment-related side effects. This systematic literature review assesses the available evidence of whole-gland HIFU as primary treatment for localized PCa.
METHODS
MEDLINE (PubMed) was searched for studies investigating oncological and functional outcomes following whole-gland HIFU as primary treatment for localized PCa. Our primary outcomes for the review were biochemical disease-free survival rates (BDFS), overall and PCa-specific survival rates as well as negative biopsy rates. Our secondary outcomes were functional results and complications of the treatment.
RESULTS
A total of 375 articles were identified, of which 35 were included in the present review. All 35 articles were prospective or retrospective case series. Mean/median duration of follow-up across studies was 10.9 to 94 months, and 6618 patients were included in the review. The BDFS rate varied greatly across studies from 21.7% to 89.2% during follow-up. The 10-year PCa-specific survival rate following HIFU was 90%, 99%, and 100% in 3 studies. Negative biopsy rates post-HIFU ranged from 20% to 92.7% across studies. Common side effects to HIFU included urinary incontinence (grade 1: 0%-22.7%), erectile dysfunction (11.6%-77.1%), urinary tract infections (1.5%-47.9%), and bladder outlet obstruction mainly as urethral strictures (7%-41.2%).
CONCLUSION
Great variation in oncological and functional outcomes was seen across studies. More prospective trials are needed before whole-gland HIFU can be considered as a treatment option for localized PCa.
Topics: Humans; Male; Disease-Free Survival; High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation; Prostatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasound, High-Intensity Focused, Transrectal
PubMed: 38811288
DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102101 -
Brachytherapy 2021The purpose of this guideline is to present evidence-based consensus recommendations for low dose rate (LDR) permanent seed brachytherapy for the primary treatment of...
PURPOSE
The purpose of this guideline is to present evidence-based consensus recommendations for low dose rate (LDR) permanent seed brachytherapy for the primary treatment of prostate cancer.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
The American Brachytherapy Society convened a task force for addressing key questions concerning ultrasound-based LDR prostate brachytherapy for the primary treatment of prostate cancer. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify prospective and multi-institutional retrospective studies involving LDR brachytherapy as monotherapy or boost in combination with external beam radiation therapy with or without adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Outcomes included disease control, toxicity, and quality of life.
RESULTS
LDR prostate brachytherapy monotherapy is an appropriate treatment option for low risk and favorable intermediate risk disease. LDR brachytherapy boost in combination with external beam radiation therapy is appropriate for unfavorable intermediate risk and high-risk disease. Androgen deprivation therapy is recommended in unfavorable intermediate risk and high-risk disease. Acceptable radionuclides for LDR brachytherapy include iodine-125, palladium-103, and cesium-131. Although brachytherapy monotherapy is associated with increased urinary obstructive and irritative symptoms that peak within the first 3 months after treatment, the median time toward symptom resolution is approximately 1 year for iodine-125 and 6 months for palladium-103. Such symptoms can be mitigated with short-term use of alpha blockers. Combination therapy is associated with worse urinary, bowel, and sexual symptoms than monotherapy. A prostate specific antigen <= 0.2 ng/mL at 4 years after LDR brachytherapy may be considered a biochemical definition of cure.
CONCLUSIONS
LDR brachytherapy is a convenient, effective, and well-tolerated treatment for prostate cancer.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Brachytherapy; Consensus; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34509378
DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2021.07.006