ABSTRACT Introduction To evaluate the possible effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the oncologic results of patients with prostate cancer regarding clinical staging, presence of adverse pathological outcomes, and perioperative complications. Materials and methods This retrospective study included patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. The time between biopsy and surgery, staging tests, final histopathological evaluation after surgery, lymphadenectomy rate, postoperative complications, and prostatic specific antigen (PSA) levels (initial and 30 days after surgery) were analyzed and compared in a group of patients before and during the pandemic period. Results We included 226 patients: 88 in the pre-pandemic period and 138 during the pandemic period. There was no statistically significant difference in mean age, body mass index, ASA, pathological locally advanced disease, the proportion of patients who underwent lymphadenectomy, and ISUP grade in the biopsy between the groups. Positive surgical margins, prostatic extracapsular extension, and PSA levels at 30 days were also similar between the groups. The mean time between medical consultation and surgery was longer in the pandemic period than in the pre-pandemic (124 vs. 107 days, p<0.001), and the mean time between biopsy and medical consultation (69.5 days vs. 114 days, p<0.001) and between biopsy and surgery (198.5 days vs. 228 days, p=0.013) was shorter during the pandemic. The incidence of severe early and late perioperative complications was similar between the periods. Conclusions There was no delay between diagnosis and treatment at our institution during the COVID-19 pandemic period. No worsening of the prostate cancer features was observed.

ABSTRACT Introduction: We aimed to evaluate the role of remote proctoring during the initial training phases of a robotics curriculum using surgical robot skills simulator exercises. Materials and Methods: Prospective randomized study comprising 36 urology residents and junior staff urologists without previous robotic training. Group 1 (G1) performed exercises without any assistance or support, group 2 (G2) received support from in-person proctor, and group 3 (G3) from a remote proctor through a telementoring system. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted for each exercise and group. Results: The overall score approval rates (OSA) for the different skill exercises were Ring Walk 2 (RW2) 83%, Energy Dissection 2 (ED2) 81%, and Ring Walk 3 (RW3) 14%. RW2 OSA was higher on attempt 3 than on attempt 1 (83.3% vs. 63.9%, p=0.032). ED2 OSA rate was higher in attempt 3 than in attempt 1 (80.6% vs. 52.8%, p=0.002). RW2 OSA was similar among the groups. In ED2, both remote and live assistance were significantly related to upper OSA (G1=47.2%, G2=75.0%, G3=83.3%, p=0.002). RW3 had similar OSA among the groups, which can be explained by the high level of difficulty and low OSA in all the groups. However, in a sensitive quantitative analysis, the mean overall score of the participants in RW3 was higher in both proctored groups (G1=24, G2=57.5, G3=51.5, p=0.042). Conclusion: Robotic performance increased significantly over three attempts for simulation exercises of low, medium, but not high-complexity. Proctoring, either in-person or remotely, has a positive impact on approval performance, particularly in intermediate tasks.

ABSTRACT Purpose: Ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging (US-MRI) fusion biopsy (FB) improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to compare the Gleason upgrading (GU) rates and the concordance of the Gleason scores in the biopsy versus final pathology after surgery in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) systematic random biopsies (SRB) versus US-MRI FB for PCa. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of data that were collected prospectively from January 2011 to June 2016 from patients who underwent prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. The study cohort was divided into two groups: US-MRI FB (Group A) and TRUS SRB (Group B). US-MRI FB was performed in patients with a previous MRI with a focal lesion with a Likert score ≥3; otherwise, a TRUS SRB was performed. Results: In total, 73 men underwent US-MRI FB, and 89 underwent TRUS SRB. The GU rate was higher in Group B (31.5% vs. 16.4%; p=0.027). According to the Gleason grade pattern, GU was higher in Group B than in Group A (40.4% vs. 23.3%; p=0.020). Analyses of the Gleason grading patterns showed that Gleason scores 3+4 presented less GU in Group A (24.1% vs. 52.6%; p=0.043). The Bland-Altman plot analysis showed a higher bias in Group B than in Group A (-0.27 [-1.40 to 0.86] vs. −0.01 [-1.42 to 1.39]). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor of GU was the use of TRUS SRB (2.64 [1.11 – 6.28]; p=0.024). Conclusions: US-MRI FB appears to be related to a decrease in GU rate and an increase in concordance between biopsy and final pathology compared to TRUS SRB, suggesting that performing US-MRI FB leads to greater accuracy of diagnosis and better treatment decisions.