Purpose: To evaluate the signifi cance of several risk factors for prostate cancer in a cohort of Brazilian men. Subjects and methods: Men  40 years-old participating in a prostate cancer screening program between December 2006 and April 2011 in the city of Curitiba, Brazil, were evaluated to determine the prevalence, relative risk (RR) and 95% CI of prostate cancer according to age, race, ethnicity, family history of prostate cancer, educational level, and history of vasectomy, increased blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, and urethritis. Results: In 2121 men included in this study, prostate cancer prevalence was 0.6% for men between 40-49 years versus 2.0% (adjusted RR = 2.58), 7.7% (adjusted RR = 5.76), and 8.4% (adjusted RR = 4.88) for men 50-59 years, 60-69 years, and  70 years, respectively (p < 0.05 to all). The prevalence of cancer was 5.1% in blacks versus 3.3% in whites (adjusted RR = 1.56, p > 0.05); 6.1% in African descendants, in comparison to 3.0% in non-African descendants (adjusted RR = 3.17, p < 0.05); 5.1% in men with a positive family history, compared to 2.5% in those with no family history (adjusted RR = 1.55, p > 0.05); and 4.8% in participants with incomplete elementary school level or lower, compared to 2.2% in men with complete elementary school level or higher education (adjusted RR = 1.85, p > 0.05). Men with/without history of vasectomy, increased blood pressure, diabetes, and urethritis had a prostate cancer prevalence of 0.8%/3.0% (adjusted RR = 0.23, p > 0.05), 3.8%/2.2% (adjusted RR = 1.16, p > 0.05), 3.7%/2.6% (adjusted RR = 1.39, p > 0.05), and 2.6%/2.6% (adjusted RR = 0.99, p > 0.05), respectively. Conclusions: Risk factors associated with an increased prevalence of prostate cancer in this cohort included increasing age and African ethnicity.

Purpose: To report the prevalence and risk factors of penile lesions/anomalies in a Metropolitan Brazilian city. Materials and Methods: All participants undergoing prostate cancer screening in the city of Curitiba were systematically examined to identify penile lesions including cutaneous mycosis, sexually transmitted diseases, penile cancer, meatal stenosis, hypospadias, and Peyronie's disease. Outcomes of interest included the prevalence and the relative risk and 95% confidence intervals of the lesions/anomalies according to age, school level, race, personal history of diabetes, arterial hypertension, nonspecific urethritis, and vasectomy. Results: Balanoposthitis occurred in 11.8% of all participants, with an increased risk in those with diabetes (RR = 1.73), or past history of nonspecific urethritis (RR = 1.58); tinea of the penis was present in 0.2%; condyloma acuminata in 0.5%; herpes virus infection in 0.4%; urethral discharge in 0.2%; genital vitiligo in 0.7%, with an increased prevalence in non-white men (RR = 4.43), and in subjects with lower school level (RR = 7.24); phimosis in 0.5%, with a nearly 7-fold increased risk in diabetics; lichen sclerosus in 0.3%; stenosis of the external urethral meatus in 0.7%, with a higher prevalence in subjects with lichen sclerosus (RR = 214.9), and in those older than 60 years of age (RR = 3.57); hypospadia in 0.6%; fibrosis suggestive of Peyronie's disease in 0.9%, especially in men older than 60 years (RR = 4.59) and with diabetes (RR = 3.91); and penile cancer in 0.06%. Conclusion: We estimated the prevalence and risk factors of commonly seen penile diseases in an adult cohort of Brazilian men.

INTRODUcTIONProstate cancer is the most common form of noncutaneous cancer in men and the second leading cause of male cancer mortality. The incidence of prostate cancer varies according to racial/ethnic differences in several countries (1). The estimated incidence of prosBackground: Black men have a higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with White men in several countries. In Brazil, most studies reported a similar prevalence of prostate cancer between Blacks and Whites as a result of the high race mixture of the population. Objective: To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of the prevalence of prostate cancer in Black versus White, Brown versus White, and Black versus Brown Brazilian men. Design, Setting, and Participants: This systematic review included cohort, cross sectional and case-control studies comparing the prevalence of prostate cancer between races in Brazil. It was performed using an electronic search of references in bibliographic databases, and dissertations and theses databases from several Brazilian hospitals, universities, and schools of medicine. Meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan software from the Cochrane Collaboration. To control for potential confounding variables, sensitivity analyses excluding case-control and cross sectional studies were performed. Measurements: The outcomes of interest included the number of participants, prevalence of prostate cancer, and odds ratio of cancer between Black and White men, Brown and White men, and Black and Brown men. Results and Limitations: : Twelve studies approaching the prevalence of prostate cancer in Black or Brown vs. White men in Brazil were identifi ed, totalizing 41388 participants. The prevalence of prostate cancer was 9.6% in Black vs. 5.6% in White men (OR 1.58), 10.1% in Black vs. 6.7% in Brown men (OR 1.43), and 6.7% in Brown vs. 6.6% in White men (OR 1.14). Limitations of this review refl ect the complexity and ambiguity in the defi nition of who is Black and who is not in such an heterogeneous population like the Brazilian people. Conclusions: This systematic review with meta-analysis demonstrates a higher prevalence of prostate cancer in Black men compared to White or Brown Brazilian men. The prevalence of prostate cancer is similar in Brown versus White men.

Objective: To help students, residents, and general practitioners to improve the technique, skills, and reproducibility of their prostate examination. Methods: We developed a comprehensive guideline outlining prostate anatomy, indications, patient preparation, positioning, technique, findings, and limitations of this ancient art of urological evaluation. Results: The prostate exam was the first diagnostic test used for prostate cancer screening and other urological conditions. Although several alternative procedures have been developed in the past century, the prostate exam is still an important part of genital-pelvic evaluation because of its simplicity, cost and time effectiveness, and relatively minimal patient discomfort experienced. Conclusion: With an aging population and increasing incidence of prostate diseases, it is imperative that healthcare professionals possess the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to make the prostate exam a routine part of a complete physical examination.

To evaluate patients' perception of pain and discomfort during DRE, the impact of discomfort on potential future screening compliance, and if emptying the bladder immediately before DRE reduces patient discomfort. METHODS: One-hundred patients undergoing DRE for prostate cancer screening answered an anonymous questionnaire regarding pain, urinary urgency and bowel urgency during DRE and its potential impact on future examination. Another group with 100 patients was randomized in two subgroups to analyze if urinating immediately before DRE reduces patient discomfort.