Context: The first case of the new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2), was identified in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Since then, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was reclassified as a pandemic, and health systems around the world have faced an unprecedented challenge. Objective: To summarize guidelines and recommendations on the urology standard of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence acquisition: Guidelines and recommendations published between November 2019 and April 17, 2020 were retrieved using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. This was supplemented by searching the web pages of international urology societies. Our inclusion criteria were guidelines, recommendations, or best practice statements by international urology organizations and reference centers about urological care in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Of 366 titles identified, 15 guidelines met our criteria. Evidence synthesis: Of the 15 guidelines, 14 addressed emergency situations and 12 reported on assessment of elective uro-oncology procedures. There was consensus on postponing radical prostatectomy except for high-risk prostate cancer, and delaying treatment for low-grade bladder cancer, small renal masses up to T2, and stage I seminoma. According to nine guidelines that addressed endourology, obstructed or infected kidneys should be decompressed, whereas nonobstructing stones and stent removal should be rescheduled. Five guidelines/recommendations discussed laparoscopic and robotic surgery, while the remaining recommendations focused on outpatient procedures and consultations. All recommendations represented expert opinions, with three specifically endorsed by professional societies. Only the European Association of Urology guidelines provided evidence-based levels of evidence (mostly level 3 evidence). Conclusions: To make informed decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are multiple national and international guidelines and recommendations for urologists to prioritize the provision of care. Differences among the guidelines were minimal. Patient summary: We performed a systematic review of published recommendations on urological practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which provide guidance on prioritizing the timing for different types of urological care.

Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The reported discordance between staging on transurethral bladder resection and on radical cystectomy pathology in the literature ranges from 20 to 80%.Correct staging in bladder cancer has direct implications for its management. The upstaging from organ‐confined (OC) to non‐organ‐confined (nOC) disease has been reported in 40% of cases. Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is a factor known to be associated with poor clinical outcome. Pathological upstaging was observed in our cohort in 40% of cases and most cases (80%) were upstaged from OC to nOC disease. During the study period the frequency of upstaging observed increased. We found LVI (hazard ratio [HR]= 5.07, 95% CI = 3.0–8.3, P < 0.001) and any histological variant variant (HR = 2.77, 95% CI = 1.6–4.8, P < 0.001) to be strong independent predictors of upstaging. Patients with clinical T2 bladder cancer found with upstaging at the time of radical cystectomy had a poorer outcome than patients with no upstaging. Identification of patients at high risk of upstaging at radical cystectomy is key to improving their management and outcome. OBJECTIVES To analyse the details of bladder cancer (BC) staging in a large combined radical cystectomy (RC) database from two academic centres. To study rate and time trends, as well as risk factors for upstaging, especially clinical factors associated with staging errors after RC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Characteristics of patients undergoing RC at University Health Network, Toronto, Canada (1992–2010) and University of Turku, Turku, Finland (1986–2005) were analysed. RESULTS Among 602 patients undergoing RC, 306 (51%) had a discordance in clinical and pathological stages. Upstaging occurred in 240 (40%) patients and 192 (32%) patients were upstaged from organ‐confined (OC) to non‐organ‐confined (nOC) disease. During the study period, upstaging became more common in both centres. In multivariate analyses, T2 disease at initial presentation (P= 0.001, odds ratio [OR]= 2.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.44–4.77), high grade disease (P= 0.01, OR = 2.85, 95% CI: 1.21–6.7), lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (P < 0.001, OR = 5.17, 95% CI: 3.48–7.68), female gender (P= 0.038, OR = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.38–0.97, and histological variants (P < 0.001, OR = 2.77, 95% CI: 1.6–4.8) were associated with a risk of upstaging from OC to nOC disease. Upstaged patients had worse survival rates than patients with correct staging. This was especially significant among patients with carcinoma invading bladder muscle before undergoing RC (16% vs 46% 10‐year disease‐specific mortality, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Upstaging is a common problem and unfortunately no improvements have been observed during the last two decades. LVI and the presence of histological variants are strong predictors of upstaging at the time of RC. Pathologists should be encouraged to report LVI and any histological variant at the time of TURBT.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic and potential prognostic value of cell-free plasma DNA (CF-pDNA) in patients with suspected or histologically proven prostate cancer (PCa). We included 133 men with a diagnosis of PCa and 33 controls. PCa patients had blood samples prospectively drawn every 3 months for 2 years. CF-pDNA was measured by spectrophotometry. Considering a cut-off value of 140 ng/mL of CF-pDNA the area under the curve was of 0.824(0.757-0.879 with a sensitivity = 66.2 % and a specificity = 87.9 %) and the positive and negative likelihood ratio were of 5.46 and 0.39, respectively. CF-pDNA tends to decrease slightly and return to baseline values in about a week after biopsy. There was no statistical significant correlation between CF-pDNA levels at study entry with PSA, Gleason score, stage and biochemical recurrence free survival (BRFS). However, with a mean follow-up of 13.5 months, we could observe a significant shorter BRFS for patients with at least one value above 140 ng/mL of CF-pDNA during follow-up (p = 0.048). CF-pDNA is a potentially valuable biomarker for PCa diagnosis and a potential tool for the follow-up of patients with PCa.