This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

The pandemic acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) named COVID-19 is causing a severe health emergency, and an individual’s hormonal milieu may play an important role in both susceptibility to infection and severity of clinical course. We analyzed the role of testosterone in the immune response, and we hypothesized possible mechanisms to explain the high incidence of COVID-19 infection and a worse clinical course in elderly male patients. Testosterone may impair the immune response, and this effect could explain the greater susceptibility of men to infection. Transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) plays a crucial role in the entry of the virus into the respiratory epithelial cells, leading to COVID-19 disease. It is crucial to emphasize that testosterone levels and chemical castration (e.g. by androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer) may have contrasting roles in the phases of COVID-19 infection. Whereas low testosterone levels may be protective against the initial susceptibility (due to a restoration of immunological functions and a block of TMPRSS2), low testosterone may stimulate a worse clinical course in the advanced COVID-19 infection as it could exacerbate or activate the cytokine storm. If testosterone levels play these different roles, it is necessary to carefully identify patients for any indicated testosterone manipulation.

Purpose: Most of the endourologic procedures along the urinary tract have been widely practiced as outpatient operations, including surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess safety and feasibility of outpatient surgery for patients suffering from symptomatic BPH candidate for endoscopic disobstruction. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase were searched up until March 30, 2020. Methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) tool was utilized to assess the quality of included studies, and a pooled measure of failure rate (FR) or event rate (ER) estimate was calculated. Further sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression were conducted to investigate contribution of moderators to heterogeneity. Results: Twenty studies with a total of 1626 patients treated according to outpatient criteria for endoscopic BPH surgery were included. In total, 18 studies reporting data on immediate hospital readmission and/or inability to discharge after endoscopic procedure presented FR estimates ranging from 1.7% to 51.1%. Pooled FR estimate was 7.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.2-10.3); Heterogeneity: Q = 76.85; degree of freedom = 17, p < 0.001; I 2 = 75.12%. Subgroup analysis according to surgical technique revealed difference among the three approaches with pooled FR of 3% (95% CI: 1-4.9), 7.1% (95% CI: 3.9-10.4), and 11.8% (95% CI: 7-16.7) for transurethral resection of the prostate, Green-light, and holmium laser vaporesection, respectively (p < 0.001). At meta-regression analysis, none of the retrieved covariates was able to significantly influence the cumulative outcomes reported. ER for postoperative complications and early outpatient visit showed a pooled estimate of 18.6% (95% CI: 13.2-23.9) and 7.7% (95% CI: 4.3-11), respectively. Conclusions: Our analysis revealed how transurethral procedures for BPH on an outpatient setting are overall reliable and safe. Of note, there were significant outcome differences between groups with regard to type of surgical procedure, perioperative prostate volume, and discharge protocol suggesting the need for further prospective analysis to better elucidate the best strategy in such outpatient conduct.

The aim of our meta-analysis is to analyze data available in the literature regarding a possible prognostic value of the albumin to globulin ratio (AGR) in prostate cancer (PC) patients. We distinguished our analysis in terms of PC staging, histologic aggressiveness, and risk of progression after treatments. A literature search process was performed (“prostatic cancer”, “albumin”, “globulin”, “albumin to globulin ratio”) following the PRISMA guidelines. In our meta-analysis, the pooled Event Rate (ER) estimate for each group of interest was calculated using a random effect model. Cases were distinguished in Low and High AGR groups based on an optimal cut-off value defined at ROC analysis. Four clinical trials were enclosed (sample size range from 214 to 6041 cases). The pooled Risk Difference for a non-organ confined PC between High AGR and Low AGR cases was −0.05 (95%CI: −0.12–0.01) with a very low rate of heterogeneity (I2 < 0.15%; p = 0.43) among studies (test of group differences p = 0.21). In non-metastatic PC cases, the pooled Risk Difference for biochemical progression (BCP) between High AGR and Low AGR cases was −0.05 (95%CI: −0.12–0.01) (I2 = 0.01%; p = 0.69) (test of group differences p = 0.12). In metastatic PC cases, AGR showed an independent significant (p < 0.01) predictive value either in terms of progression free survival (PFS) (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.642 (0.430–0.957)) or cancer specific survival (CSS) (OR: 0.412 (0.259–0.654)). Our meta-analysis showed homogeneous results supporting no significant predictive values for AGR in terms of staging, grading and biochemical progression in non-metastatic PC.