Hemiablation HIFU therapy, delivered with intention to treat, for carefully selected patients affords mid-term promising functional and oncological outcomes. The effectiveness of this technique should be now compared with whole-gland radical therapy.

BackgroundLower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) in men are a common clinical problem in urology and have been historically strictly linked to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), which may lead to bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). New molecules have been approved and have entered the urologists’ armamentarium, targeting new signaling pathways and tackling specific aspects of LUTS. Objective of this review is to summarize the evidence regarding the new medical therapies currently available for male non-neurogenic LUTS, including superselective α1-antagonists, PDE-5 inhibitors, anticholinergic drugs and intraprostatic onabotulinum toxin injections.MethodsThe National Library of Medicine Database was searched for relevant articles published between January 2006 and December 2015, including the combination of “BPH”, “LUTS”, “medical” and “new”. Each article’s title, abstract and text were reviewed for their appropriateness and their relevance. One hundred forty eight articles were reviewed.ResultsOf the 148 articles reviewed, 92 were excluded. Silodosin may be considered a valid alternative to non-selective α1-antagonists, especially in the older patients where blood pressure alterations may determine major clinical problems and ejaculatory alterations may be not truly bothersome. Tadalafil 5 mg causes a significant decrease of IPSS score with an amelioration of patients’ QoL, although with no significant increase in Qmax. Antimuscarinic drugs are effective on storage symptoms but should be used with caution in patients with elevated post-void residual. Intraprostatic injections of botulinum toxin are well-tolerated and effective, with a low rate of adverse events; however profound ameliorations were seen also in the sham arms of RCTs evaluating intraprostatic injections.ConclusionNew drugs have been approved in the last years in the medical treatment of BPH-related LUTS. Practicing urologists should be familair with their pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) represents a spectrum of related lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The cost of currently recommended medications and the discontinuation rate due to side effects are significant drawbacks limiting their long-term use in clinical practice. Interventional procedures, considered as the definitive treatment for BPH, carry a significant risk of treatment-related complications in frail patients. These issues have contributed to the emergence of new approaches as alternative options to standard therapies. This paper reviews the recent literature regarding the experimental treatments under investigation and presents the currently available experimental devices and techniques used under local anesthesia for the treatment of LUTS/BPH in the vast majority of cases. Devices for delivery of thermal treatment (microwaves, radiofrequency, high-intensity focused ultrasound, and the Rezum system), mechanical devices (prostatic stent and urethral lift), fractionation of prostatic tissue (histotripsy and aquablation), prostate artery embolization, and intraprostatic drugs are discussed. Evidence for the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of these “minimally invasive procedures” is analyzed.

Purpose. To evaluate postoperative morbidity and long term oncologic and functional outcomes of high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) compared to brachytherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Material and Methods. Patients treated by brachytherapy were matched 1 : 1 with patients who underwent HIFU. Differences in postoperative complications across the two groups were assessed using Wilcoxon's rank-sum or χ 2 test. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox regression models were constructed to assess differences in survival rates between the two groups. Results. Brachytherapy was significantly associated with lower voiding LUTS and less frequent acute urinary retention (p < 0.05). Median oncologic follow-up was 83 months (13–123 months) in the HIFU cohort and 44 months (13–89 months) in the brachytherapy cohort. Median time to achieve PSA nadir was statistically shorter in the HIFU. Biochemical recurrence-free survival rate was significantly higher in the brachytherapy cohort compared to HIFU cohort (68.5% versus 53%, p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference in metastasis-free, cancer specific, and overall survivals was observed between the two groups. Conclusion. HIFU and brachytherapy are safe with no significant difference in cancer specific survival on long term oncologic follow-up. Nonetheless, a randomized controlled trial is needed to confirm these results.

MRI-targeted biopsies increased the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer only in patients with enlarged prostates compared to the 3D TRUS.