Background: Single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy has been reported as a safe and feasible technique. However, recent studies comparing single-port versus multiple-port robotic radical prostatectomy have displayed conflicting results. Objectives: To investigate the benefit of single-port robotic radical prostatectomy and the impact on outcome compared to multiple-port robotic radical prostatectomy. Methods: Based on PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out. Finally, we considered the controlled studies with two cohorts (one cohort for single-port RARP and the other cohort for multiple-port RARP). For statistical analysis, Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.4 was used. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was employed to assess the risk of bias. Results: Five non-randomized controlled studies with 666 patients were included. Single-port robotic radical prostatectomy was associated with shorter hospital stays. Only 60.6% of single-port patients (109/180) required analgesia compared to 90% (224/249) of multiple-port patients (Z = 3.50; p = 0.0005; 95% CI 0.07:0.47). Opioid administration was also significantly lower in single-port patients, 26.2% (34/130) vs. 56.6% (77/136) (Z = 4.90; p < 0.00001; 95% CI 0.15:–0.44) There was no significant difference in operative time, blood loss, complication rate, positive surgical margin rate, or continence at day 90. Conclusion: The available data on single-port robotic radical prostatectomy is very limited. However, it seems comparable to the multiple-port platform in terms of short-term outcomes when performed with expert surgeons. Single-port prostatectomies might provide a shorter hospital stay and a lower requirement for opioids; however, randomized trials with long-term follow-up are mandatory for valid comparisons.

Background: The impact of prostate size on the radical prostatectomy outcome is not clear. Several published reports have shown conflicting results. Objectives: To investigate the effect of prostate size on the surgical, functional and oncological results of radical prostatectomy. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. Finally, we investigated the research that reported on the impact of prostate size on radical prostatectomy outcome. The Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.4 was utilized for statistical analysis. Results: Eighteen studies including 12,242 patients were included. Estimated blood loss was significantly less with smaller prostates (Z = 3.01; p = 0.003). The complications rate was 17% with larger prostates, compared to 10% for smaller prostates (Z = 5.73; p < 0.00001). Seventy-three percent of patients with a smaller prostate were continent within one month, compared to 64% with a larger prostate (Z = 1.59; p = 0.11). The rate of positive surgical margins was significantly higher with smaller prostates (20.2% vs. 17.8%). (Z = 2.52; p = 0.01). The incidence of biochemical recurrence was higher with smaller prostates (7.8% vs. 4.9%) (Z = 1.87; p = 0.06). Conclusion: Larger prostate size is associated with more blood loss and a higher rate of complications. However, the oncological outcome is better, compared to that in patients with smaller prostates. The impact of the size on the functional outcome is not clear.

Bladder cancer (BC) recurrence is one of the primary clinical problems encountered by patients following chemotherapy. However, the mechanisms underlying their resistance to chemotherapy remain unclear. Alteration in the pattern of membrane proteins (MPs) is thought to be associated with this recurrence outcome, often leading to cell dysfunction. Since MPs are found throughout the cell membrane, they have become the focus of attention for cancer diagnosis and treatment. Identifying specific and sensitive biomarkers for BC, therefore, requires a major collaborative effort. This review describes studies on membrane proteins as potential biomarkers to facilitate personalised medicine. It aims to introduce and discuss the types and significant functions of membrane proteins as potential biomarkers for future medicine. Other types of biomarkers such as DNA-, RNA- or metabolite-based biomarkers are not included in this review, but the focus is mainly on cell membrane surface protein-based biomarkers.

Recently, checkpoint inhibitors have been investigated in metastatic prostate cancer, however their overall effect is unclear and needs to be further investigated. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the oncological response of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Methods: Based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, a systematic review of the literature was conducted through online electronic databases and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Meeting Library. Eligible publications were selected after a staged screening and selection process. RevMan 5.4 software was employed to run the quantitative analysis and forest plots. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for the randomized and non-randomized trials, respectively. Results: From the 831 results retrieved, 8 studies including 2768 patients were included. There was no significant effect on overall survival (OS) (overall response (OR) = 0.98; Z = 0.42; p = 0.67). Meanwhile, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly better with immune checkpoint inhibitors administration (OR = 0.85; Z = 3.9; p < 0.0001). The subgroup analysis for oncological outcomes based on programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) positivity status displayed no significant effect, except on prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA RR) (OR = 3.25; Z = 2.29; p = 0.02). Based on DNA damage repair (DDR), positive patients had a significantly better PFS and a trend towards better OS and overall response rate (ORR); the ORR was 40% in positive patients compared to 20% in the negative patients (OR = 2.46; Z = 1.3; p = 0.19), while PSA RR was 23.5% compared to 14.3% (OR = 1.88; Z = 0.88; p = 0.38). Better PFS was clearly associated with DDR positivity (OR = 0.70; Z = 2.48; p = 0.01) with a trend towards better OS in DDR positive patients (OR = 0.71; Z = 1.38; p = 0.17). Based on tumor mutation burden (TMB), ORR was 46.7% with high TMB versus 8.8% in patients with low TMB (OR = 11.88; Z = 3.0; p = 0.003). Conclusions: Checkpoint inhibitors provide modest oncological advantages in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. There are currently no good predictive indicators that indicate a greater response in some patients.

Background: Recently, the combination of durvalumab and tremelimumab, two immune checkpoint inhibitors, for the treatment of different types of cancers has been considered; however, its overall effects, including its safety, are still unclear and need to be further investigated. Objectives: The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the safety and tolerability of this combination of drugs. Methods: A systematic review of the literature, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, was conducted by employing online electronic databases and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Meeting Library. The selection of eligible publications was made following a staged screening and selection process. The software RevMan 5.4 was used to run the quantitative analysis and forest plots, while the Cochrane tool was employed for risk of bias assessment. Results: From the retrieved 157 results, 9 randomized controlled trials involving 3060 patients were included. By comparing the combination of durvalumab and tremelimumab vs. durvalumab monotherapy, it was observed that: adverse events (AEs) ≥ Grade 3 incidence was 32.6% (536/1646) vs. 23.8% (336/1414) (Z = 2.80; p = 0.005; risk ratio (RR) = 1.44), reduced appetite incidence was 10.8% (154/1427) vs. 8.3% (108/1305) (Z = 2.26; p = 0.02; RR = 1.31), diarrhea was reported in 15.6% (229/1473) vs. 8.1% (110/1352) (Z = 5.90; p < 0.00001; RR = 1.91), rash incidence was equal to 11.1% (160/1441) vs. 6.5% (86/1320) (Z = 4.35; p <0.0001; RR = 1.75), pruritis was 13.6% (201/1473) vs. 7.7% (104/1352) (Z = 5.35; p < 0.00001; RR = 1.83), fever was 10.5% (42/399) vs. 6.6% (22/330) (Z = 2.27; p = 0.02; RR = 1.77), discontinuation rate was 18% (91/504) vs. 3% (36/434) (Z = 4.78; p < 0.00001; RR = 2.41), and death rate was 2.6% (13/504) vs. 0.7% (3/434) (Z = 1.90; p = 0.06; RR = 2.77). Conclusions: It was observed that the combined (durvalumab and tremelimumab) vs. monotherapy (durvalumab) is associated with a higher risk of treatment discontinuation, mortality, fever, diarrhea, rash, pruritis, and reduced appetite. This information is relevant and should be disclosed, especially to patients that are currently enrolled in clinical trials considering this combined therapy.

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care before radical cystectomy for muscle invasive bladder cancer. Recently, checkpoint inhibitors have been investigated as a neoadjuvant treatment after the reported efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the role of checkpoint inhibitors as a neoadjuvant treatment for muscle invasive bladder cancer before radical cystectomy. Methods: Based on the PRISMA statement, a systematic review of the literature was conducted through online databases and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Meeting Library. Suitable publications were subjected to full-text assessment. The primary outcome of this review was to identify the impact of neoadjuvant immunotherapy on the oncological outcomes and survival benefits. Results: From the retrieved 254 results, 8 studies including 404 patients were included. Complete response varied between 30% and 50%. Downstaging varied between 50% and 74%. ≥Grade 3 AEs were recorded in 8.6% of patients who received monotherapy with either Atezolizumab or Pembrolizumab. In patients who received combination treatment, the incidence of ≥Grade 3 AEs was 16.3% for chemoimmunotherapy and 36.5% for combined immunotherapy. A total of 373 patients (92%) underwent radical cystectomy. ≥Grade 3 Clavien-Dindo surgical complications were reported in 21.7% of the patients. One-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) varied between 81% and 92%, and 70% and 88%, respectively. Conclusion: The evidence on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the setting of pre-radical cystectomy is quite limited, with noted variability within published trials. Combination with chemotherapy or another checkpoint inhibitor may boost response, although prospective studies with extended follow-up are needed to report on the survival advantages.