Introduction: Idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis (IRF) is a rare disease characterized by a fibrotic reaction that affects retroperitoneal organs, especially the urinary tract. In this review we analyze the current imaging techniques, morphological characteristics, clinical aspects and therapeutic aspects of idiopathic retroperitoneal disease. Methods: A PubMed search was conducted in December 2013 to find original articles, bibliographic reviews and series reports published in the past 15 years on idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis, its management and outcomes by combining terms like retroperitoneal fibrosis, periaortitis, treatment and autoimmune. A total of 89 articles were included in this review that referred strictly to IRF. We analyzed the imaging tools used for diagnostic and the decision making protocol used by physicians in the management of IRF. Results: A computerized tomography (CT) scan represents the most commonly used imaging technique for diagnosis. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is unable to differentiate more accurately between benign and malignant retroperitoneal fibrosis (RF) than a CT scan. Biopsy remains the most reliable diagnostic tool for IRF. However, the histological characteristics of IRF are not yet well-defined and the protocol for biopsy is not standardized in terms of template, number of biopsies and the immunohistochemical panel needed for positive diagnosis. The most common treatment reported is corticosteroid therapy alone or in combination with other immunosuppressants, whereas surgical treatment is reserved for severe cases. Indwelling ureteric stents represent the most common procedure for renal drainage, but their efficacy is questionable. Open ureterolysis remains the gold standard for surgical treatment, but its purpose is only to resolve the ureteric obstruction, not to treat the retroperitoneal fibrosis. Laparoscopic and robotic approaches have been reported to be feasible, but no prospective, comparative trials have been performed due to the rarity of the disease. Surgical technique is not standardized and the outcome of the treatment only evaluates the recovery of the renal function. Conclusions: The imaging procedures available today are unable to accurately differentiate between idiopathic and malignant RF. A biopsy is mandatory to confirm the diagnosis, but there is no consensus regarding the template, timing and number of biopsies needed to exclude malignancy. Open ureterolysis represents the main surgical treatment for cases with severe IRF, and laparoscopic or robotic approach may be an option in selected cases. The recovery of the renal function is a surrogate for evaluating the success of the treatment. More clinical studies are needed in order standardize the protocol for diagnostic, treatment and follow up after medical or surgical management.

Nowadays, the management of prostate cancer has become more and more challenging due to the increasing number of available treatment options, therapeutic agents, and our understanding of its carcinogenesis and disease progression. Moreover, currently available risk stratification systems used to facilitate clinical decision-making have limitations, particularly in providing a personalized and patient-centered management strategy. Although prognosis and prostate cancer-specific survival have improved in recent years, the heterogenous behavior of the disease among patients included in the same risk prognostic group negatively impacts not only our clinical decision-making but also oncological outcomes, irrespective of the treatment strategy. Several biomarkers, along with available tests, have been developed to help clinicians in difficult decision-making scenarios and guide management strategies. In this review article, we focus on the scientific evidence that supports the clinical use of several biomarkers considered by professional urological societies (and included in uro-oncological guidelines) in the diagnosis process and specific difficult management strategies for clinically localized or advanced prostate cancer.

Introduction: Transperineal prostate (TP) biopsy has emerged as a substantial alternative to the conventional transrectal (TR) approach for prostate sampling by its ability to sample specific areas of the prostate more effectively. The objective of this review is to conduct a comparative analysis of the current literature regarding diagnostic accuracy, complication rate and clinical outcome of transrectal vs. transperineal approaches in prostate biopsy-naïve patients and in repeated biopsy scenarios. Materials and Methods: An extensive search of the literature in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted between September 2010 and September 2024. We utilized a robust and comprehensive retrieval strategy including phrasing the two approaches as follows: (perineal or transperineal) and (rectal or transrectal). Conclusions: The transperineal and transrectal approaches show similar results in the detection of PCa in biopsy-naïve men, similar rates of infection, urinary retention and effectiveness managing biopsy-associated pain. However, in the rebiopsy scenario, the TP approach has demonstrated increased accuracy compared to the TR approach. This has significant implications in decision making and patient counselling.

During the last decade, the body of knowledge regarding the oligometastatic state has increased exponentially. Several molecular frameworks have been established, aiding our understanding of metastatic spread caused by genetically unstable cells that adapt to a tissue environment which is distant from the primary tumor. In the current narrative review, we provide an overview of the current treatment landscape of oligometastatic cancer, focusing on the current biomarkers used in the identification of true oligometastatic disease and highlighting the impact of molecular imaging on stage shift in different scenarios. Finally, we address current and future directions regarding the use of genetic and epigenetic targeting treatments in oligometastatic prostate cancer.