Background and Objectives: To assess the effects of fosfomycin compared with other antibiotics as a prophylaxis for urinary tract infections (UTIs) in men undergoing transrectal prostate biopsies. Materials and Methods: We searched multiple databases and trial registries without publication language or status restrictions until 4 January 2022. Parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) were included. The primary outcomes were febrile UTI, afebrile UTI, and overall UTI. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence of RCTs and NRSs. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022302743). Results: We found data on five comparisons; however, this abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of the two most clinically relevant comparisons. Regarding fosfomycin versus fluoroquinolone, five RCTs and four NRSs with a one-month follow-up were included. Based on the RCT evidence, fosfomycin likely resulted in little to no difference in febrile UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to four fewer febrile UTIs per 1000 patients. Fosfomycin likely resulted in little to no difference in afebrile UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to 29 fewer afebrile UTIs per 1000 patients. Fosfomycin likely resulted in little to no difference in overall UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to 35 fewer overall UTIs per 1000 patients. Regarding fosfomycin and fluoroquinolone combined versus fluoroquinolone, two NRSs with a one- to three-month follow-up were included. Based on the NRS evidence, fosfomycin and fluoroquinolone combined may result in little to no difference in febrile UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to 16 fewer febrile UTIs per 1000 patients. Conclusions: Compared with fluoroquinolone, fosfomycin or fosfomycin and fluoroquinolone combined may have a similar prophylactic effect on UTIs after a transrectal prostate biopsy. Given the increasing fluoroquinolone resistance and its ease to use, fosfomycin may be a good option for antibiotic prophylaxis.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) following metastasectomy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Materials and Methods: A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. The inclusion criteria encompassed randomized clinical trials evaluating the use of TKIs after metastasectomy in mRCC patients. Study outcomes were relapse-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events of TKIs.Results: Two studies with 197 randomized participants that compared TKIs following metastasectomy versus metastasectomy alone were identified. According to these studies, TKIs following metastasectomy may result in little to no difference in RFS/DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.57; I2=29%; low-certainty evidence). TKIs after metastasectomy may slightly increase OS, but the CI crossed the line of no effect (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.06–9.87; I2=86%; low-certainty evidence). TKIs after metastasectomy likely resulted in a large increase in adverse events (risk ratio, 2.76; 95% CI: 1.65–4.62; I2=not applicable; moderatecertainty evidence).Conclusions: TKIs following metastasectomy did not improve RFS/DFS, but slightly improved OS. It is likely that TKIs following metastasectomy increase adverse events compared to surgery only. The certainty of evidence ranged from moderate (signaling confidence that the reported effect size is likely close to the true effect) to low (indicating that the true effect may be substantially different from the effect estimate). The findings of this study should help to inform future guidelines and clinical decision-making at the point of care.

Purpose: There is a lack of guidelines for using angioembolization to manage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with intractable symptoms. Therefore, the Korean Urologic Oncology Society (KUOS) developed a set of recommendations for angioembolization for RCC patients with intractable symptoms who are unfit for surgery.Materials and Methods: A rigorous systematic review was performed and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the certainty of the evidence for the patient outcomes and to develop the evidence into recommendations. The steering group, guidelines development group, systematic review team, and external review group consisted of KUOS members involved in the guideline development process.Results: The guidelines address the benefits, harms, patients’ values and preferences, costs, and resources related to angioembolization by using a single clinical question: Does angioembolization improve the quality of life for RCC patients with intractable symptoms who are unfit for surgery?Conclusions: The guideline development panel suggests angioembolization for RCC patients with intractable symptoms compared with supportive therapies, including systemic treatment (very low certainty of evidence, weak recommendation).

Ho Yeon Lee, Hui Mo Gu, Do Gyeong Lim, Seong Hyeon Yu, Ho Seok Chung, Kyung Jin Oh, Sun-Ouck Kim, Seung Il Jung, Taek Won Kang, Dongdeuk Kwon, Eu Chang Hwang. Theater Endourol. Robot. 2026;2:31-4. https://doi.org/10.64364/tier.26.0002

Hui Mo Gu, Do Gyeong Lim, Seung Hyeon Yu, Eu Chang Hwang, Kyung Jin Oh, Sun-Ouck Kim, Seung Il Jung, Taek Won Kang, Dongdeuk Kwon, Ho Seok Chung. Theater Endourol. Robot. 2025;1:21-3. https://doi.org/10.64364/tier.25.0002

Sou SJ, et al. Investig Clin Urol. 2025 Mar;66(2):114-123. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20240323