Background/Objectives: to assess surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed using the novel Hugo™ RAS system. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines, using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases. Eligible papers included studies involving adult males undergoing RARP with the Hugo™ RAS platform, with at least ten patients analyzed. The pooled analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Results: Quantitative analysis was conducted on 12 studies including 579 patients. The pooled median docking time, console time, and operative time were 11 min (95% CI 7.95–14.50; I² = 98.4%, ten studies), 142 min (95% CI 119.74–164.68; I² = 96.5%, seven studies), and 176 min (95% CI 148.33–203.76; I² = 96.3%, seven studies), respectively. The pooled median estimated blood loss was 223 mL (95% CI 166.75–280.17; I² = 96.5%, eleven studies). The pooled median length of hospital stay and time to catheter removal were 2.8 days (95% CI 1.67–3.89; I² = 100%, ten studies) and 8.3 days (95% CI 5.53–11.09; I² = 100%, eight studies), respectively. The pooled rate of postoperative CD ≥ 2 complications was 4.1% (95% CI 1–8.5; I² = 63.6%, eleven studies). The pooled rate of positive surgical margins and undetectable postoperative PSA were 20% (95% CI 12.6–28.5; I² = 71.5%, nine studies) and 94.2% (95% CI 87.7–98.6; I² = 48.9%, three studies), respectively. At three months, a pooled rate of social continence of 81.9% (95% CI 73.8–88.9; I² = 66.7%, seven studies) was found. Erectile function at six months was 31% in one study. Conclusions: despite the preliminary nature of the evidence, this systematic review and pooled analysis underscores the feasibility, safety, and reproducibility of the Hugo™ RAS system in the context of RARP.

Background/Objectives: There is an urgent need for comparative analyses of the intraoperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of different surgical robotic platforms. We aimed to compare the outcomes of RARP performed at a tertiary referral robotic centre with the novel Hugo^TM RAS system with those performed with a daVinci surgical system, which is considered the reference standard. Methods: We analysed the data of 400 patients undergoing RARP ± pelvic lymph node dissection between 2021 and 2023, using propensity score (PS) matching to correct for treatment selection bias. All procedures were performed by three surgeons with Hugo^TM RAS or daVinci. Results: The PS-matched cohort included 198 patients with 99 matched pairs, balanced for all covariates. Positive surgical margins (PSMs) were found in 22.2% and 25.3% (p = 0.616) of patients, respectively, in the Hugo^TM RAS and daVinci groups. No significant differences were found for other important perioperative outcomes, including median (1st–3rd q) operative time (170 (147.5–195.5) vs. 166 (154–202.5) min; p = 0.540), median (1st–3rd q) estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 (100–150) vs. 100 (100–150) ml; p = 0.834), Clavien–Dindo (CD) ≥ 2 complications (3% vs. 4%; p = 0.498), and social continence at 3 months (73.7% vs. 74.7%; p = 0.353). In multiple analyses, no associations were found between surgical outcomes (PSM, length of PSM, operative time, EBL, length of catheterization, length of hospital stay, social continence at three months after surgery, and CD ≥ 2 complications) and the robotic platform. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that Hugo^TM RAS enables surgeons to safely and effectively transfer the level of proficiency they reached during their previous experience with the daVinci systems.

Background/Objectives: A comprehensive comparison of intraoperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of RARP performed with different robotic surgical platforms is critically needed. Our aim is to compare the oncological and functional outcomes of RARP performed using the novel Hugo™ RAS system with those from the daVinci system, the reference standard, at a high-volume robotic center, with an extended follow-up period (one year). Methods: We analyzed the data of 400 patients undergoing RARP ± pelvic lymph node dissection between 2021 and 2023, using propensity score (PS) matching to correct for treatment selection bias. All procedures were performed by three surgeons with HugoTM RAS or daVinci. This analysis extends the follow-up period to 1 year, focusing on specific functional and oncological outcomes, building on our previous 3-month evaluation of perioperative outcomes. The primary outcome was the trifecta rate, defined as freedom from biochemical recurrence, continence, and erectile function recovery. Secondary outcomes included detailed assessments of oncological outcomes (PSA levels) and functional outcomes (continence and erectile function). Results: The propensity score-matched cohort included 99 matched pairs (198 patients), balanced for all covariates. No significant differences were found in trifecta rates between the two platforms at 1-year follow-up (Hugo: 25.25%, daVinci: 27.27%, p = 0.743). Both groups showed improved trifecta rates when considering only nerve-sparing procedures (Hugo: 36.84%, daVinci: 35.59%, p = 0.889). Continence rates were similar (Hugo: 87.9%, daVinci: 89.9%, p = 0.327), as were the undetectable PSA rates (Hugo: 92.9%, daVinci: 88.8%, p = 0.158). Also, the erectile function recovery rate did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusions: This is the first study comparing 1-year functional and oncological outcomes of RARP performed with Hugo™ RAS and daVinci surgical robotic systems using PS matching. Functional and oncological outcomes of RARP were comparable between the two robotic platforms. These findings confirm that the transition to the Hugo™ platform does not compromise surgical proficiency or patient outcomes, even if further long-term studies are necessary to confirm these results.

BACKGROUND: The impact of proportionality to heart valve regurgitation has been widely investigated in mitral regurgitation, helping to better characterize the best candidates for therapies. However, it has never been studied in tricuspid regurgitation (TR). The aim of the present study is to investigate the impact of the proportionality of TR on outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing tricuspid transcatheter edge-to-edge repair were selected from the TRIVALVE registry (International Multisite Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Therapies Registry). Patients were divided according to the ratio between effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) and right ventricular (RV) end diastolic diameter (RVEDD) into tertiles: patients with low EROA/RVEDD (RV, dominant); intermediate EROA/RVEDD (RV and TR, RV-TR, codominant), and high EROA/RVEDD (TR, dominant). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Median follow-up was 9.7 months (4.2–12.0). RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were included in the present study: 67 for the RV dominant, 68 for the RV-TR codominant, and 69 for the TR dominant group. The 3 groups presented different baseline characteristics. Survival analysis among the 3 groups showed a trend towards worse prognosis for the RV-dominant group, as compared with the RV-TR codominant and TR dominant groups. CONCLUSIONS: The conceptual framework of proportionality is applicable to TR with EROA/RVEDD, defining a higher risk RV-dominant phenotype with a trend towards worse survival after tricuspid transcatheter edge-to-edge repair.

Background: Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) bring together multidisciplinary experts to translate genomic data into clinical decisions in oncology, however, their overall clinical impact remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the clinical impact of MTB-recommended therapies on patients with cancer outcomes. Methods and findings: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL up to July 2025. We included studies of any design, both single-arm studies and studies with a comparator group, that reported the clinical impact of MTBs in patients who received MTB-guided therapy. Meta-analyses were performed separately by study design, using hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), relative risks (RRs) for objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR), and pooled proportions for PFS ratio ≥1.3. All meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models based on the inverse variance method. We evaluated the risk of bias using the RoB 2.0 for RCTs and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. From 6,846 records, 78 studies (9,195 patients; 4,569 treated per MTB recommendations) were included. MTB-guided therapies were associated with reduced risk of death (HR 0.87; 95% CI [0.76, 1.01]; p = 0.069; I ² = 0.0% in RCTs; 0.62 in retrospective studies) and disease progression (HR 0.73; 95% CI [0.64, 0.84]; p < 0.001; I ² = 0.0% in RCTs; 0.63 in retrospective studies), as well as improved ORR (RR 1.75; 95% CI [1.24, 2.47]; p = 0.001; I ² = 0.0% in RCTs; 3.32 in retrospective studies) and DCR (RR 1.20; 95% CI [1.03, 1.40]; p = 0.018; I ² = 19.9% in RCTs; 1.65 in retrospective studies). Between 33% and 43% of patients achieved a PFS ratio ≥1.3. While the risk of bias for RCTs was low, except for one study that was rated as having some concerns, the overall risk of bias for non-randomized studies was rated as “serious” in most of the studies ( n = 54). Limitations include substantial heterogeneity, predominance of non-randomized studies with risk of bias, and limitations in data reporting, which restrict causal inference. Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides robust evidence from RCTs supporting the clinical benefit of MTBs, although limited for OS. Methodological heterogeneity and study limitations from observational studies warrant cautious interpretation. Future high-quality RCTs and standardized reporting are needed to confirm these findings and guide the integration of MTBs into routine clinical practice and health system strategies.

Objective: To summarise the evidence so far from all randomised controlled trials on the efficacy of communication of polygenic risk scores in changing health outcomes. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Pubmed, from inception to 1 March 2025. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Randomised controlled trials in human participants; articles published or accepted for publication in peer reviewed journals, or with available results on ClinicalTrials.gov, without time restriction in any language; and randomised controlled trials comparing the disclosure of inherited genetic risk obtained through the polygenic risk score for any phenotype (intervention group) with scenarios where no genetic information was provided (comparator group). Results: Of 7830 articles retrieved, 27 randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Polygenic risk scores mainly predicted risks for cancer (n=9 randomised controlled trials), cardiovascular diseases (n=8), and diabetes (n=6). 21 randomised controlled trials targeted mainly healthy populations, three targeted at-risk populations, and three trials targeted individuals who had already developed a disease and the polygenic risk score predicted complications. Most randomised controlled trials (15/27) concluded in their abstracts with favourable claims about the polygenic risk score, with only 5/15 trials justifying the score with any significant results. Nine of the 27 randomised controlled trials had a high risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed no significant effects on any of the 22 outcomes tested in two or more trials. Standardised mean differences for dietary outcomes were −0.11 (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.22 to 0.01) for daily energy intake, 0.03 (−0.18 to 0.25) for daily fat intake, and −0.11 (−0.28 to 0.06) for alcohol consumption. For physical activity, standardised mean difference was −0.01 (95% CI −0.13 to 0.11). Relative risks were 1.12 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.61) for screening attendance, 1.50 (0.98 to 2.29) for use of statins, and 0.95 (0.32 to 2.79) for incidence of disease. For psychological outcomes, standardised mean differences were −0.02 (95% CI −0.13 to 0.08) for anxiety, −0.06 (−0.23 to 0.10) for worry, −0.04 (−0.21 to 0.13) for perceived risk, and −0.05 (−0.23 to 0.13) for depression. For clinical outcomes, mean differences were −2.01 (95% CI −8.27 to 4.26) for total cholesterol, −3.64 (−7.88 to 0.60) for low density lipoprotein cholesterol, −0.21 (−2.65 to 2.23) for high density lipoprotein cholesterol, −1.88 (−4.17 to 0.42) for diastolic blood pressure, −1.26 (−4.44 to 1.92) for systolic blood pressure, −0.12 (−0.63 to 0.39) for body mass index, and −0.33 (−0.87 to 0.20) for weight. 80 outcomes were reported across multiple studies, with each outcome reported in a single trial only. 19 of 80 were primary outcomes, and of these two had significant results (P<0.05), as did three secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Overall, despite frequent promising claims, disclosure of polygenic risk scores did not result in meaningful changes in behavioural, psychological, or clinical measures for the outcomes examined. Although when interpreting the findings the heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the available trials should be considered, communication of polygenic risk scores did not show consistent improvements in preventive behaviours or risk factor modification. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/28V6J