Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is a common cause of acute kidney injury in patients with malignancies, and it is a frequent condition for which the nephrologist is consulted in the case of the hospitalized oncological patient. Recognizing the patients at risk of developing TLS is essential, and so is the prophylactic treatment. The initiation of treatment for TLS is a medical emergency that must be addressed in a multidisciplinary team (oncologist, nephrologist, critical care physician) in order to reduce the risk of death and that of chronic renal impairment. TLS can occur spontaneously in the case of high tumor burden or may be caused by the initiation of highly efficient anti-tumor therapies, such as chemotherapy, radiation therapy, dexamethasone, monoclonal antibodies, CAR-T therapy, or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. It is caused by lysis of tumor cells and the release of cellular components in the circulation, resulting in electrolytes and metabolic disturbances that can lead to organ dysfunction and even death. The aim of this paper is to review the scientific data on the updated definition of TLS, epidemiology, pathogenesis, and recognition of patients at risk of developing TLS, as well as to point out the recent advances in TLS treatment.

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.

Introduction: Intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) is increasingly utilized in nephron-sparing surgery for its ability to provide real-time, high-resolution imaging that enhances tumor localization and resection accuracy. Its role becomes particularly important in anatomically complex cases such as endophytic, multifocal, or recurrent renal tumors, as well as in patients with a solitary kidney. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 152 patients who underwent partial nephrectomy for localized renal tumors between January 2019 and December 2024. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A (n = 24) included patients with a solitary surgical kidney or tumor recurrence; Group B (n = 128) included patients with a contralateral functional kidney. IOUS was used in 31 cases (20%). Demographic, perioperative, and oncological outcomes were compared, with specific attention to the use and impact of IOUS. Results: IOUS was significantly more common in Group A (75%) than in Group B (10%) (p < 0.001), reflecting its preferential use in higher-complexity surgeries. The rate of positive surgical margins was low overall, with no significant difference between the IOUS and non-IOUS groups (3.2% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.54). IOUS was more frequently employed in cases involving medium/high RENAL nephrometry scores and multifocal tumors, contributing to improved intraoperative tumor delineation without increasing complication rates. Conclusions: IOUS enhances surgical precision and supports oncologic safety in both robotic and open partial nephrectomies, particularly in complex scenarios. Its use should be encouraged as a standard adjunct in conservative renal surgery, especially in patients with a solitary kidney, recurrent disease, or multifocal tumors.

Introduction: Kidney transplant recipients present a higher risk of developing malignancies than the general population. Malignancies represent the third leading cause of death for kidney transplant recipients. There is an increased risk of developing urothelial carcinoma among kidney transplant recipients, but it is not as high as the risk of renal cell carcinoma, which is the most common urologic malignancy. Although the bladder is the most common location for urothelial carcinoma, urothelial carcinomas of the upper tracts of the native kidneys and the allograft are also reported. The estimated incidence of urothelial carcinomas arising on kidney grafts is 0.019%. Case report: We present a case of a kidney transplant recipient who developed non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer 10 years after the transplant. This was successfully treated with TURBT (transurethral resection of the bladder tumor) and BCG (bacillus Calmette–Guerin) instillations. Two years later, this patient developed metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the allograft. Discussion: Nephroureterectomy of the transplant with bladder preservation after BCG treatment, no systemic chemotherapy, and cessation of immunotherapy were the treatments of choice in this case. Local oncologic control and spontaneous complete regression of pulmonary metastasis were obtained at a 2-year follow-up. Conclusions: With this case, we emphasize the fact that managing urothelial carcinomas in kidney transplant recipients is a provocative challenge for surgeons, nephrologists, and oncologists, as there are no treatment guidelines or protocols.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most prevalent solid organ malignancy among kidney transplant recipients, demonstrating substantially higher incidence rates compared to those in the general population. Although RCC is most commonly diagnosed in native kidneys, its development in transplanted kidneys has an infrequent occurrence. The use of immunosuppressive therapies, pre-existing chronic kidney disease and the unique anatomical characteristics of transplanted kidneys represent considerable therapeutic challenges in managing RCC within this patient cohort. Open radical transplantectomy plays a crucial role in curative treatment for localized RCC, whereas nephron-sparing surgery (NSS), in selected cases, can provide similar oncologic benefits while preserving allograft function. Recently, laparoscopic and robotic surgical procedures have demonstrated favorable outcomes as viable alternatives to conventional open surgery. Furthermore, ablative therapies like radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation can be considered therapeutic alternatives for small renal masses, offering the benefit of preserving allograft function, especially in high-risk surgical candidates. Limited data exist regarding the management of metastatic RCC in transplant recipients. Surgery, withdrawal of immunosuppression and systemic adjuvant therapy could be considered. Management of RCC in transplanted kidneys requires a multidisciplinary approach considering patient-specific characteristics, tumor features and the developing landscape of both surgical and non-surgical options. Further research is needed to refine therapeutic strategies in order to achieve optimal oncological outcomes while preserving allograft function.