The sale and popularity of dietary supplements have been increasing each year, yet knowledge about them still remains insufficient. Supplements are consumed by nearly 50% of the population, and the main motivation is the desire to improve health and boost immunity. Many individuals mistakenly identify supplements as drugs, but they do not realise the differences in the manufacturing processes of these substances. Supplements are widely available not only in pharmacies but also in herbal shops and online. The aim of this literature review is to draw attention to the potential dangers associated with the use of herbs and dietary supplements by kidney transplant recipients. Such products are widely used by patients across all age groups and considered as a “safe and natural” form of therapy. The most popular supplements and herbs are discussed, including mint, chamomile, Ginkgo biloba, cranberry, ginseng, and green tea infusions. These substances can affect the metabolism of many drug groups by acting as transporters, co-transporters, or enzymes, leading to significant interactions with immunosuppressive drugs. Post-transplant pharmacotherapy requires avoiding drugs and food ingredients that may interact with immunosuppressants. The success of the kidney transplant procedure depends on close cooperation between the doctor and the patient, and strict compliance with medical recommendations. Therefore, it is crucial to continually increase public awareness about the benefits and potential risks associated with dietary supplementation.

Introduction: Clinical staging based on digital rectal examination is imprecise, leading to pathological upstaging in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Accurate preoperative assessment remains a challenge despite the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and fusion-guided biopsy. This study aims to identify key predictors of upstaging in preoperative patients. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 924 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between July 2012 and January 2025 was performed. Variables included prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, biopsy type, MRI, body mass index and age. Upstaging was defined as ≥pT3 in patients staged clinically as cT1–2. Optimal cut-offs for continuous variables were defined statistically. Multivariable logistic regression was applied to identify independent predictors of upstaging and minor staging upgrading (MSU)—defined as any upward shift in the pathological T stage relative to the clinical T stage. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). Results: Upstaging occurred in 31.9% and MSU in 50.6% of patients. The mean age was 65 years. Cut-off values for PSA density (PSAD) were 0.29 for upstaging and 0.28 for MSU. In the full-cohort model (AUC = 0.628), PSAD (odds ratio (OR) = 2.55), age (OR = 1.04), and hypertension (HT) (OR = 1.47) were associated with upstaging. In PIRADS-based models, PIRADS 5 and PSAD predicted both upstaging (OR = 1.62 and 6.10, respectively; AUC = 0.664) and MSU (OR = 1.75 and 4.67, respectively; AUC = 0.659). MSU was also associated with HT and a lack of fusion biopsy (AUC = 0.622). Conclusions: PSAD and PIRADS 5 lesions are strong determinants of pathological upstaging and MSU in PCa. These factors should be considered in preoperative risk stratification to improve staging accuracy. Despite advances in imaging and biopsy techniques, upstaging remains a common phenomenon, underlining the need for further refinement of diagnostic protocols.