Silodosin in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms as a result of benign prostatic hyperplasia: who are the best candidates

Summary Background As the clinical effects of the available α1-adrenoceptors (ARs) blockers are usually considered comparable for treatment in patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to prostatic enlargement, officially recognised guidelines do not make specific recommendations regarding the choice of which agent should be considered according to the patient's characteristics. Aim To analyse data supporting the use of silodosin, a highly selective once-daily dosing α1-ARs blocker, in different daily clinical practice scenarios. Materials and methods A structured literature review was performed using data retrieved from articles assessing the role of silodosin in the management of LUTS secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A literature search of English language publications was performed using MEDLINE® and Web of Science from 2000 to 2012 using the terms LUTS; BPH; silodosin; α1-ARs blockers. The papers with the highest level of evidence were identified and represent the basis of the present review. Results Available data coming from basic research analyses, randomised trials and prospective studies showed that silodosin is efficacious for the initial management of patients with LUTS. Clinical developmental safety data from patients receiving silodosin with concomitant antihypertensive therapy do not indicate an increase in risk of orthostatic hypotension. In this context, a recent study demonstrated that silodosin can be safely administered to patients who are consensually assuming phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. A recent randomised crossover study comparing the efficacy of silodosin and tamsulosin in patients with LUTS showed that further significant improvement was observed after switching to silodosin treatment, while worsening or little improvement was observed after switching to tamsulosin treatment. Preliminary results seem to demonstrate a potential role of silodosin in the treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome and to facilitate ureteral stone passage, as well. Discussion When considering the above cited pharmacological and clinical characteristics of the drug, silodosin can be considered in the following clinical scenario: patients suffering from moderate–severe nocturia, patients with low normal blood pressure levels and patients concomitantly treated with antihypertensive medications, patients concomitantly treated with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, patients not satisfied (for efficacy or tolerability) with previous treatment with other α1-ARs blockers. Conclusion Silodosin is efficacious for the initial management of patients with LUTS. Silodosin has a good cardiovascular safety profile and can be considered an option in patients with cardiovascular co-morbidities. It seems to be especially beneficial in patients with nocturia alone or presenting with the symptomatic trial nocturia-frequency-incomplete emptying. Patients on phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors treatment can be safely managed with silodosin

Collaborative Review: Factors Influencing Treatment Decisions for Patients with a Localized Solid Renal Mass.

CONTEXT: With the addition of active surveillance and thermal ablation (TA) to the urologist\u27s established repertoire of partial (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) as first-line management options for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), appropriate treatment decision-making has become increasingly nuanced. OBJECTIVE: To critically review the treatment options for localized, nonrecurrent RCC; to highlight the patient, renal function, tumor, and provider factors that influence treatment decisions; and to provide a framework to conceptualize that decision-making process. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A collaborative critical review of the medical literature was conducted. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identify three key decision points when managing localized RCC: (1) decision for surveillance versus treatment, (2) decision regarding treatment modality (TA, PN, or RN), and (3) decision on surgical approach (open vs minimally invasive). In evaluating factors that influence these treatment decisions, we elaborate on patient, renal function, tumor, and provider factors that either directly or indirectly impact each decision point. As current nomograms, based on preselected patient datasets, perform poorly in prospective settings, these tools should be used with caution. Patient decision aids are an underutilized tool in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Localized RCC requires highly nuanced treatment decision-making, balancing patient- and tumor-specific clinical variables against indirect structural influences to provide optimal patient care. PATIENT SUMMARY: With expanding treatment options for localized kidney cancer, treatment decision is highly nuanced and requires shared decision-making. Patient decision aids may be helpful in the treatment discussion

The Effect of Anatomical Location of Lymph Node Metastases on Cancer Specific Survival in Patients with Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background: Positive nodal status (pN1) is an independent predictor of survival in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients. However, no study to date has tested whether the location of lymph node (LN) metastases does affect oncologic outcomes in a population submitted to radical nephrectomy (RN) and extended lymph node dissection (eLND). Objective: To describe nodal disease dissemination in clear cell RCC (ccRCC) patients and to assess the effect of the anatomical sites and the number of nodal areas affected on cancer specific mortality (CSM). Design, setting and partecipants: The study included 415 patients who underwent RN and eLND, defined as the removal of hilar, side-specific (pre/paraaortic or pre/paracaval) and interaortocaval LNs for ccRCC, at two institutions. Outcome measurement and statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics were used to depict nodal dissemination in pN1 patients, stratified according to nodal site and number of involved areas. Multivariable Cox regression analyses and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to explore the relationship between pN1 disease features and survival outcomes. Results and limitations: Median number of removed LN was 14 (IQR 9\u201319); 23% of patients were pN1. Among patients with one involved nodal site, 54 and 26% of patients were positive only in side-specific and interaortocaval station, respectively. The most frequent nodal site was the interaortocaval and side-specific one, for right and left ccRCC, respectively. Interaortocaval nodal positivity (HR 2.3, CI 95%: 1.3\u20133.9, p < 0.01) represented an independent predictor of CSM. Conclusions: When ccRCC patient harbour nodal disease, its spreading can occur at any nodal station without involving the others. The presence of interoartocaval positive nodes does affect oncologic outcomes. Patient summary: Lymph node invasion in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma is not following a fixed anatomical pattern. An extended lymph node dissection, during treatment for primary kidney tumour, would aid patient risk stratification and multimodality upfront treatment