Patients' acceptance of urinary diversion. The pouch of Sisyphus

It is important that any patient with a urinary diversion can accept the psychological impact alongside the surgical and physical aspects. However, there are currently no validated methods or instruments available to allow direct measurement of this phenomenon in these patients. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is often high following different types of urinary diversion - this may suggest a high acceptance level and thus may act as a secondary end point. Such an assessment is a retrospective validation of successful patient selection, allowing us to redirect the nihilistic misinterpretation that urologists should return to offering ileal conduits as a standard. In modern urinary diversion, high patient acceptance develops from comprehensive counselling providing a realistic expectation, careful patient-to-method-matching, strict adherence to surgical detail during the procedure and a meticulous lifelong follow-up. Coping strategies, disease-related social support and confidence in the success of treatment are among other factors which contribute to acceptance of urinary reconstruction as either independent or combined factors. Significant experience is required in every respect, as misjudgement and mistakes in any of these issues may be detrimental to the patients' health. It should be acknowledged that there is no 'best' urinary diversion in general terms. A reconstructive surgeon must have all techniques available and choices need to be tailored to the individual patient

Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017. Discussion of the recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of metastatic prostate cancer by a German panel of experts

In March 2017 the aEuroeAdvanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference' (APCCC) took place in St. Gallen (Switzerland). The APCCC-panelists are internationally well known experts. With the actual data in mind they discussed treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer in order to update the international APCCC-recommendations from the previous meeting in 2015. Recently these consensus recommendations have been published in European Urology. A group of German experts discussed this year APCCC-votes during the meeting and the recommendations that were concluded from the votes from the German perspective. Reasons for an additional German discussion are country-specific variations that may have influenced the APCCC-votes und recommendations. Due to the concept of the APCCC-meeting the wording of the questions could not always be as necessary. One focus of this year consensus discussion was the treatment of metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (mCNPC). There are new data which may also influence the therapeutic situation of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Further points of discussion were the impact of new imaging procedures in the clinical setting as well as the treatment of oligometastatic prostate cancer