CEM15: Uro-oncology dominates presentations in Young Urologists Competition

03 October 2015 Joel Vega

The much-awaited and attended Young Urologists Competition featured a variety of interesting topics in urology with many of the presenters discussing issues in uro-oncology such as active surveillance, neoadjuvant therapies, quality of life and genetic perspectives.

Six candidates came from Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Croatia and Romania. The presenter from Poland has withdrawn due to health issues. Each candidate has 10 minutes to present their case and three minutes of Q&A from the 11-member jury.

U. Bele presented their study in Slovenia on vesicoureteral reflux in children which compared two different bulking agents such as Deflux and Vantris. The results showed complications with Deflux with one non-functional kidney and one case of hydroneneophrosis with Vantris.

Discussion, cost-effectiveness of Deflux (which cost 540 euros) and Vantris (470 euros). “Our results correlate with the results published in literature, there are study weaknesses such as follow up of only 12 months , the small sample and two different doctors performed the VCUG,” he said. His study also concluded that based on the study results, there is no statistically significant difference in success rates between the two bulking agents. However, there is a difference in cost effectiveness and there is some controversy between published studies.

M. Benyó of Hungary presented his group’s study on evaluation of thrombotic risk and prevention of venous thromboembolism after radical prostatectomy. “Do we need guidelines? Yes, we have to talk about it,” Benyó said. Asked what his priorities would be in a prophylaxis study, he said he would increase the number of patients and conduct evaluation of these patients.

B. Kollarik (SK) presented on the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in treating muscle invasive bladder cancer with a review of literature and its current use. “There is a proven benefit of MVAC and CMV from prospective studies and GC is the most common neoadjuvant therapy used,” he said. During the Q&A, jury member Prof. Marko Babjuk queried on patient selection and asked who may have the largest benefit, to which Kollarik responded that at the moment he is not aware of any relevant data on patient stratification. “And I don’t know of any biomarkers regarding stratification,” he added.

M. Král (CZ) discussed active surveillance (AS) in prostate cancer- current perspectives. He examined disease progression, studies on risk stratification and risk assessment tools. “Active surveillance aims to delay the start of active therapy unless it is necessary,” he said as he noted several active surveillance trials in PCa. “Active surveillance is the right option but for the right patient and careful selection should be done,” said Král.

M. Maric (HR) examined adrenal incidentaloma focusing on indications and quality of life. He described the indications, diagnoses and the follow-up of patients. “Quality of life is a very important factor in clinical decision-making,” he said as he added that his group performed a case-control study on QoL.

G. Radavoi (RO) presented on new genetic perspectives in prostate and renal cancers, discussing current studies which are looking in various genetic variants which may have links or have a role in triggering tumour growth in prostate cancer. He described the work of his group of PSA and its role in genetic research and biomarkers.

Regarding renal cancer he mentioned the studies on Aristolochic acid exposure particularly in cases reported in Romania and in some Asian countries. During the Q&A, he noted that since these are new studies and trials there is still limited use of these genetic tests. One of the obstacles he mentioned is the lack of funds to sustain genetic research.

The winners will be announced in tomorrow’s concluding session.

Share this on your favourite network: