Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Uro
Special Issues
The Clinical Management of Urologic Oncology
share announcement

The Clinical Management of Urologic Oncology

A special issue of Uro (ISSN 2673-4397).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 December 2025) | Viewed by 2138

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Filippo Marino

E-Mail
Guest Editor
Department of Urology, Humanitas Gavazzeni, 24125 Bergamo, Italy
Interests: urologic oncology; robotic surgery; prostate cancer; bladder cancer; minimally invasive surgery; surgical innovation
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals
Dr. Luca Di Gianfrancesco

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Urology, Humanitas Gavazzeni, Bergamo, Italy
Interests: cystectomy; bladder cancer; prostate cancer; ureterocutaneostomy; urologic oncology
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Urologic oncology is a rapidly evolving and multidisciplinary field, dedicated to refining clinical strategies through technological innovation, personalized approaches, and evidence-based medicine. The growing understanding of the genetic and molecular underpinnings of genitourinary tumors has led to significant advancements in diagnostic tools, therapeutic algorithms, and surgical techniques, with robotic and minimally invasive procedures now playing a central role in treatment paradigms.

This Special Issue, "The Clinical Management of Urologic Oncology", aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current standards and emerging trends in the diagnosis and treatment of urologic malignancies. Contributions will focus on prostate, bladder, kidney, and testicular cancers, highlighting novel systemic therapies, immunotherapeutic strategies, the role of molecular biomarkers, and innovations in imaging techniques.

Special attention will be devoted to the integration of precision medicine in clinical practice, the management of high-risk and advanced disease, and multidisciplinary decision-making models aimed at improving oncologic and functional outcomes. Additionally, we encourage submissions that explore the impact of therapies and clinical decisions on patients' quality of life, including functional, psychological, and social aspects, to support a more patient-centered approach to care.

By bringing together contributions from leading experts in the field, this Special Issue seeks to offer a valuable resource for urologists, oncologists, researchers, and healthcare professionals engaged in the care of patients with urologic cancers.

We hope this Special Issue will foster scientific exchange, inspire future research, and contribute to improving patient care globally.

Dr. Filippo Marino
Dr. Luca Di Gianfrancesco
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Uro is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1000 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • prostate cancer
  • bladder cancer
  • renal cancer
  • testicular cancer
  • robotic surgery
  • genitourinary cancers
  • molecular biomarkers
  • treatment outcomes
  • quality of life

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (2 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

10 pages, 636 KB  
Article
Updated Analysis: Blue-Light Transurethral Resection and Biopsy of Bladder Cancer with Hexaminolevulinate in a Single UK Centre
by Anushree Kucheria, Elaina Gubbay, Aoife Meabh Linzell, Irfan Kar, Mohammad Alomari, Kimberley Chan, Christine Gan and Nikhil Vasdev
Uro 2026, 6(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/uro6010005 - 2 Feb 2026
Viewed by 695
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic yield of blue-light cystoscopy (BLC) compared with white-light cystoscopy (WLC) in detecting carcinoma in situ (CIS) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), and to assess recurrence-free survival (RFS) following BLC-HAL resection. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analysed 238 patients [...] Read more.
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic yield of blue-light cystoscopy (BLC) compared with white-light cystoscopy (WLC) in detecting carcinoma in situ (CIS) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), and to assess recurrence-free survival (RFS) following BLC-HAL resection. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analysed 238 patients undergoing BLC-HAL between July 2017 and July 2024. Seventy-two underwent primary BLC at initial resection, and 166 underwent BLC re-resection following WLC. Endpoints were CIS detection, tumour upstaging, and recurrence-free survival at 12 and 24 months using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results: Overall, malignancy was confirmed in 113/238 patients (47%). Detection was higher in the secondary arm (55%) compared with the primary arm (29%). In the primary arm, CIS was detected in 19% and MIBC in 24%. In the secondary arm, CIS increased from 18% on WLC to 38% with BLC (p = 0.001), with 26% detected only under blue light; 10% were upstaged to MIBC (p = 0.022). Over one-third of patients were reclassified into a higher EAU NMIBC risk group. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed 12- and 24-month RFS of 71% (95% CI: 36–92%) and 67% (95% CI: 35–88%) in the primary arm, and 62% (95% CI: 49–74%) and 63% (95% CI: 43–79%) in the secondary arm. Median RFS was not reached within 24 months. Conclusions: BLC significantly enhances CIS detection and identifies MIBC and higher-risk disease not seen on WLC, directly influencing patient management. Despite improved detection, recurrence-free survival remains modest, consistent with high-risk NMIBC, supporting guideline recommendations for routine use of BLC at TURBT, particularly in suspected CIS and high-grade disease. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Clinical Management of Urologic Oncology)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 421 KB  
Article
Differences in Quality of Life Related to Lower Urinary Tract, Bowel and Sexual Function After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with and Without Nerve-Sparing
by Danae Merentitis, Julia Neuenschwander, Beat Foerster, Hubert John, Lucas M. Bachmann, Nicolas S. Bodmer and Jure Tornic
Uro 2026, 6(1), 3; https://doi.org/10.3390/uro6010003 - 4 Jan 2026
Viewed by 710
Abstract
Background/Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare nerve-sparing (NS) and non-nerve-sparing (NNS) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) techniques used to treat localized prostate cancer. Numerous studies have evaluated the impact of NS techniques on patient-reported outcomes. However, there are unaddressed methodological [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare nerve-sparing (NS) and non-nerve-sparing (NNS) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) techniques used to treat localized prostate cancer. Numerous studies have evaluated the impact of NS techniques on patient-reported outcomes. However, there are unaddressed methodological issues making interpretation of results difficult. Therefore, we performed a comparison of the two techniques, accounting for methodological threats, including patient selection and confounding. Methods: We sampled 120 patients with similar disease burden who underwent RARP by the same surgeon, either with NS (n = 84) or NNS (n = 36) and assessed changes in lower urinary tract (LUT) function and bother, and bowel function/bother using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire and the six-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-6) survey at 6 weeks and 12 months postoperatively. Multivariable linear regression models were used to adjust for differences in age, preoperative PSA levels, pathological tumor stage and Gleason-score of patients receiving either NS or NNS. Results: At 6 weeks postoperatively, the NNS group had a significantly larger decrease in LUT function compared to the NS group (−17.42; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): −31.31, −3.53; p = 0.0145). At 12 months, both groups recovered substantially, and no group differences were observed (p > 0.9). No significant differences were observed between the NS and NNS groups for the EPIC bowel subscores, whereas the IIEF-6 showed borderline significance at 12 months. Conclusions: The results suggest a small impact of NS vs. NNS RARP on important patient-reported outcomes when controlling for tumor biology, surgeon skill, and patient characteristics. These results need to be confirmed by larger studies using similar sampling strategies and design considerations. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Clinical Management of Urologic Oncology)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-2
Back to TopTop