Introduction Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) is a promising treatment strategy. Although, according to guidelines, it should be regarded as an experimental option, its introduction into clinical practice has occurred at an accelerated speed. It is, thus, crucial for Urologists to understand FT limitations and potential drawbacks that may derive from its use. Methods We performed a literature search of peer-reviewed English language articles using Pubmed and the words "focal therapy" AND "prostate cancer" to identify relevant articles. Web search was complemented by manual search. Results From a biological perspective, in contrast with the index lesion theory, which still needs to be better supported, PCa is a multifocal and multiclonal entity. Also, the effects of FT on PCa microenvironment are unclear. From a clinical perspective, patient selection is still not precisely defined. Even when all variables potentially decreasing mpMRI and biopsy accuracy are optimized, up to one out of two men may be incorrectly selected for FT, leaving a significant proportion of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) untreated. Underestimation of PCa volume and variant histologies are other additional mpMRI potential limitations. No RCTs have been performed against the standard of care to support FT. There is absence of long-term results and FT series reaching medium-term follow-up have non-optimal oncological control with significant re-treatment needs. When PCa recurs/persists after FT, little is known about the appropriate management strategies and their outcomes. Finally, the optimal follow-up scheme post-FT remains unclear. Conclusions Several arguments are present against the use of FT for localized PCa. Studies are needed to overcome current limitations and support FT before it can be included as part of the standard management of prostate cancer.Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) compared to male Readjustment Mechanical External (REMEEX) system for post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI). Material and methods A systematic review and meta-analysis on adjustable device ATOMS compared to male REMEEX is presented. Studies on female or neurogenic incontinence were excluded. Primary objectives were evaluation of dryness (the proportion of patients with no-pad or one safety pad/day after device adjustment) and improvement between devices. Secondary objectives were complications and explant rate. They were estimated using a random-effect model. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test, Higgins's I2 statistics and tau2. Results Combined data of 29 observational studies with 1919 patients showed an equivalent proportion of patients treated with radical prostatectomy (p = .125) and previous radiation (p = .126). Dryness rate was 69.3% for ATOMS and 53.4% for male REEMEX (p = .008). Improvement rate was 90.8% for ATOMS and 80.2% for REMEEX (p = .007). Complication rate was 18.9% for ATOMS and 35.8% for REMEEX (p = .096) and explant rate was 5.5% for ATOMS and 13.9% for REMEEX (p = .027). Significant heterogeneity was evidenced, due to absence of randomized studies, variable incontinence severity baseline, difficulties for a common reporting of complications and difference in the follow-up. Differences observed between devices remained statistically significant when only studies with silicone-covered scrotal port (SSP) ATOMS and male REMEEX system II were considered. Conclusions Despite the absence of direct comparison and the limitations observed ATOMS appears more effective than male REMEEX to treat PPI, and with less explant rate as reported in the literature.Introduction The incidence of meningiomas among the elderly is considered to be high, and are at increased risk of severe morbidity and mortality following surgery due to their aging physiology and unexpected comorbidities. This study aimed to evaluate the optimal management strategies of meningiomas in elderly patients. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 150 patients with incidental large (≥ 3 cm) and giant (≥ 6 cm) anterior skull base meningiomas from 2009 to 2018. These patients were divided into elderly group (≥ 65 years, n = 70) and younger group ( less then 65 years, n = 80). Information of patients with regard to their medical records, operative details, relevant imaging, and follow-up data were obtained from their respective electronic medical records. Results The elderly patients had significantly longer length of hospital stay (15.9 ± 3.5) compared to younger patients (13.6 ± 3.6, P less then 0.001). Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) at discharge was significantly lower in elderly group when compared to younger group (P = 0.04). However, the KPS at 1-year after surgery was similar between the two groups. In addition, there was no significant difference in the incidence of surgical complications between the two groups. Multivariate regression analysis of postoperative complications revealed blood loss ≥ 800 mL (P = 0.007) and BMI ( less then 18.5 or ≥ 24, P less then 0.001) as risk factors, rather than age. Conclusions Surgical resection in elderly patients with incidental anterior skull base large and giant meningiomas is considered to be a safe and effective therapeutic option owing to acceptable mortality, postoperative complications and postoperative clinical outcomes.The article Phase‑contrast magnetic resonance imaging to assess renal perfusion a systematic review and statement paper, written by Giulia Villa, Steffen Ringgaard, Ingo Hermann, Rebecca Noble, Paolo Brambilla, Dinah S. Khatir, Frank G. SR-4835 Zöllner, Susan T. Francis, Nicholas M. Selby, Andrea Remuzzi and Anna Caroli, was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal on 17 August 2019 without open access.The article Image registration in dynamic renal MRI-current status and prospects, written by Frank G. Zöllner, Amira Šerifović‑Trbalić, Gordian Kabelitz, Marek Kociński, Andrzej Materka and Peter Rogelj, was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal on 9 October 2019 without open access.With the author(s)' decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed on 24 April 2020 to ©.