BACKGROUND: To compare incontinence rates and complications in patients receiving artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) with or without radiotherapy (RT).
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes of AUS between patients with and without RT. Search limits were from 1st January 2002 to 15th September 2021.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Meta-analysis revealed statistically significant reduced odds of the absence of incontinence in the RT group (OR: 0.35 95% CI: 0.21, 0.59 I 2 = 51% p < 0.0001) as compared to the no-RT group. We also noted statistically significant increased risk of revision surgery in the RT group (OR: 1.74 95% CI: 1.16, 2.60 I 2 = 73% p = 0.07). There was increased risk of infections (OR: 2.51 95% CI: 1.00, 6.29 I 2 = 46% p = 0.05) and erosions (OR: 2.00 95% CI: 1.15, 3.45 I 2 = 21% p = 0.01) in the RT group, but the difference was significant only for erosions. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant increased risk of explantation in patients with RT (OR: 3.00 95% CI: 1.16, 7.75 I 2 = 68% p = 0.02) but there was no difference in the risk of urethral atrophy (OR: 1.18 95% CI: 0.47, 2.94 I 2 = 46% p = 0.72) and mechanical failure (OR: 0.90 95% CI: 0.25, 3.27 I 2 = 54% p = 0.87) between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis of recent studies indicates that RT significantly reduces the odds of achieving complete continence after AUS placement. History of RT does not increase the risk urethral atrophy or mechanical failure in patients with AUS. However, the risk of revision surgery, erosions and explantations is significantly increased in patients with RT with a non-significant but increased tendency of infections.
BACKGROUND: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: NCT02612389.

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is infrequently used to treat gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEPNETS), with little published data to date. We carried out a systematic review to assess the activity of EBRT for GEPNETS.
Major databases were searched for papers including at least five patients treated with contemporary EBRT techniques. Eligible studies underwent dual independent review. The primary end points were response rate for lesions treated with definitive intent and recurrence-free survival for primary lesions treated with neoadjuvant or adjuvant intent.
Of 11 included studies (all retrospective), seven investigated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PNETs, 100 patients, 14% grade 3) and four studies investigated extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (84 patients, 14% grade 3). Trials investigating PNETs administered a median of 50.4 Gy via three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. EBRT was given with neoadjuvant or adjuvant intent in 56 patients, with a recurrence rate of 15%. For the 44 patients not undergoing surgery, the radiological response rate was 46%. Grade 3 + toxicity rates were 11% (acute) and 4% (late). Twelve patients with anorectal neuroendocrine carcinoma received 58 Gy to the primary tumour. Seventy-two patients were treated to sites of metastatic disease (34 bone, 27 brain, 11 soft tissue). Local and distant control were poorly reported. Overall survival ranged from 9 to 19 months. No studies in this group reported toxicity outcomes.
There are limited, retrospective data on the overall activity and safety of EBRT in GEPNETS. EBRT generally seems to be well tolerated in selected PNET patients with encouraging activity. Well-designed prospective studies in clearly defined populations are required to clarify the role of EBRT in neuroendocrine tumours.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the literature for functional quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes following treatment for localized prostate cancer. 
.
METHODS: The MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, PsycINFO®, and Web of Science™ databases were searched using key words and synonyms for localized prostate cancer treatments.
.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 2,191 articles screened for relevance and quality, 24 articles were reviewed. Extracted data were tabulated by treatment type and sorted by dysfunction using a data-driven approach.
.
RESULTS: All treatments caused sexual dysfunction and urinary side effects. Radiation therapy caused bowel dysfunction, which could be long-term or resolved within a few years. Sexual function could take years to return. Urinary incontinence resolved within two years of surgery but worsened following radiation therapy. Fatigue was worse during treatment with adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy, and some men experienced post-treatment fatigue for several years. 
.
CONCLUSIONS: This review identified that QOL outcomes reported by men following different treatments for localized prostate cancer are mostly recorded using standardized health-related QOL outcome measures. Such outcome measures collect data about body system functions but limit understanding of men\'s QOL following treatment for prostate cancer. Holistic outcome measures are needed to capture data about men\'s QOL for several years following the completion of treatment for localized prostate cancer.
.
CONCLUSIONS: Nurses need to work with men to facilitate information sharing, identify supportive care needs, and promote self-efficacy, and they should make referrals to specialist services, as appropriate.

Radical external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is a standard treatment for prostate cancer (PC) patients. Despite this, the rate of intraprostatic relapses after primary EBRT is still not negligible. There is no consensus on the most appropriate management of these patients after EBRT failure. Treatment strategies after PC relapse are strongly influenced by the effective site of the tumor recurrence, and thus the instrumental evaluation with different imaging techniques becomes crucial. In cases of demonstrated intraprostatic failure, several systemic (androgen deprivation therapy) or local (salvage prostatectomy, cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound, brachytherapy, stereotactic EBRT) treatment options could be proposed and are currently delivered by clinicians with a variety of results. In this review we analyze the correct definition of intraprostatic relapse after radiotherapy, focusing on the recent developments in imaging to detect intraprostatic recurrence. Furthermore, all available salvage treatment options after a radiation therapy local failure are presented and thoroughly discussed.