Background: Exemestane, an aromatase inhibitor commonly used for breast cancer treatment, shares structural similarities with sex steroids analyzed in clinical laboratories. We aimed to investigate the influence of exemestane cross-reactivity in the measurement of sex steroids across various immunoassays. Methods: We conducted a multicenter study involving measurements of androstenedione, testosterone, estradiol, progesterone, and 17-hydroxyprogesterone in serum samples from women undergoing exemestane therapy (N = 15; 25 mg/day). Measurements were performed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and various commercially available chemiluminescence immunoassays, ELISA, and radioimmunoassay. In-vitro cross-reactivity was assessed by adding exemestane and 17-hydroexemestane to serum samples. Results: Patients undergoing exemestane therapy had markedly falsely elevated androstenedione results in all immunoassays evaluated (N = 4), which correlated with serum exemestane levels. In-vitro experiments confirmed this interference to be caused by cross-reactivity with exemestane. Additionally, one immunoassay yielded falsely elevated estradiol results in 20% of patients. However, in-vitro experiments did not confirm this to be caused by cross-reactivity with exemestane or 17-hydroexemestane. Conclusions Exemestane cross-reacts with androstenedione immunoassays, causing falsely elevated results in treated patients. This analytical interference may raise unnecessary concerns, leading to expensive diagnostic workups.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term outcomes of sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) in both idiopathic and neurogenic pelvic floor disorders in patients treated at a referral center. Methods: This retrospective observational study analyzed the records of 106 patients tested at our department from December 1999 to January 2017. The efficacy variables evaluated were the Global Response Assessment (range, 0%–100%) and, according to the clinical indication, other specific variables such International Consultation on Incontinence QuestionnaireShort Form, number of catheterizations or pads/day, and the numerical pain scale. The safety variables analyzed were complications (pain, migration, infection), reinterventions and explants. Patients’ quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction with the procedure were evaluated through telephone interviews. Results: The clinical indications were overactive bladder (OAB) (n=36), urinary retention (UR) (n=37), bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC) (n=19), fecal incontinence (FI) (n=8), and double incontinence (DI) (n=6). The implant rates according to the clinical indication were as follows: OAB, 55.6%; UR, 56.8%; BPS/IC, 63.15%; FI, 87.5%; and DI, 66.7%. Clinical and/or statistically significant improvements in all efficacy variables were observed. Loss of therapeutic effect at 75 months of follow-up was observed in 34% of patients. Device-related pain appeared in 25 patients (39%); in 20 patients, it was resolved by reprogramming and 5 patients required device removal. An overall improvement in QoL and high levels of satisfaction with the procedure were observed. More than 90% of patients would recommend SNS to a friend or relative. Conclusions SNS is a minimally invasive procedure that offers a real alternative to patients with refractory pelvic floor dysfunction. Its safety profile is very favorable and it provides a long-lasting improvement in symptoms and QoL.