Purpose: Incidental prostate cancer (IPCa) is frequently discovered during radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer. While small-scale Korean studies have reported IPCa in 36%–50% of cases and clinically significant prostate cancer (sPCa) in up to 20%, large-scale data assessing its oncologic impact remain scarce. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 1,358 male patients who underwent RC between June 1996 and January 2024. IPCa was histologically confirmed and classified per the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) system. sPCa was defined as ISUP grade group (GG) ≥2. Kaplan-Meier analyses were conducted to evaluate survival outcomes. Results: IPCa was identified in 240 patients (17.7%), among whom 7.51% had sPCa. The distribution of ISUP GG was: GG1, 53.8%; GG2, 27.9%; GG3, 9.6%; GG4, 2.5%; and GG5, 1.7%. The proportion of sPCa remained stable across 3 time periods (p=0.281). Mean preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels significantly differed among GG1, GG2, and GG3+ groups (2.14±2.37, 4.31±6.69, and 5.86±7.66 ng/mL, respectively; p<0.001). Mean patient age also varied significantly (67.99±8.39, 71.54±8.60, and 72.97±5.53 years; p<0.001). After a median follow-up of 44 months, deaths were unrelated to IPCa. Biochemical recurrence (BCR), defined as PSA ≥0.2 ng/mL, occurred in 11 patients (4.58%), with rates of 3.10%, 4.48%, and 12.12% in GG1, GG2, and GG3+ groups, respectively. Overall mortality rates across GG groups were similar (33.3%, 34.3%, and 33.3%; p=0.99). Compared to GG1, hazard ratios for overall survival were 1.03 (GG2, p=0.92), 0.87 (GG3, p=0.76), and 1.05 (GG4–5, p=0.89). Conclusion In this large Korean cohort, IPCa and sPCa were frequently detected at rates similar to global reports. Bladder cancer remained the primary determinant of survival. For older patients with elevated PSA, radical cystoprostatectomy may offer added benefit by treating undiagnosed high-risk IPCa.

Background: We aimed to analyze the risk factors for sudden death after diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in South Korea and to provide evidence for informing prevention and control interventions for patients at risk of sudden death. Methods: We included 30,302 COVID-19 related deaths registered in the patient management information system (Central Disease Control Headquarters) between January 1, 2021, and December 15, 2022. We collected their epidemiological data recorded by the reporting city, province, or country. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify risk factors for sudden death after diagnosis of COVID-19. Results: Among the 30,302 deaths, there were 7,258 (24.0%) and 23,044 (76.0%) sudden and non-sudden deaths, respectively. Sudden death means a person who died within 2 days of diagnosis and who did not receive inpatient treatment. Underlying condition, vaccination status, and place of death were significantly associated with the survival period in all age groups. Moreover, region, sex, and prescription were significantly associated with the survival period only in certain age groups. However, reinfection was not significantly associated with the survival period in any age group. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first study on the risk factors for sudden death after a diagnosis of COVID-19, which included age, underlying condition, vaccination status, and place of death. Additionally, individuals aged < 60 years without an underlying condition were at high risk for sudden death. However, this group has relatively low interest in health, as can be seen from the high non-vaccination rate (16.1% of the general population vs. 61.6% of the corresponding group). Therefore, there is a possibility for the presence of an uncontrolled underlying disease in this population. In addition, many sudden deaths occurred due to delayed hospital visits to continue economic activities even after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms (7 days overall vs. 10 days average for the group). In conclusion, ‘continued interest in health’ is a key factor in avoiding sudden death in the economically active group (under 60 years of age).

Background: To determine the benefit of pelvic floor muscle exercise with visual biofeedback on promoting patient recovery from incontinence, we investigated variables associated with the early restoration of continence for patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Methods: Of the 83 patients enrolled, 41 consecutive patients completed pelvic floor muscle exercise (the exercise group), and the other 42 consecutive patients just before the pelvic floor muscle exercise program commenced (the control group). The primary outcome was whether pelvic floor muscle exercise engagement was associated with zero pad continence restoration within 3 months of surgery. Results: Continence restoration percentages (defined as zero pads used per day) at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery were 49.4%, 77.1%, and 94.0%, respectively. The exercise group achieved significantly higher recovery rates at 1 month (p=0.037), 3 months (p<0.001), and 6 months (p=0.023). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that a lower Gleason score (<8; hazard ratio, 2.167), lower prostate specific antigen (<20 ng/dL; hazard ratio, 2.909), and engagement in pelvic floor muscle exercise (hazard ratio, 3.731) were independent predictors of early recovery from postprostatectomy incontinence. Stratification by age showed that those younger than 65 years did not benefit significantly from exercise (log-rank test, p=0.08), but that their elderly counterparts, aged 65–70 years (p=0.007) and >70 years old (p=0.002) benefited significantly. Conclusion This study suggests that postoperative engagement in pelvic floor muscle exercise with biofeedback speeds up the recovery of continence in elderly patients (≥65 years old) that undergo robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.