Tag Archive for: prostatectomy

Posts

Editorial: Perioperative aspirin: To give or not to give?

As the population ages and life expectancy increases, one may safely assume that more men will be diagnosed with diseases of the elderly such as prostate cancer. In the USA, it is estimated that the number of older adults (≥65 years old) will double between 2010 and 2030, contributing to a 45% increase in cancer incidence [1]. Also, it is likely that these older patients will present with multiple comorbidities, commonly described as ‘multimorbidity’ in the contemporary medical literature, including chronic cardiac and pulmonary conditions requiring multidisciplinary medical management.

Hence, the present study by Leyh-Bannurah et al. [2] examining the peri-operative use of aspirin in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) is a timely and important contribution, and may very well influence our clinical decision-making regarding the perioperative management of the anti-coagulated patient. Their results show that perioperative continuation of aspirin made no difference in peri and postoperative outcomes following RP. Previous studies have assessed the effect of aspirin continuation in patients undergoing minimally invasive RP, but the present study is the first to evaluate the effect of aspirin continuation in patients undergoing minimally invasive and open RP at a high-volume tertiary centre. Studies from other surgical specialties evaluating the role of anti-platelet therapy and its timing before surgery have shown conflicting results. The study by Park et al. [3], looking at discontinuation of aspirin for ≥7 days vs <7 days before surgery in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion, found that aspirin discontinued only 3–7 days before surgery significantly increased the risk of intraoperative bleeding. Alghamdi et al. [4] found similar results in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. In contrast, the study by Wolf et al. [5] showed that continuation of aspirin up to the day of the surgery did not increase the risk of bleeding, transfusion or other adverse outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatectomy. Similarly, Khudairy et al. [6] assessed the use of clopidogrel and its discontinuation time in hip fracture repair, and found that whether it was stopped ≥1 week or <1 week before surgery did not make any difference to the risk of bleeding or peri-operative complications. Nonetheless, the evidence provided by the present study by Leyh-Bannurah et al. is important, as the risk of bleeding seems to be procedure-specific, depending on the nature and source of potential bleeding (primarily arterial vs primarily venous). The lack of information, however, regarding cardiovascular morbidities in their patient population is an important limitation of their study; as such factors may influence perioperative decision-making, including the threshold for transfusion.

Akshay Sood and Quoc-Dien Trinh*
VUI Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, and *Division of Urologic Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

References

  1. Lamb A. Fast Facts: prostate cancer, seventh edition. BJU Int 2012; 110: E157
  2. Park JH, Ahn Y, Choi BS et al. Antithrombotic effects of aspirin on 1- or 2-level lumbar spinal fusion surgery: a comparison between 2 groups discontinuing aspirin use before and after 7 days prior to surgery. Spine 2013; 38: 1561–1565
  3. Alghamdi AA, Moussa F, Fremes SE. Does the use of preoperative aspirin increase the risk of bleeding in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiac Surg 2007; 22: 247–256
  4. Wolf AM, Pucci MJ, Gabale SD et al. Safety of perioperative aspirin therapy in pancreatic operations. Surgery 2014; 155: 39–46
  5. Al Khudairy A, Al-Hadeedi O, Sayana MK, Galvin R, Quinlan JF. Withholding clopidogrel for 3 to 6 versus 7 days or more before surgery in hip fracture patients. J Orthop Surg 2013; 21: 146–150

Video: Effect of peri-operative aspirin medication in open or robot-assisted RP

Open and robot-assisted radical retropubic prostatectomy in men receiving ongoing low-dose aspirin medication: revisiting an old paradigm?

Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah, Jens Hansen, Hendrik Isbarn, Thomas Steuber, Pierre Tennstedt, Uwe Michl, Thorsten Schlomm*, Alexander Haese, Hans Heinzer, Hartwig Huland, Markus Graefen and Lars Budäus

Martini Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center at University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, and *Department of Urology, Section for Translational Prostate Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

OBJECTIVE

• To assess blood loss, transfusion rates and 90-day complication rates in patients receiving ongoing 100 mg/day aspirin medication and undergoing open radical prostatectomy (RP) or robot-assisted RP (RARP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• Between February 2010 and August 2011, 2061 open RPs and 400 RARPs were performed. All patients received low-molecular-weight heparin for thrombembolism prophylaxis. Aspirin intake during surgery was recorded in 137 patients (5.5%).

• Descriptive statistics and multivariable analyses after propensity-score matching for balancing potential differences in patients with and without aspirin medication were used to assess the risk of blood loss above the median in patients undergoing open RP or RARP.

RESULTS

• The median blood loss in the open RP cohort with and without aspirin medication was 750 and 700 mL, respectively, and in the RARP cohort it was 200 and 150 mL, respectively. Within the same cohorts, transfusions were administered in 21 and 8% and 0 and 1% of patients, respectively.

• The 90-day complication rates in patients with ongoing aspirin medication were 5.8, 4.4, 7.3 and 0% for Clavien grades I, II, III and IV complications, respectively.

• In multivariable analyses and after propensity-score matching, prostate volume (odds ratio 1.03; 95% CI 1.02–1.04; P < 0.01) but not ongoing aspirin medication achieved independent predictor status for the risk of blood loss above the median.

CONCLUSIONS

• Major surgery such as open RP and RARP can be safely performed in patients with ongoing aspirin medication without greater blood loss.

• Higher 90-day complication rates were not detected in such patients.

• Differences in transfusion rates between the groups receiving and not receiving ongoing aspirin medication may be explained by a higher proportion of patients with coronary artery disease in the group receiving ongoing aspirin mediciation. This comorbidity may result in a higher peri-operative threshold for allogenic blood transfusion.

Article of the Week: Retzius-sparing RALP: combining the best of retropubic and perineal approaches

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video demonstrating the Retzius-sparing approach to robot-assisted prostatectomy.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: combining the best of retropubic and perineal approaches

Sey Kiat Lim*, Kwang Hyun Kim*, Tae-Young Shin*, Woong Kyu Han*, Byung Ha Chung*, Sung Joon Hong*, Young Deuk Choi* and Koon Ho Rha*

*Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea and Department of Urology, Changi General Hospital, Singapore

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

To compare the early peri-operative, oncological and continence outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) with those of conventional RALP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 50 patients who underwent Retzius-sparing RALP and who had at least 6 months of follow-up were prospectively collected and compared with a database of patients who underwent conventional RALP. Propensity-score matching was performed using seven preoperative variables, and postoperative variables were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 581 patients who had undergone RALP were evaluated in the present study. Although preoperative characteristics were different before propensity-score matching, these differences were resolved after matching. There were no significant differences in mean length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, intra- and postoperative complication rates, pathological stage of disease, Gleason scores, tumour volumes and positive surgical margins between the conventional RALP and Retzius-sparing RALP groups. Console time was shorter for Retzius-sparing RALP. Recovery of early continence (defined as 0 pads used) at 4 weeks after RALP was significantly better in the Retzius-sparing RALP group than in the conventional RALP group.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results suggest that Retzius-sparing RALP, although technically more demanding, was as feasible and effective as conventional RALP, and also led to a shorter operating time and faster recovery of early continence. Retzius-sparing RALP was also reproducible and achievable in all cases.

Editorial: Pushing the robot-assisted prostatectomy envelope – to the safety limits? Better outcomes

The present article by Lim et al. [1] describing the new technique for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is provocative. It really does highlight the dramatic improvement in outcomes of prostate cancer surgery for men over the last 25 years. What used to be a 3-week hospital stay with a 50% incontinence rate and a 100% impotence rate [2, 3] now becomes a day case with a high likelihood of excellent urinary control early after surgery and a fair potential for potency preservation. Twenty-five years ago men who underwent radical prostatectomy were truly brave patients.

Lim et al. report a single series by the senior author of 50 cases performed using the so-called Retzius preservation technique. Their cohort of 50 patients treated this way was compared with a retrospective cohort of the surgeon’s patients. The patients had lower-risk disease and patients who had seminal vesicle invasion or extracapsular extension noted preoperatively, presumably on MRI, were excluded from the series. The authors report a shorter operating time and an earlier return to urinary continence in the first 6 months after surgery.

I guess where surgeons are now taking us is to an attempt to remove the prostate from the hammock of neurovascular, muscular and fascial tissue surrounding it, without disturbing the anatomy [4]. If this can be achieved then radical prostatectomy with minimal morbidity is a very compelling choice for the primary treatment of prostate cancer.

The authors’ hypothesis is that preservation of the levator fascia, puboprostatic ligaments and detrusor apron will fix the bladder somewhat like a sling would, with support at the bladder neck during increased intra-abdominal pressure.

It should be noted, however, that the present paper represents a single series of patients selected after a long learning curve by a very experienced surgeon. These excellent outcomes may simply reflect the fact that the surgeon is now extremely technically capable. It is contentious to assume that a propensity score matching of a retrospective cohort would represent a true comparator to contemporary outcomes. These excellent outcomes probably reflect technical improvements achievable with more risky and innovative surgery – after many cases. The authors should be congratulated on pushing the envelope to achieve even better outcomes for patients undergoing this operation, but the exclusion of patients with high-risk disease is probably the major negative aspect of their report. It has become increasingly obvious that patients with high-risk disease are those who benefit most from radical prostatectomy surgery. Surgery for patients with very-low-risk disease (Gleason 6) is probably unnecessary. Nevertheless, with continued insights such as those provided by these surgeons, we may be able to increase the range of patients to whom Retzius-sparing surgery in higher risk cohorts can be offered.

Read the full article

Anthony J. Costello
Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

References

  1. Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin T-Y et al. Retzius-sparing Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy – combining the best of retropubic and perineal approaches. BJU Int 2014; 114: 236–244
  2. Wein AJ, Kavousi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA. Campbell-Walsh Urology, 10th edn. Saint Louis, MO: Saunders, 2011: 5688
  3. Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, Smith DS. Potency, continence and complication rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 1999; 162: 433–438
  4. Costello AJ, Brooks M, Cole OJ. Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int 2004; 94: 1071–1076

Video: Retzius-sparing approach to RALP

Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: combining the best of retropubic and perineal approaches

Sey Kiat Lim*, Kwang Hyun Kim*, Tae-Young Shin*, Woong Kyu Han*, Byung Ha Chung*, Sung Joon Hong*, Young Deuk Choi* and Koon Ho Rha*

*Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea and Department of Urology, Changi General Hospital, Singapore

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

To compare the early peri-operative, oncological and continence outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) with those of conventional RALP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 50 patients who underwent Retzius-sparing RALP and who had at least 6 months of follow-up were prospectively collected and compared with a database of patients who underwent conventional RALP. Propensity-score matching was performed using seven preoperative variables, and postoperative variables were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 581 patients who had undergone RALP were evaluated in the present study. Although preoperative characteristics were different before propensity-score matching, these differences were resolved after matching. There were no significant differences in mean length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, intra- and postoperative complication rates, pathological stage of disease, Gleason scores, tumour volumes and positive surgical margins between the conventional RALP and Retzius-sparing RALP groups. Console time was shorter for Retzius-sparing RALP. Recovery of early continence (defined as 0 pads used) at 4 weeks after RALP was significantly better in the Retzius-sparing RALP group than in the conventional RALP group.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results suggest that Retzius-sparing RALP, although technically more demanding, was as feasible and effective as conventional RALP, and also led to a shorter operating time and faster recovery of early continence. Retzius-sparing RALP was also reproducible and achievable in all cases.

Do we really need to show a survival benefit to justify ePLND in prostate cancer?

Whilst extended pelvic lymphadenectomy has become part of standard care in select patients undergoing radical prostatectomy at some centres, it is not universally accepted or performed and remains controversial, so why is this? The most common reasons cited for not performing a node dissection, or at least an extended node dissection, include lack of proven therapeutic benefit and the increased operative time and risk of complications. But do we really need to show a survival benefit to accept the role of extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy? It would take a randomised trial run over at least a decade, thousands of patients and untold cost to prove or disprove. Although randomised trials can be invaluable in assessing some aspects of medical or surgical care, they are not always appropriate or even desirable for surgical outcomes as O’Brien et al eloquently illustrated. What’s more, results from RCTs in surgery can be misleading – consider the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial, in which overall survival at a median follow-up of 10 years was approximately 50% in both arms. This is equivalent to the overall survival in the observation arm of Messing’s trial, in which virtually no patients died of non-prostate cancer causes and contrasts starkly with the current life expectancy of 65 year old males in Australia of 20 years. Patients in PIVOT weren’t living long enough to die from prostate cancer!

There is no doubt that for accurate nodal staging, an extended lymphadenectomy is currently the gold standard, as reflected in the EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Two very elegant trials in recent years assessed the performance of similar templates in terms of staging accuracy and concluded that a modified extended template struck the right balance between accuracy and risk of complications. Joniau et al, showed in a prospective cohort of 74 patients, around half of whom were lymph node positive, a modified extended template including the pre-sacral nodes had a staging accuracy of 97% and removed 88% of positive nodes. Omitting the pre-sacral nodes accurately staged 94% of patients and removed 76% of positive nodes. Mattei et al concluded that their modified ePLND removed approximately 75% of “sentinel” nodes in a prospective series of 34 node negative patients. Whether a “modified” ePLND or “plain” ePLND is performed, the staging accuracy is significantly better than a “standard” PLND, which omits the nodes around the internal iliac vessels and according to Joniau et al would accurately stage 76% of patients and remove only 29% of positive nodes. A “limited” node dissection, removing only the tissue within the obturator fossa performed even worse, staging 47% and removing just 15% of positive nodes.

 From Mattei et al European Urology 2008, 53:118-125

But what is the real value in accurate nodal staging? Does it change patient management? The Messing trial showed that node positive patients who received adjuvant hormone therapy had improved CSS and OS compared to node positive patients observed until clinical progression. The study, however, has limited application to current real life patient management. Whilst patients with high volume nodal disease are likely to benefit from adjuvant hormone therapy, some patients with node positive disease, particularly those with micro-metastatic disease, will not suffer biochemical progression let alone clinical progression and therefore may not warrant ADT. Furthermore, most patients will be commenced on hormone therapy according to specific PSA criteria long before clinical progression. Despite these apparent weaknesses, the CSS and OS are remarkably similar to many retrospective series of node positive patients outside trials and managed in “real life”. Bader and Schumacher presented series of 92 and 122 node positive patients respectively, none of who received adjuvant hormone therapy. Ten year CSS for both of these series was approximately 60% and 10-yr OS in the Schumacher cohort was 53%, almost identical to the 10-yr OS in the Messing trial. Conversely, a number of retrospective series of node positive patients in which all, or almost all patients received AHT, 10-yr CSS ranged between 74-86% and 10-yr OS was 60 – 67%. These outcomes are similar to the AHT arm in Messing’s trial, in which 10-yr CSS was 85% and 10-yr OS was 75%. This is far from compelling evidence in favour of AHT in node positive patients, but it is certainly food for thought.

Rather than treat all node positive patients equally, however, we should be more sophisticated in our approach. Briganti and Schumacher have shown that patients with 1 or 2 positive lymph nodes have better 10-yr CSS than patients with 3 or more positive nodes whether they receive adjuvant hormone therapy or not. In Schumacher’s series, 10-yr CSS was 72-79% for patients with 1 and 2 positive nodes, versus 33% for patients with 3 or more positive nodes, without AHT. In Briganti’s series, 10-yr CSS for patients with 3 or more positive nodes was 73% and they were almost twice as likely to die from prostate cancer than those with fewer than 3 nodes positive. All patients received AHT. Perhaps then, we should consider patients with higher volume nodal disease on extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for immediate adjuvant hormone therapy, whilst those with micro-metastatic disease may be suitable for observation until predetermined PSA criteria are reached.

Beyond the staging benefit, Jindong et al recently published a prospective, randomised trial showing a BCR free survival benefit for patients undergoing extended versus standard pelvic lymphadenectomy. With a median follow-up of just over 6 years, intermediate risk patients undergoing ePLND had a 12% absolute reduction in biochemical recurrence (73.1% v 85.7%) and high risk patients more than 20% (51.1% v 71.4%) compared to those undergoing a standard node dissection. This may eventually translate into a survival benefit, or at least a clinical progression benefit, but in this cohort of patients, a reduction in biochemical recurrence means a reduction in the numbers requiring salvage radiation therapy and salvage androgen deprivation and the consequent side-effects and complications of these treatments.

It is clear the complication rate following ePLND is higher than with sPLND or no node dissection, but a recent review revealed the difference is accounted for by an increase in the incidence of symptomatic lymphoceles, most of which resolve with conservative management. Ureteric, nerve and major vascular injuries are rare. This would appear to be a much more acceptable complication profile than that following salvage radiotherapy, or androgen deprivation. Although uncommon, membranous urethral stricture following salvage radiation often confers debilitating and enduring morbidity. Continence and potency rates also suffer, not to mention bowel toxicity. A 20% absolute reduction in biochemical recurrence may also swing the pendulum away from adjuvant radiation in high risk disease, benefiting even more patients.

Proving a survival benefit with level 1 evidence is the holy grail of medical and surgical trials, but it is not the only outcome to consider. Biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy carries significant psychological burden and salvage therapies can carry significant morbidity. Disease recurrence is most common in the high risk population and there is now level 1 evidence of a real benefit to these patients when ePLND is included as part of their surgical care.

 

Dr Philip E Dundee

Epworth Prostate Centre and The Royal Melbourne Hospital

T: @phildundee

 

Article of the week: Men under 50 should not be discouraged from radical prostatectomy

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by prominent members of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Dr. Andreas Becker discussing his paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Functional and oncological outcomes of patients aged <50 years treated with radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer in a European population

Andreas Becker*, Pierre Tennstedt*, Jens Hansen*, Quoc-Dien Trinh, Luis Kluth, Nabil Atassi*, Thorsten Schlomm*, Georg Salomon*, Alexander Haese*, Lars Budaeus*, Uwe Michl*, Hans Heinzer*, Hartwig Huland*, Markus Graefen* and Thomas Steuber*

*Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada, andDepartment of Urology, University-Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

• To address the biochemical and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) of men aged <50 years in a large European population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• Among 13 268 patients who underwent RP for clinically localised prostate cancer at our centre (1992–2011), 443 (3.3%) men aged <50 were identified.

• Biochemical recurrence (BCR) and functional outcomes (International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5], use of pads), were prospectively evaluated and compared between men aged <50 years and older patients.

RESULTS

• Men aged <50 years were more likely to harbour D’Amico low-risk (49.4 vs 34.9%, P < 0.001), organ-confined (82.6 vs 69.4%, P < 0.001) and low-grade tumours (Gleason score <7: 33.1 vs 28.7%, P < 0.001).

• Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age <50 years (hazard ratio 0.99; confidence interval 0.72–1.31; P = 0.9) was not a predictor of BCR.

• Urinary continence was more favourable in younger patients, resulting in continence rates of 97.4% vs 91.6% in most recent years (2009–2011) for patients aged <50 vs ≥50 years.

• After RP, a median IIEF-5 drop of 4 points in younger men vs 8 points in older patients was recorded (P < 0.001).

• Favourable recovery of urinary continence and erectile function in patients aged <50 years compared with their older counterparts was confirmed after multivariable adjustment.

CONCLUSION

• Men aged <50 years diagnosed with localised prostate cancer should not be discouraged from RP, as the postoperative rates of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction are low and probability of BCR-free survival at 2 and 5 years is high.

 

Editorial: Radical prostatectomy at young age

Becker et al. [1] investigated a large sample of young patients (aged <50 years) who underwent radical prostatectomy during a 20-year period in a high-volume European centre. In this study [1], men aged <50 years had a significantly more favourable functional outcome (continence rates [0–1 pads] 97% vs 92%; International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF] score drop of 4 vs 8 points), compared with their older counterparts. Biochemical tumour control was higher in younger patients in univariate (5-year rates 81% vs 70%) but not in multivariate analysis.

In studies in the pre-PSA era, young age at prostate cancer diagnosis was often associated with adverse tumour-related outcome [2]. Possibly, the disadvantage of younger patients was attributable to rapidly growing high-grade tumours causing symptoms at a young age in the absence of a dilution by favourable early detected low-grade cancers. In contemporary patients, the opposite is observed [1]. As the impact of age vanished after controlling for tumour-related prognostic factors reflecting the presence of more favourable disease criteria in younger men, it may be considered likely that PSA-based early detection enriched favourable parameters in the younger subgroup. Altogether, prostate cancer biology is probably not meaningfully associated with age. Outcome differences, even in randomised trials [3, 4], are rather caused by age-related differences in the approach to prostate cancer diagnostics and early detection than in actual biological differences.

The relative favourable functional outcome in younger patients [1] supports early curative treatment in this population. Currently available active surveillance studies have very limited follow-up and were performed mainly in elderly patients with significant comorbidity [5]. Currently, in Germany the further life expectancy in men aged 50 years is ≈30 years [6]. In a contemporary active surveillance study, narrowly half of patients received active treatment within 10 years [5]. Therefore, most men starting active surveillance at an age of 50 years will subsequently receive active treatment. This treatment will then be performed at a greater age where the chances for satisfactory functional recovery are less favourable.

The inferior tumour control rates in patients receiving robot-assisted surgery is another remarkable finding of this study (hazard ratio 1.4, 95% CI 0.99–1.9, P = 0.06 in the multivariate analysis). Although the significance level was narrowly failed, this observation cannot be ignored. It was accompanied by an increased continence recovery rate after robot-assisted surgery suggesting that it may probably not be attributed to the learning curve. Less radical removal of the prostate with more sparing of neurovascular structures and bladder neck might be a conceivable explanation of this phenomenon. In this study [1], the prognostic impact of robot-assisted approach was in a similar range as a positive surgical margin (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% CI 1.4–1.7).

Current clinical guidelines discourage prostate cancer screening in average-risk men aged <50 years [7]. It remains to be seen in which degree these recommendations will affect clinical practice and outcome parameters in this age group in the years ahead.

Read the full article

Manfred P. Wirth and Michael Froehner
Department of Urology, University Hospital ‘Carl Gustav Carus’, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany

References

  1. Becker A, Tennstedt P, Hansen J et al. Functional and oncological outcomes of patients younger than 50 years treated with radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer in a European population. BJU Int 2014; 114: 38–45
  2. Parker CC, Gospodarowicz M, Warde P. Does age influence the behaviour of localized prostate cancer? BJU Int 2001; 87: 629–637
  3. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1708–1717
  4. Froehner M, Wirth MP. Early prostate cancer – treat or watch? N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 568
  5. Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 981–987
  6. Statistisches Bundesamt. Periodensterbetafeln für Deutschland 1871/1881 bis 2008/2010 [Period death tables for Germany 1871/1881 bis 2008/2010]. Wiesbaden 2012. Available at: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsbewegung/PeriodensterbetafelnPDF_5126202.pdf?__blob=publicationFile [Website in German]. Accessed 12 July 2013.
  7. Qaseem A, Barry MJ, Denberg TD, Owens DK, Shekelle P; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Screening for prostate cancer: a guidance statement from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158: 761–769

Video: RP for younger men – low risk and high survival rate

Functional and oncological outcomes of patients aged <50 years treated with radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer in a European population

Andreas Becker*, Pierre Tennstedt*, Jens Hansen*, Quoc-Dien Trinh, Luis Kluth, Nabil Atassi*, Thorsten Schlomm*, Georg Salomon*, Alexander Haese*, Lars Budaeus*, Uwe Michl*, Hans Heinzer*, Hartwig Huland*, Markus Graefen* and Thomas Steuber*

*Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada, andDepartment of Urology, University-Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

• To address the biochemical and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) of men aged <50 years in a large European population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• Among 13 268 patients who underwent RP for clinically localised prostate cancer at our centre (1992–2011), 443 (3.3%) men aged <50 were identified.

• Biochemical recurrence (BCR) and functional outcomes (International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5], use of pads), were prospectively evaluated and compared between men aged <50 years and older patients.

RESULTS

• Men aged <50 years were more likely to harbour D’Amico low-risk (49.4 vs 34.9%, P < 0.001), organ-confined (82.6 vs 69.4%, P < 0.001) and low-grade tumours (Gleason score <7: 33.1 vs 28.7%, P < 0.001).

• Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age <50 years (hazard ratio 0.99; confidence interval 0.72–1.31; P = 0.9) was not a predictor of BCR.

• Urinary continence was more favourable in younger patients, resulting in continence rates of 97.4% vs 91.6% in most recent years (2009–2011) for patients aged <50 vs ≥50 years.

• After RP, a median IIEF-5 drop of 4 points in younger men vs 8 points in older patients was recorded (P < 0.001).

• Favourable recovery of urinary continence and erectile function in patients aged <50 years compared with their older counterparts was confirmed after multivariable adjustment.

CONCLUSION

• Men aged <50 years diagnosed with localised prostate cancer should not be discouraged from RP, as the postoperative rates of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction are low and probability of BCR-free survival at 2 and 5 years is high.

AUS outcomes in irradiated vs non-irradiated patients

Outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter implantation in the irradiated patient

Niranjan J. Sathianathen, Sean M. McGuigan* and Daniel A. Moon*

Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, and *Epworth HealthCare, Melbourne, Vic., Australia

Read the full article
OBJECTIVES

• To present the outcomes of men undergoing artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation.

• To determine the impact a history of radiation therapy has on the outcomes of prosthetic surgery for stress urinary incontinence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• A cohort of 77 consecutive men undergoing AUS implantation for stress urinary incontinence after prostate cancer surgery, including 29 who had also been irradiated, were included in a prospective database and followed up for a mean period of 21.2 months.

• Continence rates and incidence of complications, revision and cuff erosion were evaluated, with results in irradiated men compared with those of men who had undergone radical prostatectomy alone.

• The effect of co-existing hypertension, diabetes mellitus and surgical approach on outcomes were also examined.

RESULTS

• Overall, the rate of social continence (0–1 pad/day) was 87% and similar in irradiated and non-irradiated men (86.2 vs 87.5%). Likewise, the incidence of infection (3.4 vs 0%), erosion (3.4 vs 2.0%) and revision surgery (10.3 vs 12.5%) were not significantly different between the groups.

• There was a far greater incidence of co-existing urethral stricture disease in irradiated patients (62.1 vs 10.4%) which often complicated management; however, AUS implantation was still feasible in these men and, in four such cases, a transcorporal cuff placement was used.

• There were poorer outcomes in patients with diabetes, and a greater re-operation rate in those men who underwent a transverse scrotal rather than perineal surgical approach, although the differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

• Previous irradiation in patients may increase the complexity of treatment because of a greater incidence of co-existing urethral stricture disease; however, these patients are still able to achieve a level of social continence similar to that of non-irradiated patients, with no discernable increase in complication rates, cuff erosion or the need for revision surgery.

• AUS implantation remains the ‘gold standard’ for management of moderate-to-severe stress urinary incontinence in both irradiated and non-irradiated patients after prostate cancer treatment.

 

 

© 2022 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.