Tag Archive for: robot-assisted

Posts

Article of the Week: Safety and efficacy of 2-weekly cabazitaxel in mCRPC

Every Week, the Editor-in-Chief selects an 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.

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

Safety and efficacy of 2-weekly cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Alice Clement-Zhao* , Marie Auvray*, Hail Aboudagga, Felix Blanc-Durand*, Antoine Angelergues *, Yann Alexandre Vano*, Florence Mercier, Nader El Awadly*, Benjamin Verret*, Constance Thibault* and Stephane Oudard*

 

*Department of Medical Oncology, Pharmacy Department, Hopital Europeen Georges Pompidou, Paris, and Stat Process Society, Port-Mort, France

 

How to Cite

Clément-Zhao, A., Auvray, M., Aboudagga, H., Blanc-Durand, F., Angelergues, A., Vano, Y. A., Mercier, F., El Awadly, N., Verret, B., Thibault, C. and Oudard, S. (2018), Safety and efficacy of 2-weekly cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. BJU International, 121: 203–208. doi: 10.1111/bju.13855

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a 2-weekly cabazitaxel schedule in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Materials and methods

During the period October 2013 to February 2016, 43 patients with mCRPC were treated with cabazitaxel (16 mg/m2, on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle) together with prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). The safety profile and efficacy (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] response; biological, clinical or radiological progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]) of the treatment were analysed.

Results

All patients had received prior docetaxel and 79.1% abiraterone acetate. At inclusion, 46.5% were aged >70 years and 27.9% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2. Six patients stopped treatment because of toxicity. Grade ≥3 toxicities were: asthenia (16.3%); neutropenia (11.6%); thrombocytopenia (9.3%); diarrhoea (7%), anaemia (4.7%), febrile neutropenia (4.7%) and haematuria (2.3%). In all, 52.4% achieved a ≥30% PSA response and 40.5% had a ≥50% PSA response. The median OS was 15.2 months.

Conclusion

This prospective pilot study suggests that cabazitaxel 16 mg/m² given 2-weekly has a manageable toxicity profile in docetaxel- and abiraterone acetate-pretreated patients with mCRPC. A prospective phase III trial comparing this regimen with the standard cabazitaxel regimen is planned to confirm these results.

Editorial: Even ‘low-dose’ cabazitaxel requires careful and meticulous patient selection

In the present issue of BJUI, Clèment-Zhao et al. [1] have evaluated the safety profile of a 2-weekly regime of cabazitaxel (CBZ) at a dose of 16 mg/m2 in 43 patients with progressing, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment was planned to have been delivered for a total of six cycles, with each cycle consisting of two 2-weekly applications of CBZ. The majority of patients had already received two life-extending systemic therapies, such as docetaxel and abiraterone acetate. Despite the prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), 11.6% and 4.7% of patients developed grade ≥3 neutropenia or febrile neutropenia, respectively, and one patient even died from treatment-related toxicities. Only 75% of the scheduled six cycles could be delivered, although dose reduction of 20% was carried out in 37.2% of the patients. The authors recommend this type of treatment for elderly and frail patients and they provide the reader with the impression that the delivery of such a toxic regime in elderly and frail patients is accordance with the guidelines [2].

Based on the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines [2], it is evident that the term ‘frailty’ requires a dedicated and sophisticated geriatric assessment using, for example, the G8 questionnaire. If a score <14 is calculated on this questionnaire, and the patients have been identified as having irreversible impairment, an intensive geriatric intervention might be undertaken to correct the underlying comorbidities. Only in the presence of correctable comorbidities should an adapted cancer therapy be initiated, while in their absence best supportive care seems to be the optimal approach. Of the 43 patients in the present phase II trial, none underwent a geriatric assessment and three-quarters of the patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–1; therefore, only a minority of the treated patients represented frail patients, and conclusions should be drawn with great caution, also considering the relatively low number of patients recruited.

The frequency of 11.6% and 4.7% of grade 3/4 neutropenia and neutropenic fever, respectively, and an overall frequency of 34.9% grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events is still quite high compared with the data from studies on the German Early-Access Programme (EAP) and the European EAP on CBZ, which included 111 and 746 patients with similar disease characteristics, of whom 7.2% and 15%, respectively, developed grade ≥3 neutropenia, despite non-regular use of G-CSF [3, 4].

Several factors might have contributed to the relatively high frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events in the present study. Firstly, the cumulative CBZ dose was 144 mg/m2 in the present study as compared with 100 mg/m2 in the European EAP and 162.5 mg/m2 in the German EAP, so that there was not a significant reduction in dose despite the lower dose delivered at each cycle. This might have contributed to impairment of bone marrow function over time. Secondly, bone marrow reserve appeared to differ among treated patients: ~50% of patients already had neutrophil counts below the normal values. As we have shown recently, neutrophil counts <4 000/mm3 were associated with an odds ratio of 1.73 (95% CI 1.25–2.39; P < 0.001) for developing grade 3/4 neutropenia [4]. Thirdly, age ≥75 years, but not age <75 years or ECOG performance status ≥2, was associated with a 1.66-fold (95% CI 1.09–5.52; P = 0.018) increased risk of significant neutropenia in the above-mentioned studies [3, 4]; however, it is unclear how many patients were aged >75 years in the present study.

As a result of these factors, it is still necessary to carefully select elderly patients with mCRPC prior to the recommendation of cytotoxic CBZ therapy, even at a reduced dose. Despite the fact that there is some weak evidence that severe neutropenia might be associated with a survival benefit, we need to bear in mind that this evidence is from post hoc analysis of fit and non-elderly patients recruited in the TROPIC trial [5]. We have no meaningfuldata from a cohort of elderly and vulnerable/frail patients and we have no data at all on quality of life in these patients; therefore, we should not overtreat and we should only consider frail and elderly patients with mCRPC for CBZ treatment if they have undergone geriatric assessment that has shown correctable comorbidities. Otherwise, there are numerous other treatment options in addition to chemotherapy, including best supportive care [6].

With regard to therapeutic efficacy, we always find it difficult to report median overall survival times of 15.2 months when the median follow-up time is only 12.9 months.

Axel Heidenreicand David Pster
Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology, Robot-Assisted and Reconstructive Urological Surgery, University of CologneCologne, Germany

 

 

References

 

1Clement-Zhao A, Auvray M, Aboudagga H et al. Safety and efcacy of 2-weekly cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2018; 121: 2038

 

 

 

 

 

 

Article of the Month: Does RARP benefit patients with oligometastatic PCa?

Every Month, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month 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.

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

Does robot-assisted radical prostatectomy benefit patients with prostate cancer and bone oligometastases?

Won Sik Jang, Myung Soo Kim, Won Sik Jeong, Ki Don Chang, Kang Su Cho, Won Sik Ham, Koon Ho Rha, Sung Joon Hong and Young Deuk Choi

Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the peri-operative and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer (PCa).

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 79 patients with oligometastatic PCa treated with RARP or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) between 2005 and 2015 at our institution. Of these 79 patients, 38 were treated with RARP and 41 were treated with ADT without local therapy. Oligometastatic disease was defined as the presence of five or fewer hot spots detected by preoperative bone scan. We evaluated peri-operative outcomes, progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). We analysed data using Kaplan–Meier methods, with log-rank tests and multivariate Cox regression models.

Results

Patients treated with RARP experienced similar postoperative complications to those previously reported in RP-treated patients, and fewer urinary complications than ADT-treated patients. PFS and CSS were longer in RARP-treated compared with ADT-treated patients (median PFS: 75 vs 28 months, P = 0.008; median CSS: not reached vs 40 months, P = 0.002). Multivariate analysis further identified RARP as a significant predictor of PFS and CSS (PFS: hazard ratio [HR] 0.388, P = 0.003; CSS: HR 0.264, P = 0.004).

Conclusions

We showed that RARP in the setting of oligometastatic PCa is a safe and feasible procedure which improves oncological outcomes in terms of PFS and CSS. In addition, our data suggest that RARP effectively prevents urinary tract complications from PCa. The study highlights results from expert surgeons and highly selected patients that cannot be extrapolated to all patients with oligometastatic PCa; to confirm our findings, large, prospective, multicentre studies are required.

Editorial: Is it time for a more ‘proactive’ approach to metastatic prostate cancer?

In this issue of BJU International, Jang et al. [1] investigate the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in oligometastatic prostate cancer. The authors evaluated a retrospective cohort of 79 patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer, defined as up to five bony metastases on bone scan without visceral metastasis on conventional CT, treated either with RARP (n = 38, 48%) or androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT: n = 41, 52%). They found that cytoreductive RARP was associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) relative to the ADT cohort at a median follow-up of 40 months.

The authors exclusively use the robotic approach for RP in the metastatic prostate cancer setting. Overall, they should be commended for demonstrating the feasibility of RARP in the metastatic setting, with a median operating room time of 147 min and complication rate of ~15%. This is in the same range as the 164 min operative time and 20% complication rate reported in a recent multi-institutional cytoreductive RP (cRP) series, consisting of both open and robotic approaches [2]. However, it is important to note that Jang et al. [1] had a 79% positive margin rate compared to 54% for Sooriakumaran et al. [2]. Furthermore, Jang et al. [1] had a median hospital stay of 5 days compared to 2–3 days in the USA centres [2]. These findings underscore the significant difficulty often encountered in metastatic cases, despite robotic assistance. Thus, we believe the age-old debate of open vs robotic prostatectomy is perhaps less relevant in the cytoreductive setting, where surgeon experience and expertise may be more critical drivers of outcome.

Although there is some evidence in favour of cRP compared to the standard of care, selection bias, limited collection and analysis of much clinical data, and short follow-up often plague most series. Understandably, the current manuscript by Jang et al. [1] also suffers from some of these limitations and leaves some questions unanswered. For instance, did the number of bone metastases, PSA doubling time at diagnosis, and distribution of lymphadenopathy (pelvic vs extra-pelvic) differ between cRP and ADT groups and thus confound the impact of cRP on survival? In addition, the authors may wish to report overall survival, so that their series can be more readily compared to the existing literature. Moreover, the median CSS was only 40 months in the ADT group, whereas it was not even reached in the low-volume arm of the ChemoHormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED) [3], suggesting that the control group in the current manuscript may have had higher volume metastatic disease. Lastly, there is no evaluation of the impact of adjuvant ADT and radiation therapy on CSS, and further studies may wish to explore if such multi-modal approaches may yield a benefit in the cytoreductive setting.

The existing literature on cRP remains in the nascent stage and is conflicting. The first large studies to suggest a benefit for cRP were retrospective series based on large cancer databases. Subsequently, Heidenreich et al. [4] explored the role of cRP in a case-control study, which found a significantly longer PFS and CSS in a group of 23 men undergoing neoadjuvant ADT + cRP compared to 38 men treated with ADT alone. On the other hand, a prospective investigation comparing 43 men with low-volume bone metastasis treated with cRP to 38 men treated with ADT did not show a benefit for time-to-castration-resistance or overall survival [5]. Moschini et al. [6] also found no survival benefit for cRP with 5-years of follow-up relative to a cohort of ADT patients with CSS more consistent with randomised data from the CHAARTED [3]. The present study by Jang et al. [1] adds to the growing body of retrospective series advocating cRP in select patients.

Whilst a full discussion of the putative biological mechanisms proposed to explain a potential survival benefit of cRP is beyond this editorial, they can be broadly grouped into the following: removal of the primary source of circulating tumour cells, reducing the number of cells that can develop resistant mechanisms for systemic therapy, removal of immunosuppressive cytokines, abscopal effects, and decreasing tumour-growth promoting factors. Ultimately, the ‘proof is in the pudding’, and the results of several randomised trials (Testing radical prostatectomy in men with oligometastatic prostate cancer that has spread to the bone [TRoMbone], NCT01751438, and NCT02454543) are eagerly awaited to determine if cRP can benefit patients.

Matteo Soligo, Vidit Sharma and R. Jeffrey Karnes
Mayo Clinic Urology, Rochester, MN, USA

 

 

References

 

 

 

3 Sweeney CJ, Chen YH, Carducci M et al. Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 73746

 

4 Heidenreich A, Pster D, Porres D. Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer and low volume skeletal metastases: results of a feasibility and case-control study. J Urol 2015; 193: 8328

 

 

6 Moschini M, Morlacco A, Kwon E, Rangel LJ, Karnes RJ. Treatment of M1a/M1b prostate cancer with or without radical prostatectomy at diagnosis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2017; 20: 11721

 

Article of the Month: An analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional pyeloplasty in children

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.

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

Meta-analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children

Thomas P. Cundy*, Leanne Harling†, Archie Hughes-Hallett*†, Erik K. Mayer†, Azad S. Najmaldin‡, Thanos Athanasiou†, Guang-Zhong Yang* and Ara Darzi*†

*The Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, and †Department of Surgery and Cancer, St Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College, London; and ‡Department of Paediatric Surgery, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK

OBJECTIVE

To critically analyse outcomes for robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) vs conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) or open pyeloplasty (OP) by systematic review and meta-analysis of published data.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Studies published up to December 2013 were identified from multiple literature databases. Only comparative studies investigating RAP vs LP or OP in children were included. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects modelling. Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, and quality scoring were assessed. Effect sizes were estimated by pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences. Primary outcomes investigated were operative success, re-operation, conversions, postoperative complications, and urinary leakage. Secondary outcome measures were estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), operating time (OT), analgesia requirement, and cost.

RESULTS

In all, 12 observational studies met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes of 384 RAP, 131 LP, and 164 OP procedures. No randomised controlled trials were identified. Pooled analyses determined no significant differences between RAP and LP or OP for all primary outcomes. Significant differences in favour of RAP were found for LOS (vs LP and OP). Borderline significant differences in favour of RAP were found for EBL (vs OP). OT was significantly longer for RAP vs OP. Limited evidence indicates lower opiate analgesia requirement for RAP (vs LP and OP), higher total costs for RAP vs OP, and comparable costs for RAP vs LP.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing evidence shows largely comparable outcomes amongst surgical techniques available to treat pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children. RAP may offer shortened LOS, lower analgesia requirement (vs LP and OP), and lower EBL (vs OP); but compared with OP, these gains are at the expense of higher cost and longer OT. Higher quality evidence from prospective observational studies and clinical trials is required, as well as further cost-effectiveness analyses. Not all perceived benefits of RAP are easily amenable to quantitative assessment.

Editorial: Robot-assisted pyeloplasty in children

The authors of the study on robot-assisted pyeloplasty in this issue of BJUI have carried out an excellent review of the current data on this common paediatric urology procedure [1]. Although the analysis involves small case numbers and series for meta-analysis, the data are useful for current practice. It may be worth waiting another 5 years to review the data again, by which time the learning curve for most of the surgeons will be over, and a true representation of practice and a comparison against the established standard open surgery, which has been established over decades, can be reported. The training of next-generation surgeons needs to be factored into this process, which is critically important.

With the different methods of critical evaluation presently available, we may be able to draw some conclusions from the results of robot-assisted pyeloplasty, but the problem that remains is the inconsistency of individual reports in terms of outcome and complications. We surgeons need to work on developing a consensus model for the evaluation of each procedure so that uniformity exists. The financial implications of new technology will always be higher than expected, but with a greater number of users and competitive producers the cost will be remarkably reduced. As paediatric surgeons, we do not know the unseen benefits of robot-assisted pyeloplasty, but the children’s families have a positive perception of post-surgical aesthetic appearance, and may also have some human capital gains in terms of reduced childcare expenditure. The paradigm shift to a digital era of surgery is here to stay, with safety and refinements to technology being universally available to all children.


Mohan S. Gundeti

BJUI Consulting Editor, Paediatrics, The Medicine University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

References

1. Cundy TP, Harling L, Hughes-Hallett A et al. Meta analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children. BJU Int 2014; 114: 582–94

 

 

Article of the week: RP is safe in patients taking aspirin

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 from Mr. Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah discussing his paper.

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

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.

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: 1-week and 4-week stenting equally effective after pyeloplasty

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.

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

One- vs 4-week stent placement after laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty: results of a prospective randomised single-centre study

H. Danuser, C. Germann, N. Pelzer, A. Rühle, P. Stucki and A. Mattei

Klinik für Urologie, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether 1-week stenting of the pelvi-ureteric anastomosis of laparoscopic or robot-assisted pyeloplasty is as effective as 4-week stenting, based on their respective success rates.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 100 patients with pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction were treated by Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty and the anastomosis was stented using a 6-F JJ catheter for either 1 week (1W series) or 4 weeks (4W series), based on a randomisation protocol. Postoperative follow-up was performed at 3 months using intravenous urography (IVU), at 6 months using diuretic renography and at 1, 3 and 5 years using ultrasonography. Statistical analysis was performed using a one-sided Z-test, Pearsons’s chi-squared test and a Wilcoxon rank sum test.

RESULTS

The primary outcome measure, success rate, which was defined as no obstruction on IVU and diuretic renography, was 100% in the 1W series and not inferior to the success rate of 98% in the 4W series (P = 0.006). The following secondary outcome measures were not significantly different between the 1W and the 4W series with regard to residual symptoms (10 vs 6%; P = 0.48), rate of complications (4 vs 6%; P = 0.65), need for synchronous robot-assisted pyelolithotomy (4 vs 8%; P = 0.47), improvement in split renal function (1 vs 0%; P = 0.59) and duration of surgery (200 vs 192 min; P = 0.87). Only length of hospital stay was significantly different; this was shorter in the 1W series (5 vs 6 days; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Stenting of the pelvi-ureteric anastomosis after laparoscopic or robot-assisted pyeloplasty for 1 week is as effective as stenting for 4 weeks. Both procedures, laparoscopic or robot-assisted pyeloplasty have an excellent success rate.

© 2020 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.