-
JAMA Jan 2024Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Observational Study
IMPORTANCE
Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To compare rates of adverse functional outcomes between specific treatments for localized prostate cancer.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
An observational cohort study using data from 5 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries. Participants were treated for localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2012. At baseline, 1877 had favorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022.
EXPOSURES
Radical prostatectomy (n = 1043), external beam radiotherapy (n = 359), brachytherapy (n = 96), or active surveillance (n = 379) for favorable-prognosis disease and radical prostatectomy (n = 362) or external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 206) for unfavorable-prognosis disease.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Outcomes were patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormone function measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (range, 0-100; 100 = best). Associations of specific therapies with each outcome were estimated and compared at 10 years after treatment, adjusting for corresponding baseline scores, and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important differences were 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritation, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormone function.
RESULTS
A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Black, 8% Hispanic) were included and followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Among 1877 patients with favorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -12.1 [95% CI, -16.2 to -8.0]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -7.2 [95% CI, -12.3 to -2.0]), compared with active surveillance. Among 568 patients with unfavorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -26.6 [95% CI, -35.0 to -18.2]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -11.1 to 8.3), compared with external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Among patients with unfavorable prognosis, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.7]) and hormone (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.5 to -0.3]) function compared with radical prostatectomy.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function at 10-year follow-up compared with radiotherapy or surveillance among people with more favorable prognosis and compared with radiotherapy for those with unfavorable prognosis. Among men with unfavorable-prognosis disease, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel and hormone function at 10-year follow-up compared with radical prostatectomy.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Androgen Antagonists; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Urinary Incontinence; United States; SEER Program; Aged; Prostatectomy; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Prognosis; Watchful Waiting; Radiotherapy
PubMed: 38261043
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.26491 -
Aktuelle Urologie Aug 2023
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Seminal Vesicles; Carcinoma
PubMed: 37541229
DOI: 10.1055/a-2060-4417 -
Aktuelle Urologie Aug 2023
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Seminal Vesicles; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37541228
DOI: 10.1055/a-2023-6470 -
Aktuelle Urologie Sep 2023
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Seminal Vesicles
PubMed: 37611602
DOI: 10.1055/a-2059-0295 -
JAMA Network Open Sep 2023Stratifying patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment for prostate cancer based on the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) is...
IMPORTANCE
Stratifying patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment for prostate cancer based on the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) is essential for determining the need for further testing and treatments.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the association of BCR after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy and its current risk stratification with PCSM.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This population-based cohort study included a total of 16 311 male patients with 10 364 (64%) undergoing radical prostatectomy and 5947 (36%) undergoing radiotherapy with curative intent (cT1-3, cM0) and PSA follow-up in Stockholm, Sweden, between 2003 and 2019. Follow-up for all patients was until death, emigration, or end of the study (ie, December 31, 2018). Data were analyzed between September 2022 and March 2023.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary outcomes of the study were the cumulative incidence of BCR and PCSM. Patients with BCR were stratified in low- and high-risk according to European Association of Urology (EAU) criteria.
EXPOSURES
Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy.
RESULTS
A total of 16 311 patients were included. Median (IQR) age was 64 (59-68) years in the radical prostatectomy cohort (10 364 patients) and 69 (64-73) years in the radiotherapy cohort (5947 patients). Median (IQR) follow-up for survivors was 88 (55-138) months and 89 (53-134) months, respectively. Following radical prostatectomy, the 15-year cumulative incidences of BCR were 16% (95% CI, 15%-18%) for the 4024 patients in the low D'Amico risk group, 30% (95% CI, 27%-32%) for the 5239 patients in the intermediate D'Amico risk group, and 46% (95% CI, 42%-51%) for 1101 patients in the high D'Amico risk group. Following radiotherapy, the 15-year cumulative incidences of BCR were 18% (95% CI, 15%-21%) for the 1230 patients in the low-risk group, 24% (95% CI, 21%-26%) for the 2355 patients in the intermediate-risk group, and 36% (95% CI, 33%-39%) for the 2362 patients in the high-risk group. The 10-year cumulative incidences of PCSM after radical prostatectomy were 4% (95% CI, 2%-6%) for the 1101 patients who developed low-risk EAU-BCR and 9% (95% CI, 5%-13%) for 649 patients who developed high-risk EAU-BCR. After radiotherapy, the 10-year PCSM cumulative incidences were 24% (95% CI, 19%-29%) for the 591 patients in the low-risk EAU-BCR category and 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%) for the 600 patients in the high-risk EAU-BCR category.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest the validity of EAU-BCR stratification system. However, while the risk of dying from prostate cancer in low-risk EAU-BCR after radical prostatectomy was very low, patients who developed low-risk EAU-BCR after radiotherapy had a nonnegligible risk of prostate cancer mortality. Improving risk stratification of patients with BCR is pivotal to guide salvage treatment decisions, reduce overtreatment, and limit the number of staging tests in the event of PSA elevations after primary treatment.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Aged; Cohort Studies; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37695584
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.32900 -
Aktuelle Urologie Jun 2024
Topics: Humans; Prostatectomy; Male; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Patient Discharge; Prostatic Neoplasms; Length of Stay; Postoperative Complications; Hospitalization
PubMed: 38806026
DOI: 10.1055/a-2260-8890 -
BJU International May 2024To provide a comprehensive review of guidelines from various professional organisations on the work-up and management of post-prostatectomy Incontinence (PPI). (Review)
Review
AIM
To provide a comprehensive review of guidelines from various professional organisations on the work-up and management of post-prostatectomy Incontinence (PPI).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The following guidelines were included in this review: European Association of Urology (EAU 2023), American Urological Association/Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction (AUA/SUFU 2019), International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI, 2018), the Canadian Urological Association (CUA, 2012) and the Urological Society of India (USI, 2018).
RESULTS
In general, the guidelines concur regarding the significance of conducting a comprehensive history and physical examination for patients with post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI). However, there are variations among the guidelines concerning the recommended additional investigations. In cases of troublesome PPI, male slings are typically recommended for mild to moderate urinary incontinence (UI), while artificial urinary sphincters are preferred for moderate to severe UI, although the precise definition of this severity remains unclear. The guidelines provided by AUA/SUFU and the ICI have offered suggestions for managing complications or persistent/recurrent UI post-surgery, though some differences can be observed within these recommendations as well.
CONCLUSION
This is a first of its kind review encompassing Guidelines on PPI spanning over a decade. Although guidelines share overarching principles, nuanced variations persist, posing challenges for clinicians. This compilation consolidates and highlights both the similarities and differences among guidelines, providing a comprehensive overview of PPI diagnosis and management for practitioners. It is our expectation that as more evidence emerges in this and other areas of PPI management, the guidelines will converge and address crucial patient-centric aspects.
Topics: Humans; Prostatectomy; Urinary Incontinence; Male; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 38009420
DOI: 10.1111/bju.16233 -
World Journal of Urology Apr 2024To provide a comprehensive update on the different techniques and outcomes of contemporary Single-Port (SP) Robotic Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) approaches. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To provide a comprehensive update on the different techniques and outcomes of contemporary Single-Port (SP) Robotic Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) approaches.
METHODS
A literature review was performed to identify cohort studies that have utilized the purpose-built SP robotic platform (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, California) for RARP. All published approaches of SP-RARP were included in our review. Baseline clinical, perioperative, and postoperative oncological and functional outcomes were collected from the included studies.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies involving 1159 patients were identified. To date, five approaches of SP-RARP have been described, namely Transperitoneal, Extraperitoneal, Retzius-Sparing, Transperineal, and Transvesical. The surgical steps and clinical outcomes of the aforementioned approaches were discussed. While operating times were still faster in the Transperitoneal and Extraperitoneal cohorts, the novel and more regionalized Transvesical approach allowed for radical prostatectomy to be pursued in more patients with previous abdominal surgeries and contributed to significantly improved postoperative outcomes, including the earlier return of urinary continence and with most patients being discharged on the same day without any opioids.
CONCLUSION
Based on the existing literature, the introduction of SP-RARP not only enriched the repertoire of minimally-invasive surgical treatment options for prostate cancer but also provided the opportunity for urologists to develop new techniques that can improve perioperative outcomes and postoperative quality of life. Given the limited number of patients and heterogeneity in the patient selection and reporting of postoperative outcomes, further research remains necessary to better understand the different benefits and improve patient selection algorithms for the different techniques.
Topics: Male; Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Quality of Life; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38643347
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04914-5 -
European Urology Focus Jul 2023Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (cRP) is currently tested in patients with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). We aimed to review the... (Review)
Review
Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (cRP) is currently tested in patients with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). We aimed to review the literature and to report recent prospective studies addressing oncologic and functional results of cRP in mHSPC patients. Based on prospective data, we found that cRP is feasible and provides favorable oncologic outcomes when compared with systemic therapy alone in well-selected patients with low-volume mHSPC. Furthermore, cRP has beneficial effects on local disease control in mHSPC with an acceptable rate of adverse events. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the present study, we reviewed recent prospective studies analyzing the survival and safety of prostate surgical excision in patients with mHSPC. We have found that prostate surgical excision is a feasible, safe, and potentially effective therapy in selected patients with mHSPC.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostate; Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostatectomy; Hormones
PubMed: 36697321
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.01.011 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Dec 2023The study aims to synthesize all available prospective comparative studies and reports the latest systematic analysis and updated evidence comparing robot-assisted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The study aims to synthesize all available prospective comparative studies and reports the latest systematic analysis and updated evidence comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) for perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were retrieved up to March 2023. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies were included, and weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) were used to evaluate the pooled results. Twenty-one articles were included in the present meta-analysis. The results indicated that compared to ORP, RARP had longer operative time (OT) (WMD: 51.41 min; 95%CI: 28.33, 74.48; p < 0.0001), reduced blood loss (WMD: -516.59 mL; 95%CI: -578.31, -454.88; p < 0.00001), decreased transfusion rate (OR: 0.23; 95%CI: 0.18, 0.30; p < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -1.59 days; 95%CI: -2.69, -0.49; p = 0.005), fewer overall complications (OR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.45, 0.83; p = 0.001), and higher nerve sparing rate (OR: 1.64; 95%CI: 1.26, 2.13; p = 0.0003), as well as was more beneficial to postoperative erectile function recovery and biochemical recurrence (BCR). However, no significant disparities were noted in major complications, postoperative urinary continence recovery, or positive surgical margin (PSM) rates. RARP was superior to ORP in terms of hospital stay, blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, nerve sparing, postoperative erectile function recovery, and BCR. It is a safe and effective surgical approach to the treatment of clinically localized PCa.
Topics: Male; Humans; Erectile Dysfunction; Prospective Studies; Robotics; Treatment Outcome; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37721644
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01714-8