-
Cancers Nov 2023The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence regarding the oncological and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) for... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence regarding the oncological and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) for recurrent prostate cancer. A systematic review was conducted throughout September 2022 using the PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Embase databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. A total of 55 studies (3836 patients) met our eligibility criteria. The vast majority of men included had radiation therapy (including brachytherapy) as their first-line treatment ( = 3240, 84%). Other first-line treatments included HIFU ( = 338, 9%), electroporation ( = 59, 2%), proton beam therapy ( = 54, 1.5%), cryotherapy ( = 34, 1%), focal vascular targeted photodynamic therapy ( = 22, 0.6%), and transurethral ultrasound ablation ( = 19, 0.5%). Median preoperative PSA, at the time of recurrence, ranged from 1.5 to 14.4 ng/mL. The surgical approach was open in 2300 (60%) cases, robotic in 1465 (38%) cases, and laparoscopic in 71 (2%) cases. Since 2019, there has been a clear increase in robotic versus conventional surgery (1245 versus 525 cases, respectively). The median operative time and blood loss ranged from 80 to 297 min and 75 to 914 mL, respectively. Concomitant lymph node dissection was performed in 2587 cases (79%). The overall complication rate was 34%, with a majority of Clavien grade I or II complications. Clavien ≥ 3 complications ranged from 0 to 64%. Positive surgical margins were noted in 792 cases (32%). The median follow-up ranged from 4.6 to 94 months. Biochemical recurrence after sRP ranged from 8% to 51.5% at 12 months, from 0% to 66% at 22 months, and from 48% to 59% at 60 months. The specific and overall survival rates ranged from 13.4 to 98% and 62 to 100% at 5 years, respectively. Urinary continence was maintained in 52.1% of cases. sRP demonstrated acceptable oncological outcomes. These results, after sRP, are influenced by several factors, and above all by pre-treatment assessment, including imaging, with the development of mpMRI and metabolic imaging. Our results demonstrated that SRP can be considered a suitable treatment option for selected patients, but the level of evidence remains low.
PubMed: 38001745
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15225485 -
Urology Research & Practice Jan 2024Prostate cancer is the second- leading cause of cancer death among men. We aimed to evaluate high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), open radical prostatectomy (ORP),...
OBJECTIVE
Prostate cancer is the second- leading cause of cancer death among men. We aimed to evaluate high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), open radical prostatectomy (ORP), robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), and external beam radiation therapy (RT) in the treatment of localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
METHODS
We searched bibliographic databases for case-control, cohort, and randomized controlled studies. We used MeSH subject headings and free text terms for prostate cancer, HIFU, ORP, RARP, RT, failure-free survival (FFS), biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS), urinary incontinence (UI), and erectile dysfunction (ED).
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included in the review, for a total of 34 927 participants. Among the 8 studies of HIFU as the primary treatment of localized low- and intermediate- risk prostate cancer, 4 studies reported 5-year FFS rates ranging from 67.8% to 97.8%, 3 studies reported 5-year BDFS ranging from 58% to 85.4%, 5 studies reported 1-year UI rates ranging from 0% to 6%, and 4 studies reported 1-year ED rates ranging from 11.4% to 38.7%. Furthermore, our search revealed a 5-year FFS benefit favoring ORP compared to RT, a 1-year UI rate favoring ORP compared to RARP, and a 1-year ED rate favoring ORP compared to RARP.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed lack of studies with active comparators comparing HIFU to standard of care (ORP, RARP, or RT) in primary treatment of localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Open radical prostatectomy has favorable efficacy outcomes compared to RT, while RARP has beneficial functional outcomes compared to ORP, respectively.
PubMed: 38451125
DOI: 10.5152/tud.2024.23123 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Surgical treatment is important for male lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) management, but there are few reviews of the risks of reoperation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Surgical treatment is important for male lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) management, but there are few reviews of the risks of reoperation.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the current evidence regarding the reoperation rates of surgical treatment for LUTS in accordance with current recommendations and guidelines.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Eligible studies published up to July 2023, were searched for in the PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA) databases. STATA (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled incidences (PIs) of reoperation and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 119 studies with 130,106 patients were included. The reoperation rate of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 4.0%, 5.0%, 6.0%, and 7.7%, respectively. The reoperation rate of plasma kinetic loop resection of the prostate (PKRP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 3.5%, 3.6%, 5.7%, and 6.6%, respectively. The reoperation rate of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 2.4%, 3.3%, 5.4%, and 6.6%, respectively. The reoperation rate of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 3.3%, 4.1%, 6.7%, and 7.1%, respectively. The reoperation rate of surgery with AquaBeam at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 2.6%, 3.1%, 3.0%, and 4.1%, respectively. The reoperation rate of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 12.2%, 20.0%, 26.4%, and 23.8%, respectively. The reoperation rate of transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 9.9%, 19.9%, 23.3%, and 31.2%, respectively. The reoperation rate of transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) at 5 years was 13.4%. The reoperation rate of open prostatectomy (OP) at 1 and 5 years was 1.3% and 4.4%, respectively. The reoperation rate of thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) at 1, 2, and 5 years was 3.7%, 7.7%, and 8.4%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Our results summarized the reoperation rates of 10 surgical procedures over follow-up durations of 1, 2, 3, and 5 years, which could provide reference for urologists and LUTS patients.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023445780.
Topics: United States; Humans; Male; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Prostate; Reoperation; Embolization, Therapeutic; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
PubMed: 38027158
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1287212 -
BMC Urology Jan 2024To summarize current evidence to report a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) with transurethral resection of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparing prostatic artery embolization to surgical and minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
To summarize current evidence to report a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and open simple prostatectomy (OSP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies published from inception until August 2021. The search terms used were (prostate embolization OR prostatic embolization) AND (prostatic hyperplasia OR prostatic obstruction) as well as the abbreviations of PAE and BPH. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included with 810 patients: five RCTs and one observational study compared PAE with TURP, and one observational study compared PAE with OSP. The included studies had considerable risk of bias concerns. TURP and OSP were associated with more statistically significant improvements in urodynamic measures and BPH symptoms compared to PAE. However, PAE seems to significantly improve erectile dysfunction compared to OSP and improve other outcome measures compared to TURP, although not significantly. PAE appeared to reduce adverse events and report more minor complications compared with TURP and OSP, but it is unclear whether PAE is more effective in the long-term.
CONCLUSION
PAE is an emerging treatment option for patients with symptomatic BPH who cannot undergo surgery or have undergone failed medical therapy. Overall, PAE groups reported fewer adverse events. Future ongoing and longer-term studies are needed to provide better insight into the benefit of PAE compared to other treatment options.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Treatment Outcome; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Embolization, Therapeutic; Arteries; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 38281906
DOI: 10.1186/s12894-023-01397-1 -
International Wound Journal Jan 2024In this article, we analysed the therapeutic efficacy of open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) after operation for the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In this article, we analysed the therapeutic efficacy of open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) after operation for the treatment of post-operation complications. In summary, because of the broad methodology of the available trials and the low number of trials, the data were limited. The investigators combined the results of six of the 211 original studies. We looked up 4 databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. A total of six publications were selected. The main result was the rate of post-operation wound complications. Secondary results were the time of operation and the duration of hospitalization. Our findings indicate that the minimal invasive operation can decrease the incidence of wound infections (OR, 0.61; 95% CI: 0.42,0.90, p = 0.01), bleeding (MD, -293.09; 95% CI: -431.48, -154.71, p < 0.0001), and length of stay in the hospital compared with open surgery (MD, -1.85; 95% CI: -3.52, -0.17, p = 0.03), but minimally invasive surgery increased patient operative time (MD, 51.45; 95% CI: 40.99, 61.92, p < 0.0001). Compared with the open operation, the microinvasive operation has the superiority in the treatment of the wound complications following the operation of radical prostatic carcinoma. But the operation time of the microinvasive operation is much longer. Furthermore, there is a certain amount of bias among the various studies, so it is important to be cautious in interpretation of the findings.
Topics: Humans; Male; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Postoperative Complications; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37706271
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14367