-
International Braz J Urol : Official... 2023To provide an overview of low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LIEST) for erectile dysfunction (ED), pointing out which concepts are already consolidated and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LIEST) for erectile dysfunction (ED), pointing out which concepts are already consolidated and which paths we still need to advance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a narrative review of the literature on the role of shockwave therapies in erectile dysfunction, selecting publications in PUBMED, including only relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
RESULTS
We found 11 studies (7 clinical trials, 3 systematic review and 1 meta-analysis) that evaluated the use of LIEST for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. One clinical trial evaluated the applicability in Peyronie's Disease and one other clinical trial evaluated the applicability after radical prostatectomy.
CONCLUSIONS
The literature presents little scientific evidence but suggests good results with the use of LIEST for ED. Despite a real optimism since it is a treatment modality capable of acting on the pathophysiology of ED, we must remain cautious, until a larger volume of higher quality studies allows us to establish which patient profile, type of energy and application protocol will achieve clinically satisfactory results.
Topics: Humans; Male; Erectile Dysfunction; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Penile Induration; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36794846
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2023.9904 -
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 -
Prehabilitative versus rehabilitative exercise in prostate cancer patients undergoing prostatectomy.Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Dec 2023The study compared the efficacy of commencing supervised exercise in men with prostate cancer before and after prostatectomy on objective and patient-reported outcomes,... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
The study compared the efficacy of commencing supervised exercise in men with prostate cancer before and after prostatectomy on objective and patient-reported outcomes, hospital length of stay, and urinary incontinence.
METHODS
Forty-one men were randomised to a 6-week prehabilitation or rehabilitation exercise programme. Prehabilitation involved resistance and aerobic exercise thrice weekly pre-surgery, while rehabilitation comprised the same commencing 6-weeks post-surgery. Assessments included strength, function (chair rise, stair climb, 400-m, 6-m usual, fast, and backwards walk), body composition, fatigue and quality of life, undertaken at pre-surgery, early post-surgery and late post-surgery phase, with urinary incontinence (24-h pad test) assessed at 2, 6, and 12-weeks post-surgery. Intention-to-treat and sensitivity analyses were undertaken.
RESULTS
Of thirty-eight men (48-73 years), 29 completed all assessments with most undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (92.1%). In the pre-surgery phase, prehabilitation improved muscle strength (leg press: 17.2 kg; chest press: 2.9 kg; p ≤ 0.001), 400-m, chair rise, 6-m fast and backward walk tests (p ≤ 0.001-0.028). Strength and function declines in the early post-surgery phase were maintained late post-surgery. Rehabilitation showed declines of these outcomes after surgery with improvement late post-surgery (leg press: 14.6 kg, p < 0.001; chest press: 6.8 kg, p < 0.001; 400-m walk: -12.0 s, p = 0.005), resulting in no difference between groups at 12 weeks. There were no significant differences between groups for patient-reported outcomes, hospital length of stay or urinary incontinence.
CONCLUSION
Pre-surgical exercise enhanced strength and function, protecting against post-surgery declines. Although exercise post-surgery is beneficial for recouping strength and function, where possible men undergoing prostatectomy are encouraged to exercise pre-surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ACTRN12617001115325 registered 31 July 2017.
Topics: Male; Humans; Quality of Life; Exercise Therapy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Urinary Incontinence; Prostatectomy
PubMed: 37712960
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-023-05409-3 -
Archivos Espanoles de Urologia Dec 2023Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one of the primary treatment options for localised prostate cancer (PCa). Despite its curative intent, 1/3 of patients will experience... (Review)
Review
Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one of the primary treatment options for localised prostate cancer (PCa). Despite its curative intent, 1/3 of patients will experience biochemical recurrence (BCR) during follow-up. Experts have devoted efforts to associate the influence of each individual factor with the risk of BCR to select the optimal treatment for each patient. Optimal management must aim to find a balance between delaying the onset of metastatic disease and overtreating an indolent disease with treatments that can affect quality of life of the patients. Thus far, effective treatment options for men with BCR remain controversial in terms of ideal treatment timing (adjuvant vs. salvage), radiotherapy (RT) fields and doses, selection and duration of systemic therapy and potential synergies between treatments and their therapeutic sequencing. Next-generation imaging techniques, such as Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography, are used for early detection of disease progression and exact site of recurrence or progression, thereby enhancing decision making for future disease management. In this review, we evaluate available evidence of controversial topics regarding BCR after RP and explore future directions, such as prognostic and/or predictive factors of response, genetic panels, second-generation hormone treatments, ultra-hypofractionated RT and ongoing clinical trials in this clinical scenario.
Topics: Male; Humans; Quality of Life; Prostatic Neoplasms; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Positron-Emission Tomography; Prostatectomy
PubMed: 38186066
DOI: 10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20237610.89 -
Cureus Sep 2023Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics in prostate cancer (PCa) offers a game-changing breakthrough with far-reaching implications for diagnosis,...
Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics in prostate cancer (PCa) offers a game-changing breakthrough with far-reaching implications for diagnosis, treatment, and research. AI-driven algorithms have tremendous promise for assisting early diagnosis by analyzing invisible trends within medical imaging devices such as MRI and ultrasounds. In addition, by evaluating big datasets containing patient data, genetic attributes, and treatment outcomes, these AI algorithms offer the possibility of allowing individualized treatment regimens. This ability to personalize actions to specific patients might improve therapy efficacy while reducing side effects. Robotics can increase accuracy in less invasive surgery, revolutionize therapies like prostatectomies, and improve recovery time for patients. Robotic-assisted procedures provide clinicians with remarkable skills and flexibility, allowing clinicians to negotiate complicated anatomical structures more precisely. However, the symbiotic combination of AI and robotics has several drawbacks. Concerns about data privacy, algorithm biases, and the need to continually assess AI's diagnostic proficiency offer significant hurdles. To ensure patient privacy and data security, the ethical and regulatory aspects of integrating AI and robotics require proper attention. However, combining AI and robotics opens up a galaxy of possibilities. The joint use of AI and robotics can potentially speed up drug development procedures by filtering through massive databases, resulting in the identification of new medicinal compounds. Furthermore, combining AI and robotics might usher in an innovative era of personalized medicine, allowing healthcare providers to design therapies based on detailed patient profiles. The merging of AI and robotics in PCa care gives up unprecedented prospects. While limitations highlight the necessity for caution, the possibilities of better diagnostics, tailored therapies, and new research pathways highlight the transformational abilities of AI and robotics in determining the future of PCa management. This study explores the limitations and opportunities presented by using AI and robotics in the context of PCa.
PubMed: 37900395
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.46021 -
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Dec 2023Interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia have evolved from transurethral resection of the prostate and simple prostatectomy to a myriad of office-based and... (Review)
Review
Interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia have evolved from transurethral resection of the prostate and simple prostatectomy to a myriad of office-based and operating-room procedures. The contemporary approach involves matching the right procedure to the right patient, choosing on the basis of prostate characteristics, patient preference, and urologist expertise. This review details currently available and guideline-backed surgical and procedural treatments.
Topics: Male; Humans; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Laser Therapy; Prostatectomy
PubMed: 38040442
DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.90a.23026 -
The World Journal of Men's Health Oct 2023Contemporary treatment strategies for localized prostate cancer (PCa) have been evolved over time. However, there is little data regarding survival outcomes based on...
PURPOSE
Contemporary treatment strategies for localized prostate cancer (PCa) have been evolved over time. However, there is little data regarding survival outcomes based on initial treatment by risk group in this new era. This study aims to evaluate survival outcomes among men who underwent observation, radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy for localized PCa using a population-based cohort.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) prostate with watchful waiting dataset (2010-2016) was used. We included men diagnosed with localized PCa and clinical stage T1c-2cN0M0. Other inclusion criteria were age 50-79 years, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤50 ng/mL, and initial treatment with observation (active surveillance/watchful waiting), radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy. PCa risk was assessed using the D'Amico classification. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included PCa-specific survival. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression and competing risk analysis were performed to assess outcomes.
RESULTS
After IPTW-adjusting, pseudo-population comprised 521,656 men (observation: 170,428, radiotherapy: 175,628, radical prostatectomy: 175,600) at a median 36.5 month follow-up. Observation demonstrated the lowest 5-year overall survival rate (91.6%) after IPTW-adjusting in comparison to radiotherapy (92.4%) and radical prostatectomy (96.1%, p<0.001). Men who underwent radical prostatectomy had the lowest cumulative PCa-specific and all-cause mortality (p<0.001). Compared to observation, radiotherapy (sub-distribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97; p=0.012) and radical prostatectomy (sHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.41-0.52; p<.001) had a lower risk of PCa-specific mortality in competing risk analysis after adjustment for all other factors and other-cause death.
CONCLUSIONS
Intermediate-term mortality risk in men with localized PCa were lower with active treatments compared to observation-especially for intermediate- and high-risk disease. However, observation represents a safe management strategy in men within the low-risk group.
PubMed: 37118954
DOI: 10.5534/wjmh.220151 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Dec 2023Extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches are two common modalities in single-port (SP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), but differences in safety and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin in extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches are two common modalities in single-port (SP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), but differences in safety and efficacy between the two remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin of extraperitoneal with transperitoneal approaches SP-RARP.
METHODS
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, this study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42023409667). We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies published up to February 2023. Stata 15.1 software was used to analyze and calculate the risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD).
RESULTS
A total of five studies, including 833 participants, were included in this study. The SP-TPRP group is superior to the SP-EPRP group in intraoperative blood loss (WMD: - 43.92, 95% CI - 69.81, - 18.04; p = 0.001), the incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II and above complications (RR: 0.55, 95% CI - 0.31, 0.99; p = 0.04), and postoperative continence recovery (RR: 1.23, 95% CI 1.05, 1.45; p = 0.04). Conversely, the hospitalization stays (WMD: 7.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.65, 15.1; p = 0.03) for the SP-EPRP group was shorter than that of the SP-TPRP group. However, there was no significant difference in operation time, postoperative pain score, total incidence of postoperative complications, and positive surgical margin (PSM) rates between the two groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates that both extraperitoneal and extraperitoneal SP-RARP approaches are safe and effective. SP-TPRP is superior to SP-EPRP in postoperative blood loss, the incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II and above complications, and postoperative continence recovery, but it is accompanied by longer hospital stays.
Topics: Male; Humans; Robotics; Margins of Excision; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38087327
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-03272-7 -
Lakartidningen Apr 2024There is a long history of curative treatment of prostate cancer. However, as prostate cancer often grows very slowly, and symptoms do not have time to develop during a... (Review)
Review
There is a long history of curative treatment of prostate cancer. However, as prostate cancer often grows very slowly, and symptoms do not have time to develop during a person's lifetime, a more tentative approach has become more and more common in many cases. This may be through either watchful waiting or active surveillance. In the first case palliative hormonal treatment is given in the case of progression, in the latter curative treatment would be the choice. When treatment is deemed necessary for localized disease, surgery and radiotherapy are considered equivalent in terms of efficacy and overall risk of side effects. For locally advanced disease, radiotherapy is the recommended first-hand choice outside the SPCG 15 study. Focal treatment, which may lead to less side effects than surgery or radiotherapy, is not recommended outside trial settings due to lack of long-term follow-up data.
Topics: Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Watchful Waiting; Prostatectomy; Androgen Antagonists; Palliative Care
PubMed: 38650398
DOI: No ID Found -
Nursing Reports (Pavia, Italy) Aug 2023Men with prostate cancer who undergo radical prostatectomy experience a decrease in quality of life, often related to sexual disfunction and urinary incontinence....
BACKGROUND
Men with prostate cancer who undergo radical prostatectomy experience a decrease in quality of life, often related to sexual disfunction and urinary incontinence. Knowing and measuring the impact of radical prostatectomy on the individual's social, emotional, and family quality of life could help to plan and develop an appropriate, patient-centred therapeutic approach.
AIM
In this study, we aimed to evaluate changes in quality of life of patients with prostate cancer before and after radical prostatectomy.
METHODS
A longitudinal, observational study of 114 participants was conducted using the method of test-retest. Quality of life before and after radical prostatectomy was measured through the following self-administered questionnaires: (1) The EORTC QLQ-C30 in its Spanish version was used to assess the generic quality of life the participants; (2) the EORTC QLQ-PR25 in its Spanish version was used to assess the specific, health-related quality of life of prostate cancer patients.
RESULTS
A total of 114 men took part in this study. The results from the QLQ-C30 questionnaire indicated an improvement in the dimensions of emotional role and cognitive function, as well as in the symptoms of fatigue, pain, nausea and vomiting, insomnia, and loss of appetite, after surgery. Patients scored lower in the dimensions of role functioning, social function, and economic impact after radical prostatectomy. According to the results from the QLQ-PR25 questionnaire, 61.40% of the participants experienced sexual impotence and 26.31% suffered urinary incontinence after surgery. There were significant differences in some postsurgical outcomes between patients who had neurovascular bundles preserved and those who had not.
CONCLUSIONS
In-depth knowledge of, and measurement of changes in, quality of life after radical prostatectomy should allow for comprehensive, multidisciplinary, patient-centred care planning. Psychosocial assessment, both before and after surgery, is crucial in patients with prostate cancer. This study was prospectively registered with the CEIC-A on 2012-06-27, with registration number C.P.-C.I. PI12/0088.
PubMed: 37606460
DOI: 10.3390/nursrep13030092