-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
European Urology Open Science Jun 2023Rectal injury (RI) is a dreaded complication after radical prostatectomy (RP), increasing the risk of early postoperative complications, such as bleeding and severe... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Rectal injury (RI) is a dreaded complication after radical prostatectomy (RP), increasing the risk of early postoperative complications, such as bleeding and severe infection/sepsis, and late sequelae, such as a rectourethral fistula (RUF). Considering its traditionally low incidence, uncertainty remains as to predisposing risk factors and management.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the incidence of RI after RP in contemporary series and to propose a pragmatic algorithm for its management.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic literature search was performed using the Medline and Scopus databases. Studies reporting data on RI incidence were selected. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the differential incidence by age, surgical approach, salvage RP after radiation therapy, and previous benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-related surgery.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Eighty-eight, mostly retrospective noncomparative, studies were selected. The meta-analysis obtained a pooled RI incidence of 0.58% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.73) in contemporary series with significant across-study heterogeneity (I = 100%, < 0.00001). The highest RI incidence was found in patients undergoing open RP (1.25%; 95% CI 0.66-2.38) and laparoscopic RP (1.25%; 95% CI 0.75-2.08) followed by perineal RP (0.19%; 95% CI 0-276.95) and robotic RP (0.08%; 95% CI 0.02-0.31). Age ≥60 yr (0.56%; 95% CI 0.37-06) and salvage RP after radiation therapy (6.01%; 95% CI 3.99-9.05), but not previous BPH-related surgery (4.08%, 95% CI 0.92-18.20), were also associated with an increased RI incidence. Intraoperative versus postoperative RI detection was associated with a significantly decreased risk of severe postoperative complications (such as sepsis and bleeding) and subsequent formation of a RUF.
CONCLUSIONS
RI is a rare, but potentially devastating, complication following RP. RI incidence was higher in patients ≥60 yr of age, and in those who underwent open/laparoscopic approach or salvage RP after radiation therapy. Intraoperative RI detection and repair apparently constitute the single most critical step to significantly decrease the risk of major postoperative complications and subsequent RUF formation. Conversely, intraoperatively undetected RI can lead more often to severe infective complications and RUF, the management of which remains poorly standardised and requires complex procedures.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Accidental rectum tear is a rare, but potentially devastating, complication in men undergoing prostate removal for cancer. It occurs more often in patients aged 60 yr or older as well as in those who underwent prostate removal via an open/laparoscopic approach and/or prostate removal after radiation therapy for recurrent disease. Prompt identification and repair of this condition during the initial operation are the key to reduce further complications such as the formation of an abnormal opening between the rectum and the urinary tract.
PubMed: 37213241
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.017 -
BMJ Open Sep 2022Review and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy...
OBJECTIVES
Review and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).
DESIGN
Systematic review.
SETTING
PubMed, Embase, Scopus, International HTA database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and various HTA websites were searched (January 2005 to March 2021) to identify the eligible cost-effectiveness studies.
PARTICIPANTS
Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review.
INTERVENTIONS
Different surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES
A structured narrative synthesis was developed to summarize results of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness results (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Extended checklist. Application of medical device features were evaluated.
RESULTS
Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, 11 of which were cost-utility analyses. Higher quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs were observed with RARP compared with ORP or LRP in 11 studies (91%). Among four studies comparing RARP with LRP, three reported RARP was dominant or cost-effective. Among ten studies comparing RARP with ORP, RARP was more cost-effective in five, not cost-effective in two, and inconclusive in three studies. Studies with longer time horizons tended to report favorable cost-effectiveness results for RARP. Nine studies (75%) were rated of moderate or good quality. Recommended medical device features were addressed to varying degrees within the literature as follows: capital investment included in most studies, dynamic pricing considered in about half, and learning curve and incremental innovation were poorly addressed.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite study heterogeneity, RARP was more costly and effective compared with ORP and LRP in most studies and likely to be more cost-effective, particularly over a multiple year or lifetime time horizon. Further cost-effectiveness analyses for RARP that more thoroughly consider medical device features and use an appropriate time horizon are needed.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021246811.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36127082
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058394 -
European Urology Open Science Oct 2022The advantages of minimally invasive surgery for radical prostatectomy (RP) have been demonstrated in a number of systematic reviews (SRs). However, the rigorous study... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
The advantages of minimally invasive surgery for radical prostatectomy (RP) have been demonstrated in a number of systematic reviews (SRs). However, the rigorous study selection process for SR means that a lot of information can be excluded, leading to a very specific clinical scenario that is often unrepresentative of real life. Our new reverse SR methodology generates a heterogeneous population database that covers a wide range of clinical scenarios.
OBJECTIVE
To compare perioperative surgical results and complications for open retropubic RP (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted RP (RARP) in a reverse SR.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Eight databases were searched for SRs on RRP, LRP, or RARP between 2000 and 2020 (80 SRs). All references used in these SRs were captured for analysis (1724 articles). Perioperative outcomes and complications were compared among the RRP, LRP, and RARP approaches.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
We identified 559 (32.4%) reports on RRP, 413 (23.9%) on LRP, and 752 (43.7%) on RARP, involving 1 353 485 patients overall. RARP showed a significantly higher annual volume of surgery per surgeon (AVSS) in comparison to RRP and LRP (mean 64.29, 43.26, and 41.47, respectively), a higher percentage of low-risk patients (prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml, Gleason <7, stage
CONCLUSIONS
Our reverse SR involved a wide real-life representative sample and reference values established in the literature and revealed that minimally invasive surgery had the best perioperative and complication results, especially RARP, which was associated with less complex cases, higher annual surgeon volume, and greater performance.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We used a wide sample representative of real-life surgical practice and reference values established in the literature for three techniques for removal of the prostate to guide patients and physicians in deciding the best surgical treatment for prostate cancer according to availability.
PubMed: 36110904
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.015 -
Annals of Surgery Mar 2023To assess long-term outcomes with robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery for colorectal, urologic, endometrial, cervical, and thoracic cancers. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The RECOURSE Study: Long-term Oncologic Outcomes Associated With Robotically Assisted Minimally Invasive Procedures for Endometrial, Cervical, Colorectal, Lung, or Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To assess long-term outcomes with robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery for colorectal, urologic, endometrial, cervical, and thoracic cancers.
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive surgery provides perioperative benefits and similar oncological outcomes compared with open surgery. Recent robotic surgery data have questioned long-term benefits.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of cancer outcomes based on surgical approach was conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase. Hazard ratios for recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were extracted/estimated using a hierarchical decision tree and pooled in RevMan 5.4 using inverse-variance fixed-effect (heterogeneity nonsignificant) or random effect models.
RESULTS
Of 31,204 references, 199 were included (7 randomized, 23 database, 15 prospective, 154 retrospective studies)-157,876 robotic, 68,007 laparoscopic/thoracoscopic, and 234,649 open cases. Cervical cancer: OS and DFS were similar between robotic and laparoscopic [1.01 (0.56, 1.80), P =0.98] or open [1.18 (0.99, 1.41), P =0.06] surgery; 2 papers reported less recurrence with open surgery [2.30 (1.32, 4.01), P =0.003]. Endometrial cancer: the only significant result favored robotic over open surgery [OS; 0.77 (0.71, 0.83), P <0.001]. Lobectomy: DFS favored robotic over thoracoscopic surgery [0.74 (0.59, 0.93), P =0.009]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.93 (0.87, 1.00), P =0.04]. Prostatectomy: recurrence was less with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery [0.77 (0.68, 0.87), P <0.0001]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.78 (0.72, 0.85), P <0.0001]. Low-anterior resection: OS significantly favored robotic over laparoscopic [0.76 (0.63, 0.91), P =0.004] and open surgery [0.83 (0.74, 0.93), P =0.001].
CONCLUSIONS
Long-term outcomes were similar for robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery, with no safety signal or indication requiring further research (PROSPERO Reg#CRD42021240519).
Topics: Male; Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Lung; Colorectal Neoplasms; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 36073772
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005698 -
European Urology Open Science Sep 2022Erectile dysfunction (ED) following radical prostatectomy is a concern for patients and their partners. Low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LI-ESWT) can... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Erectile dysfunction (ED) following radical prostatectomy is a concern for patients and their partners. Low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LI-ESWT) can potentially enhance tissue repair and regeneration. The aim of the current study was to systematically review the literature to assess the role of LI-ESWT in the management of patients with postprostatectomy ED.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Two authors independently performed a systematic search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases to identify all relevant articles. Non-English reports, case reports, reviews, letters, and editorials were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed according to the GRADE guidelines.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Nine articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis. All the studies included were published between 2015 and 2022 and the majority of them compared phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) alone versus a combination of LI-ESWT and PDE5Is. Only three studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In general, there is no standardized protocol for LI-ESWT for postprostatectomy ED. In comparisons of LI-ESWT + PDE5Is versus PDE5Is alone, some authors found a statistically significant improvement in erectile function with LI-ESWT + PDE5Is. The starting time for LI-ESWT differed among the studies, ranging from 3 d to 6 mo after surgery. The main limitations of the review are the scarcity of studies, small sample sizes, high risk of bias, and high heterogeneity among studies.
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently limited evidence on the use of LI-ESWT either alone or in combination with PDE5Is in penile rehabilitation protocols after prostatectomy. However, small clinical trials with short follow-up show that LI-ESWT could potentially play a role in the management of postprostatectomy ED in the future. Further RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Despite limited reports in the literature, low-intensity shockwave therapy after removal of the prostate is a promising noninvasive treatment for dealing with erectile dysfunction after surgery.
PubMed: 35928730
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.07.003