Oncological, functional and perioperative outcomes in transplant patients after radical prostatectomy

The role of localised prostate cancer treatment in renal transplant patients: A systematic review

Objective

To systematically review and critically appraise all treatment options for localised prostate cancer in renal transplant candidates and recipients.

Method

A systematic review was conducted adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed in the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, the Transplant Library and Trip database for studies published up to September 2022. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions for non-randomised studies tool.

Results

A total of 60 studies were identified describing 525 patients. The majority of studies were either retrospective non-randomised comparative or case series/reports of poor quality. The vast majority of studies were focussed on prostate cancer after renal transplantation. Overall, 410 (78%) patients underwent surgery, 93 (18%) patients underwent radiation therapy or brachytherapy, one patient underwent focal therapy (high-intensity frequency ultrasound) and 21 patients were placed on active surveillance. The mean age was 61 years old, the mean PSA level at diagnosis was 9.6 ng/mL and the mean follow-up time was 31 months. The majority of patients had low-risk disease with 261 patients having Gleason 6 prostate cancer (50%), followed by 220 Gleason 7 patients (42%). All prostate cancer mortality cases were in high-risk prostate cancer (≥Gleason 8). The cancer-specific survival results were similar between surgery and radiotherapy at 1 and 3 years.

Conclusion

Localised prostate cancer treatment in renal transplant patients should be risk stratified. Surgery and radiation treatment for localised prostate cancer in renal transplant patients appear equally efficacious. Given the limitations of this study, future research should concentrate on developing a multicentre RCT with long-term registry follow-up.

Robotic Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: Results from a Multicenter Series

BACKGROUND

Despite an expected increase in prostate cancer (PCa) incidence in the renal transplant recipient (RTR) population in the near future, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in these patients has been poorly detailed. It is not well understood whether results are comparable to RARP in the non-RTR setting.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the surgical technique for RARP in RTR and report results from our multi-institutional experience.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a retrospective review of the experience of four referral centers.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

Transperitoneal RARP with pelvic lymph node dissection in selected patients.

MEASUREMENTS

We measured patient, PCa, and graft baseline features; intraoperative and postoperative parameters; complications, (Clavien classification); and oncological and functional outcomes.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

We included 41 men. The median age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, preoperative renal function, and prostate-specific antigen were 60 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 57-64), 2 points (IQR 2-3), 45 ml/min (IQR 30-62), and 6.5 ng/ml (IQR 5.2-10.2), respectively. Four men (9.8%) had a biopsy Gleason score >7. The majority of the patients (70.7%) did not undergo lymphadenectomy. The median operating time, hospital stay, and catheterization time were 201 min (IQR 170-250), 4 d (IQR 2-6), and 10 d (IQR 7-13), respectively. At final pathology, 11 men had extraprostatic extension and seven had positive surgical margins. At median follow-up of 42 mo (IQR 24-65), four men had biochemical recurrence, including one case of local PCa persistence and one local recurrence. No metastases were recorded while two patients died from non-PCa-related causes. Continence was preserved in 86.1% (p not applicable) and erections in 64.7% (p = 0.0633) of those who were continent/potent before the procedure. Renal function remained unchanged (p = 0.08). No intraoperative complications and one major (Clavien 3a) complication were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

RARP in RTR is safe and feasible. Overall, operative, oncological, and functional outcomes are comparable to those described for the non-RTR setting, with graft injury remaining undescribed. Further research is needed to confirm our findings.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Robot-assisted removal of the prostate is safe and feasible in patients who have a kidney transplant. Cancer control, urinary and sexual function results, and surgical complications seem to be similar to those for patients without a transplant, but further research is needed.

Increased risk of postoperative in-hospital complications after radical prostatectomy in patients with prior organ transplant

BACKGROUND

To analyze postoperative, in-hospital, complication rates in patients with organ transplantation before radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

From National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2000-2015) prostate cancer patients treated with RP were abstracted and stratified according to prior organ transplant versus nontransplant. Multivariable logistic regression models predicted in-hospital complications.

RESULTS

Of all eligible 202,419 RP patients, 216 (0.1%) underwent RP after prior organ transplantation. Transplant RP patients exhibited higher proportions of Charlson comorbidity index ≥2 (13.0% vs. 3.0%), obesity (9.3% vs. 5.6%, both p < 0.05), versus to nontransplant RP. Of transplant RP patients, 96 underwent kidney (44.4%), 44 heart (20.4%), 40 liver (18.5%), 30 (13.9%) bone marrow, <11 lung (<5%), and <11 pancreatic (<5%) transplantation before RP. Within transplant RP patients, rates of lymph node dissection ranged from 37.5% (kidney transplant) to 60.0% (bone marrow transplant, p < 0.01) versus 51% in nontransplant patients. Regarding in-hospital complications, transplant patients more frequently exhibited, diabetic (31.5% vs. 11.6%, p < 0.001), major (7.9% vs. 2.9%) cardiac complications (3.2% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.01), and acute kidney failure (5.1% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.001), versus nontransplant RP. In multivariable logistic regression models, transplant RP patients were at higher risk of acute kidney failure (odds ratio [OR]: 4.83), diabetic (OR: 2.81), major (OR: 2.39), intraoperative (OR: 2.38), cardiac (OR: 2.16), transfusion (OR: 1.37), and overall complications (1.36, all p < 0.001). No in-hospital mortalities were recorded in transplant patients after RP.

CONCLUSIONS

Of all transplants before RP, kidney ranks first. RP patients with prior transplantation have an increased risk of in-hospital complications. The highest risk, relative to nontransplant RP patients appears to acute kidney failure.

[Localized Prostate cancer in candidates for renal transplantation and recipients of a kidney transplant: The French Guidelines from CTAFU]

OBJECTIVE

To define guidelines for the management of localized prostate cancer (PCa) in kidney transplant (KTx) candidates and recipients.

METHOD

A systematic review (Medline) of the literature was conducted by the CTAFU to report prostate cancer epidemiology, screening, diagnosis and management in KTx candidates and recipients with the corresponding level of evidence.

RESULTS

KTx recipients are at similar risk for PCa as general population. Thus, PCa screening in this setting is defined according to global French guidelines from CCAFU. Systematic screening is proposed in candidates for renal transplant over 50 y-o. PCa diagnosis is based on prostate biopsies performed after multiparametric MRI and preventive antibiotics. CCAFU guidelines remain applicable for PCa treatment in KTx recipients with some specificities, especially regarding lymph nodes management. Treatment options in candidates for KTx need to integrate waiting time and access to transplantation. Current data allows the CTAFU to propose mandatory waiting times after PCa treatment in KTx candidates with a weak level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

These French recommendations should contribute to improve PCa management in KTx recipients and candidates, integrating oncological objectives with access to transplantation.

Determinants of self-reported functional status (EPIC-26) in prostate cancer patients prior to treatment

PURPOSE

The self-reported functional status (sr-FS) of prostate cancer (PCa) patients varies substantially between patients and health-care providers before treatment. Information about this issue is important for evaluating comparisons between health-care providers and to assist in treatment decision-making. There have been few reports on correlates of pretherapeutic sr-FS. The objective of the article, therefore, is to describe clinical and sociodemographic correlates of pretherapeutic sr-FS, based on a subset of the TrueNTH Global Registry, a prospective cohort study.

METHODS

A total of 3094 PCa patients receiving local treatment in 44 PCa centers in Germany were recruited between July 2016 and April 2018. Multilevel regression models were applied to predict five pretherapeutic sr-FS (EPIC-26) scores based on clinical characteristics (standard set suggested by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement), sociodemographic characteristics, and center characteristics.

RESULTS

Impaired pretherapeutic sr-FS tended to be associated with lower educational level and poorer disease characteristics-except for "urinary incontinence" which was only associated with age. Notably, age was a risk factor ("urinary incontinence," "urinary irritative/obstructive," "sexual") as well as a protective factor ("hormonal") for pretherapeutic sr-FS. Pretherapeutic sr-FS varies little across centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretherapeutic sr-FS varies by clinical patient characteristics and age as well as by socioeconomic status. The findings point out the benefit of collecting and considering socioeconomic information in addition to clinical and demographic patient characteristics for treatment decision-making and fair comparisons between health-care providers.

Robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in liver transplant recipient

Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in liver transplant recipients (LTRs) is not well documented. We present two cases of RALP in LTRs with localized prostate cancer (PCa). In both cases, a transperitoneal approach was used, and they were successfully completed without perioperative complications. Thus, RALP seems to be a feasible, safe and effective treatment for PCa in LTRs. Significant modifications to the surgical technique do not seem to be required, and patient optimization in preparation for surgery remains the key factor. History of liver transplant should not discourage embarking in a RALP in Centers with adequate robotic expertise.