Initial Experience with Radical Prostatectomy Following Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate

Impact of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in Patients With Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is a recommended strategy for low- or favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancers (PCa), avoiding more invasive treatments. However, the concurrent development of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) may necessitate holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). This study aims to evaluate the impact of HoLEP on patients under AS for PCa.

METHODS

Medical records of patients under AS for PCa diagnosed between 2010 and 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with a life expectancy of more than 10 years and a follow-up of at least 1 year were included. Functional and oncological outcomes, as well as follow-up data (PSA levels, PSA density (PSA-D), mpMRI, prostate biopsies), were collected. Patients who underwent HoLEP were compared to those who did not. The primary endpoint was discontinuation of AS.

RESULTS

A total of 310 patients under AS were included, of whom 62 (20%) underwent HoLEP. Prostate volume was higher in the HoLEP group than in the non-operated group (70 vs. 50 g, p < 0.0001), and PSA density was lower (0.09 vs. 0.12 p < 0.0001). The median enucleated volume was 62 mL (IQR 34-85). Grade group (GG) 1 and 2 prostate cancer was identified in enucleated pathology in 17 (27%) and 3 (5%) patients, respectively. No patient had a GG lesion ≥ 3 on the enucleated pathology. The rate of AS discontinuation was 18% in the HoLEP group vs. 56% in the control group (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis identified HoLEP as a protective factor for continued AS (HR = 0.231; p < 0.0001). At last follow-up, PSA and PSA density were significantly lower in the HoLEP group (2 vs. 7.7 p < 0.0001 and 0.06 vs. 0.14 p < 0.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Performing HoLEP in patients under AS for PCa with LUTS due to BPH may reduce the risk of deferred prostate cancer treatment, without altering oncological outcomes or future treatment options. HoLEP significantly impacts AS parameters, modifying patient monitoring. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and establish appropriate follow-up protocols.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CNIL number 24-5016.

Predictive factors of incidental prostate cancer in patients undergoing surgery for presumed benign prostatic hyperplasia: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

We aimed to identify the clinical predictors of incidental prostate cancer (IPCa) after surgery for presumed benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Methods

The literature was comprehensively searched using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases in December 2024. We used pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) to describe the correlation between relevant risk factors and IPCa.

Results

Twenty-one studies included 10,842 patients that were available for further analysis. After BPH surgery, 957 patients were histopathologically diagnosed with IPCa. The IPCa rate was 8.83%. Most importantly, our results identified that IPCa was significantly associated with age (pooled SMD = 0.36, P < 0.001), body mass index (BMI) (pooled SMD = 0.23, P < 0.001), preoperative prostate-specific antigen (pre-PSA) (pooled SMD = 0.43, P < 0.001), preoperative prostate-specific antigen density (pre-PSAD) (pooled SMD = 0.62, P = 0.028), resected prostate weight (pooled SMD = -0.22, P < 0.001), preoperative treatment with 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5αRIs) (yes/no) (pooled OR = 0.60, P < 0.001), family history (yes/no) (pooled OR = 3.81, P = 0.029), digital rectal examination (DRE) findings (abnormal/normal) (pooled OR = 5.15, P < 0.001), and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) findings (abnormal/normal) (pooled OR = 2.92, P < 0.001). Additionally, sensitivity and subgroup analyses indicated that our findings were reliable and robust. However, we found no significant associations between IPCa and prostate volume, preoperative negative prostate biopsy, smoking history, history of hypertension, history of diabetes, history of dyslipidemia, and abnormal magnetic resonance imaging findings (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Age, BMI, pre-PSA, pre-PSAD, resected prostate weight, preoperative treatment with 5αRIs, family history, abnormal DRE findings, and abnormal TRUS findings are independent factors predicting IPCa following BPH surgery. Before BPH surgery, factors such as age, BMI, pre-PSA, and pre-PSAD should be considered to assess the risk of IPCa. For high-risk patients, more detailed imaging and needle biopsy are recommended before surgery to avoid missed diagnosis. In the future, more large-scale and well-designed studies are needed to validate our results further.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42025631346.

A comparative analysis of robotic prostatectomy techniques post TURP/HOLEP: retzius-sparing vs. non-retzius approaches: evaluation of perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes

PURPOSE

We evaluated the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of Retzius-sparing and conventional non-Retzius-sparing robotic radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP and NRS-RARP) in the patients with a prior history of transurethral resection and enucleation of prostate (Post TURP/HOLEP).

METHODS

A total of 47 patients who had at least completed one year of follow-up after robotic radical prostatectomy and had a prior TURP/HOLEP were included in this retrospective analysis. The clinico-demographic data, perioperative parameters such as mean operating time, blood loss, mean hospital stay, complications as per Clavien-Dindo grading, and readmission were evaluated. Continence, potency, and biochemical recurrence were assessed to check the functional and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in mean age, body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, D-Amico risk stratification, preoperative PSA level and positive cores in TRUS-guided biopsy. The console time and blood loss were significantly less in the RS-RARP group (91.6 ± 24.2 vs. 128.9 ± 38.7 min vs. 110.3 ± 57.5 vs. 152.9 ± 64.9 ml, p = 0.0002 and p = 0.02, respectively). The complication rate, mean postoperative catheter duration, lymph nodes, readmission rates, final histopathology, and invasion status were similar in both groups. Continence achieved at 1,3,6,9 and 12-month follow-up was significantly more in the RS-RARP group (90% vs. 64.7% at 12-month; p = 0.01). The potency rates in nerve-sparing cases at 6-month and 1-year follow-ups were similar. Margin positivity rates and Biochemical recurrence were comparable and statistically insignificant in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Retzius-sparing RARP had less console time, less intraoperative blood loss and better continence recovery in both immediate and at 12-month follow-up. The potency, biochemical recurrence and margin status in both approaches were similar.

Incidental Prostate Cancer in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Predictive Model

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Histopathological examination of surgical specimens for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) can detect incidental prostate cancer (iPCa). The aim of our study was to develop a predictive model for iPCa diagnosis for patients for whom BPH surgery is being considered.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of medical files for patients who underwent BPH surgery in three academic centers between 2012 and 2022. Patients diagnosed with PCa before surgery were excluded. We calculated the global iPCa rate, and the clinically significant iPCa rate (grade group ≥2). Univariate and multivariable regression models were used to assess factors predictive of iPCa. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was compared for each risk factor and for the global model. We used χ2 automated interaction detection (CHAID) for decision tree analysis.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

We included 2452 patients in the analysis, of whom 247 (10.0%) had iPCa, which was clinically significant in 49/247 cases (20.2%). Multivariable analysis revealed that age and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) were independent predictive factors for iPCa diagnosis. The AUC for a model including age and PSAD was 0.65. CHAID analysis revealed that patients with PSAD >0.1 ng/ml/cm3 had an iPCa risk of 23.4% (χ2 = 52.6; p < 0.001). For those patients, age >72 yr increased the iPCa risk to 35.4% (χ2 = 11.1, p = 0.008). Our study is mainly limited by its retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Age and PSAD were independent risk factors for iPCa diagnosis. The combination of age >72 yr and PSAD >0.1 ng/ml/cm3 was associated with an iPCa rate of 35.4%.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We performed a study to find predictors of prostate cancer for patients undergoing surgery for benign enlargement of the prostate. Our model can identify patients at risk, and diagnose their cancer before surgery. This could avoid unnecessary or harmful procedures.

Functional and oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients with history of surgery for lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic enlargement: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with history of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic enlargement (LUTS/BPE) surgery represents a controversial issue. We performed an updated systematic review and meta- analysis evaluating oncological and functional outcomes of RP in this subset of patients.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified from MEDLINE, Web of Science and the Scopus databases. The following outcomes were evaluated: incidence of positive surgical margins (PSM), incidence of biochemical recurrence (BCR), 3-mo and 1-year urinary continence (UC) rates, incidence of nerve-sparing (NS) procedures, 1-year erectile function (EF) recovery rates. We estimated pooled Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effects models. Sub-analyses were performed according to the type of RP and LUTS/BPE surgery.

RESULTS

Twenty-five retrospective studies including 11,101 patients undergoing RP were included in the analysis (2113 with history of LUTS/BPE surgery, and 8898 controls). PSM rate was significantly higher in patients with history of LUTS/BPE surgery (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.18-1.63, p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference in terms of BCR emerged between patients with or without history of LUTS/BPE surgery (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.97-2.18, p = 0.066). Three-months and 1-year UC rates were significantly lower in patients with previous LUTS/BPE surgery (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.68, p < 0.001 and OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.62, p < 0.001; respectively). Although not statistically significant differences between the two groups emerged in terms of adoption of NS procedures (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.32-1.12, p = 0.107), 1-year EF recovery was significantly lower in patients with history of LUTS/BPE procedures (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.89, p = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusions, RP in patients with history of previous LUTS/BPE surgery is associated with increased incidence of PSM, lower UC rates at both 3-months and 1-year follow-up as well as lower rates of EF recovery at 1-year follow-up.

Perioperative Rates of Incidental Prostate Cancer after Aquablation and Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate

INTRODUCTION

Aquablation and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) have evolved as established therapeutic options for men with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). We sought to compare the rates of incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) after aquablation and HoLEP.

METHODS

At our center, between January 2020 and November 2022, 317 men underwent aquablation, and 979 men underwent HoLEP for BPO. Histopathological assessment of resected tissue was conducted in all cases. If iPCa was detected, the Gleason score and percentage of affected tissue were assessed. Differences in important predictive factors for prostate cancer between study groups were accounted for by additional matched pairs analysis (with matching on age ± 1 year; PSA ± 0.5 ng/mL; and prostate volume ± 5 mL).

RESULTS

Histopathology revealed iPCas in 60 patients (4.6%): 59 (6.03%) after HoLEP and 1 (0.3%) after aquablation (p = 0.001). Of 60 of incidental cancers, 11 had a Gleason score ≥7 (aquablation: 1/1 [100%]; HoLEP: 10/59 [16.9%]). The aquablation and HoLEP study groups differed in patient age, preoperative PSA, and prostate volume. Therefore, matched pairs analysis (aquablation: 132 patients; HoLEP: 132 patients) was conducted to improve comparability. Also after the matching procedure, significantly fewer iPCas were diagnosed after aquablation than HoLEP (aquablation: 0 [0%]; HoLEP: 6 [4.5%]; p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

Significantly fewer iPCas were identified after aquablation than HoLEP procedures. Histopathologic assessment of tissue after aquablation is feasible and may lead to the diagnosis of clinically significant iPCa. Therefore, histopathologic examination of the aquablation resective tissue should not be omitted.

Combination of docetaxel versus nonsteroidal antiandrogen with androgen deprivation therapy for high-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the oncologic efficacy of combining docetaxel with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA) with ADT in patients with high-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) with focus on the effect of sequential therapy in a real-world clinical practice setting.

METHODS

The records of 382 patients who harbored high-volume mHSPC, based on the CHAARTED criteria, and had received ADT with either docetaxel (n = 92) or NSAA (bicalutamide) (n = 290) were retrospectively analyzed. The cohorts were matched by one-to-one propensity scores based on patient demographics. Overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival (PFS), including time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and time to second-line progression (PFS2) were compared. 2nd-line PFS defined as the time from CRPC diagnosis to progression after second-line therapy was also compared.

RESULTS

After matching, a total of 170 patients were retained: 85 patients treated with docetaxel + ADT and 85 patients treated with NSAA + ADT. The median OS and CSS for docetaxel + ADT versus NSAA + ADT were not reached (NR) vs. 49 months (p = 0.02) and NR vs. 55 months (p = 0.02), respectively. Median time to CRPC and PFS2 in patients treated with docetaxel + ADT was significantly longer compared to those treated with NSAA (22 vs. 12 months; p = 0.003 and, NR vs. 28 months; p < 0.001, respectively). There was no significant difference in 2nd-line PFS between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggested that ADT with docetaxel significantly prolonged OS and CSS owing to a better time to CRPC and PFS2 in comparison to NSAA + ADT in high-volume mHSPC.

Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy after previous trans-urethral resection of the prostate: Assessment of functional and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

no data exist concerning functional and oncological outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP), in patients previously treated with trans-urethral resection of the prostate (p-TURP), for benign prostate obstruction. Our study addressed the impact of p-TURP on immediate and 12-months urinary continence recovery (UCR), as well as peri-operative outcomes and surgical margins, after RS-RARP.

METHODS

all patients treated with RS-RARP for prostate cancer at a single high-volume European institution, between 2010 and 2021, were identified and stratified according to p-TURP status. Logistic, Poisson and Cox regression models were performed.

RESULTS

Of 1386 RS-RARP patients, 99 (7%) had history of p-TURP. Between p-TURP and no-TURP patients no differences were detected regarding both intra- and post-operative complications (p values = 0.9). The rates of immediate UCR were 40 vs 67% in p-TURP vs no-TURP patients (p < 0.001). At 12 months from RS-RARP, the rates of UCR were 68 vs 94% in p-TURP vs no-TURP patients (p < 0.001). At multivariable logistic and Cox regression models, p-TURP was independently associated, respectively, with lower immediate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.32, p < 0.001) and 12-months UCR (hazard ratio: 0.54, p < 0.001). At multivariable Poisson analyses, p-TURP predicted longer operative time (rate ratio: 1.08, p < 0.001) but not longer length of stay or time to catheter removal (p values > 0.05). Positive surgical margins rates were 23 vs 17% in p-TURP vs no-TURP patients (p = 0.1), which translated in a non-statistically significant multivariable OR of 1.14 (p = 0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

p-TURP does not increase surgical morbidity but portends longer operative time and worse urinary continence after RS-RARP.

Current Trends in Incidence and Management of T1a and T1b Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) identified incidentally (iPCa) after surgical treatment for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) causing lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) is considered low risk by the most current guidelines. Management protocols for iPCa are conservative and are identical to other prostate cancers classified as having favorable prognoses. The objectives of this paper are to discuss the incidence of iPCa stratified by BPH procedure, to highlight predictors of cancer progression, and to propose potential modifications to mainstream guidelines for the optimal management of iPCa. The correlation between the rate of iPCa detection and the method of BPH surgery is not clearly defined. Old age, small prostate volume, and high pre-operative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are associated with an increased likelihood of detecting iPCa. PSA and tumor grade are strong predictors of cancer progression and can be used along with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and potential confirmatory biopsies to determine disease management. In instances that iPCa requires treatment, radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation therapy, and androgen deprivation therapy all have oncologic benefits but may be associated with increased risk after the BPH surgery. It is advised that patients with low to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer undergo post-operative PSA measurement and prostate MRI imaging before electing to choose between observation, surveillance without confirmatory biopsy, immediate confirmatory biopsy, or active treatment. Subdividing the binary T1a/b cancer staging into more categories with ranging percentages of malignant tissue would be a helpful first step in tailoring the management of iPCa.

Relationships between holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and prostate cancer

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a size-independent surgical option for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) with excellent, durable functional outcomes. The prevalence of LUTS secondary to BPH and prostate cancer both increase with age, although the two diseases develop independently. Urologists often face a diagnostic dilemma, as men with LUTS secondary to BPH might also present with an elevated PSA and, therefore, need a diagnostic work-up to exclude prostate cancer. Nevertheless, ~15% of men with a negative elevated PSA work-up will undergo HoLEP and will be diagnosed with incidental prostate cancer at the time of HoLEP. Indeed, prostate cancer is often found in men undergoing HoLEP, and this situation can be challenging to manage. Variables associated with the detection of incidental prostate cancer, strategies to reduce incidental prostate cancer, as well as the natural history and management of this condition have been extensively studied, but further work in this area is still needed.

Incidental prostate cancer after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate-A narrative review

Prostate cancer can be detected incidentally after surgical therapy for benign prostatic obstruction such as holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), thus called incidental prostate cancer (iPCa). We aimed to review the studies on iPCa detected after HoLEP and investigate its prevalence. A detailed search of original articles was conducted via the PubMed-MEDLINE, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library and Cochrane Library databases in the last 10 years up to 1 May 2021 with the following search string solely or in combination: "prostate cancer", "prostate carcinoma", "holmium laser enucleation of the prostate" and "HoLEP". We identified 19 articles to include in our analysis and divided them into six main categories: HoLEP versus open prostatectomy and/or transurethral resection of the prostate in terms of iPCa, oncological and functional outcomes, the role of imaging modalities in detecting iPCa, predictive factors of iPCa, the role of prostate-specific antigen kinetics in detecting iPCa and the management of iPCa after HoLEP. We found that the iPCa after HoLEP rate ranges from 5.64% to 23.3%. Functional and oncological outcomes were reported to be encouraging. Oncological treatment options are available in a wide range.

[Systemic treatment of advanced prostate cancer]

In recent years there have been substantial changes in the therapeutic landscape for systemic treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PCa), which resulted in a multitude of novel treatment options for different stages of the disease. In the current narrative review currently available treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa as well as nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa are presented. In addition, current treatment sequence options and targeted treatment in the stage of metastatic castration-resistant PCa are highlighted.