Efficacy and Feasibility of Low-Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients

Efficacy and Safety of Brachytherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is common among male renal transplant recipients and can present challenges for medical management and patient survival. It is imperative to have a comprehensive understanding of available treatment options in this population to determine the most effective and safe therapies. Brachytherapy, a safe and effective treatment for localized prostate cancer, has not been sufficiently studied in this patient population. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of brachytherapy in treating prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our brachytherapy database to identify patients with a previous history of renal transplantation who underwent seed implantation for localized prostate cancer. Long-term prostate-specific antigen control and treatment-related toxicity, including graft dysfunction and urinary and rectal complications, were assessed and compared with published outcomes. Results were analyzed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of seed implantation in this patient population.

RESULTS

We identified 2 patients with previous renal transplantation who underwent permanent seed implantation for localized prostate cancer. Follow-ups ranged from 53 to 57 months, and both patients remained free of prostate-specific antigen progression with normal graft function. No acute and late complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

Brachytherapy is a safe and effective treatment option for post-renal transplant prostate cancer. Given the paucity of reports on brachytherapy in this population, the findings of this study, despite a small sample size, contribute to the increasing body of evidence supporting the use of brachytherapy in this patient population.

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.

Radical prostatectomy outcomes in renal transplant recipients: a retrospective case series of Thai patients

Background

The incidence of prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is similar to the general population. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the standard of care in the management of clinically localized cancer, but is considered complicated due to the presence of adhesions, and the location of transplanted ureter/kidney. To date, a few case series or studies on RP in RTR have been published, especially in Asian patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety and report the experience with RP on RTR.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data of 1270 patients who underwent RP from January 2008 to March 2020, of which 5 patients were RTR. All available baseline characteristics, perioperative and postoperative data (operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, length of hospital stay, complication), pathological stage, Gleason score, surgical margin status, and pre/postoperative creatinine were reviewed.

Results

Of the 5 RTR who underwent RPs (1 open radical prostatectomy (ORP), 1 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), 2 robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RALRP), and 1 Retzius-sparing RALRP (RS-RALRP)) prostatectomy, the mean age (± SD) was 70 (± 5.62) years. In LRP and RALRP cases, the standard ports were moved slightly medially to prevent graft injury. The mean operative time ranged from 190 to 365 min. The longest operative time and highest EBL (630 ml) was the ORP case due to severe adhesion in Retzius space. For LRP and RALRP cases, the operative times seemed comparable and had EBL of ≤ 300 ml. All RPs were successful without any major intra-operative complication. There was no significant change in graft function. The restorations of urinary continence were within 1 month in RS-RALRP, approximately 6 months in RALRP, and about 1 year in ORP and LRP. Three patients with positive surgical margins had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence at the first follow-up and 1 had later PSA recurrence. Two patients with negative margins were free from biochemical recurrence at 47 and 3 months after their RP.

Conclusions

Our series suggested that all RP techniques are safe and feasible mode of treatment for localized prostate cancer in RTR.

The role of radiotherapy in patients with solid tumours after solid organ transplantation: a systematic review

For patients diagnosed with cancer who have previously received an organ transplant, radiotherapy represents a challenging clinical scenario without well established care algorithms. Immunosuppressive therapy can be a cause for concern among clinicians treating this category of patients. Potential immune modulation following irradiation could affect recipient organ tolerance and the outcomes of the transplantation itself. The main aim of this systematic review was to define the safety and effectiveness of radiotherapy in patients diagnosed with cancer who have previously received an organ transplant. We searched PubMed and Embase for articles published between Jan 1, 1995, and April 30, 2020 for studies in patients who had undergone radiotherapy for post-transplantation malignancies. The Review is framed by the PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcomes) criteria, and primarily focuses on modern treatment techniques.

[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.

Our experience in the management of prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The management of Prostate cancer (PCa) in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is challenging and remain controversial. Currently there is no consensus about this condition. The aim of the study was to analyse our experience in the diagnosis and management of PCa in RTR.

METHOD

Retrospective monocentric study of a prospective and consecutive database from 2003-2017. Inclusion of RTR diagnosed of PCa. Staging and treatment in agreement with the contemporary guidelines. The main outcome measures included clinical staging, type of treatment, oncological outcomes and follow-up.

RESULTS

1,330 renal transplants were performed (787 males), diagnosed of PCa in 33 RTR (4.2%), mean age 66years±6.3 (51-78). Median PSA was 8.8ng/ml and PSA ratio 0.19. Mean time between renal transplantation and PCa diagnosis 130months±90 (2-236).

TREATMENTS

Radical prostatectomy (RP) (n=22; 66.7%), Radiation therapy (RT) with Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (n=7; 21.2%), Active surveillance (n=3; 9.1%), ADT (n=1; 3%). No graft loss neither impaired renal function due to PCa treatment was reported. After RP two patients (9.1%) presented biochemical recurrence treated with RT. Remission of the 100%. Mean follow-up was 61months±37 (6-132).

CONCLUSIONS

PCa in renal transplant patients can be managed with the same therapeutic options as in the general population. Active surveillance should also be provided in RTR despite being under immunosuppressive therapy.

Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: 13 Cases Studied at a Single Center

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of surgical prostatectomy in renal transplant recipients (RTRs).

METHODS

Between January 2008 and February 2017, we identified 13 RTRs who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and underwent radical prostatectomy. We reviewed all available clinicopathologic data for these 13 patients.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 61 years and median serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 8.79 ng/mL. The mean period between transplantation and diagnosis of prostate cancer was 136 months. The sources for the kidney transplants included 10 living and 3 deceased donors. Biopsies indicated that the Gleason scores were 7 in 10 patients and 8 to 10 in 3 patients. Meanwhile, the D'Amico risk classification indicated an intermediate risk in 9 patients and a high risk in 4 patients. Eight patients were at stage cT1 and 5 were at stage cT2. The surgical procedure was retropubic radical prostatectomy in one recipient, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 3 recipients, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in 9 RTRs. Intraoperative complications were not noted in any patient, although one patient demonstrated postoperative complications (Clavien grade ≥ 3). An indwelling urinary catheter was required in 3 patients for over 3 weeks due to delayed wound healing. Biochemical recurrence evaluated by PSA monitoring occurred in four patients. Postoperative graft function was stable in all but one patient who required resumption of dialysis before prostatectomy; however, all patients are alive at the time of publication with 12 patients showing well-functioning renal allografts.

CONCLUSION

Prostatectomy may be a feasible and effective technique as an initial treatment for RTRs with localized prostate cancer.