Oncological control after radical prostatectomy in men with clinical T3 prostate cancer: a single-centre experience

Oncological outcomes after attempted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (NSRP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer are comparable to standard non-NSRP: a longitudinal long-term propensity-matched single-centre study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term safety of nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (NSRP) in men with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) by comparing survival outcomes, disease recurrence, the need for additional therapy, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing NSRP to those having non-NSRP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included consecutive patients at a single, academic centre who underwent open RP for high-risk PCa, defined as preoperative prostate-specific antigen level of > 20 ng/mL and/or postoperative International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 4 or 5 (i.e., Gleason score ≥ 8) and/or ≥pT3 and/or pN1 assessing the RP and lymph node specimen. We calculated a propensity score and used inverse probability of treatment weighting to match baseline characteristics of patients with high-risk PCa who underwent NSRP vs non-NSRP. We analysed oncological outcome as time-to-event and calculated hazard ratios (HRs).

RESULTS

A total of 726 patients were included in this analysis of which 84% (n = 609) underwent NSRP. There was no evidence for the positive surgical margin rate being different between the NSRP and non-NSRP groups (47% vs 49%, P = 0.64). Likewise, there was no evidence for the need for postoperative radiotherapy being different in men who underwent NSRP from those who underwent non-NSRP (HR 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.15). NSRP did not impact the risk of any recurrence (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73-1.34, P = 0.09) and there was no evidence for survival being different in men who underwent NSRP to those who underwent non-NSRP (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39-1.08). There was also no evidence for the cancer-specific survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29-1.11) or progression-free survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73-1.34) being different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with high-risk PCa, NSRP can be attempted without compromising long-term oncological outcomes provided a comprehensive assessment of objective (e.g., T Stage) and subjective (e.g., intraoperative appraisal of tissue planes) criteria are conducted.

Comparative oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy in men with clinical T3b prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare oncological outcomes in men with clinical T3b prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy or a combination of radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy.

METHODS

Men with clinical T3b prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy between 2007 and 2014 were evaluated. All patients were relatively healthy, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 without nodal or distant metastasis. Cancer-specific survival was analyzed. Age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, biopsy Gleason score and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen were adjusted by propensity score matching. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess factors prognostic of cancer-specific survival.

RESULTS

Of the 152 patients with clinical T3b prostate cancer, 45 underwent radical prostatectomy, and 107 underwent radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy between 2007 and 2014. The mean cancer-specific survival was significantly longer in the radical prostatectomy than in the radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy group (P = 0.029). Age, Charlson Comorbidity Index and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen were significantly higher in the radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy group. In the propensity score matched population of 24 patients each, the median cancer-specific survival remained significantly longer in the radical prostatectomy than in the radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy group (not reached vs 112.93 ± 11.94 months, P = 0.026). Multivariate analysis showed that undergoing radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy was the only significant poor prognostic factor for cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio 6.694, 95% confidence interval 1.642-27.592, P = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Cancer-specific survival was significantly longer in men with clinical T3b prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy than radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy, suggesting that radical prostatectomy can be a better treatment option for the initial definitive treatment for these patients.

Tumour irradiation combined with vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy enhances antitumour effects in pre-clinical prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

There is a need to improve the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) and reduce treatment side effects. Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) is a focal therapy for low-risk low-volume localised PCa, which rapidly disrupts targeted tumour vessels. There is interest in expanding the use of VTP to higher-risk disease. Tumour vasculature is characterised by vessel immaturity, increased permeability, aberrant branching and inefficient flow. FRT alters the tumour microenvironment and promotes transient 'vascular normalisation'. We hypothesised that multimodality therapy combining fractionated radiotherapy (FRT) and VTP could improve PCa tumour control compared against monotherapy with FRT or VTP.

METHODS

We investigated whether sequential delivery of FRT followed by VTP 7 days later improves flank TRAMP-C1 PCa tumour allograft control compared to monotherapy with FRT or VTP.

RESULTS

FRT induced 'vascular normalisation' changes in PCa flank tumour allografts, improving vascular function as demonstrated using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. FRT followed by VTP significantly delayed tumour growth in flank PCa allograft pre-clinical models, compared with monotherapy with FRT or VTP, and improved overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Combining FRT and VTP may be a promising multimodal approach in PCa therapy. This provides proof-of-concept for this multimodality treatment to inform early phase clinical trials.

Association Between Surgical Stress and Biochemical Recurrence After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

Background and Objectives

This study was conducted to identify whether surgical stress during the peri-operative period of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy might affect biochemical recurrence in patients with positive surgical margins.

Methods

Participants in the present study were 324 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy between February 2013 and June 2018. Positive surgical margins were diagnosed in 61 of them. Patients with positive surgical margins were divided into those with (n = 19) and those without (n = 42) biochemical recurrence. Lymph node dissection, estimated blood loss, inhalation anesthetic volume, and surgical duration were evaluated as indicators of surgical stress. White blood cell count, C-reactive protein, body temperature, and usage of analgesics were postoperatively evaluated as surrogate markers of surgical stress. The associations between factors, including patients' characteristics and pathological features, and biochemical recurrence were investigated.

Results

In univariate analyses, surgical duration (P = 0.004), D'Amico risk class (P = 0.002), Gleason score (P = 0.022) and the number of positive cores in prostate biopsy (P = 0.009) were statistically significantly associated with biochemical recurrence. In multivariate analyses, only surgical duration was significantly associated with biochemical recurrence (P = 0.042), at a cut-off value of surgical duration of 228.5 minutes.

Conclusions

Prolonged surgical duration is associated with biochemical recurrence in patients with positive surgical margins. Thus, surgical duration should be limited as much as possible to reduce surgical stress, which might cause biochemical recurrence.

Extrafascial robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in locally advanced prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Up to 26.5% of new diagnosed prostate cancers (PCa) are locally advanced (LA). Although traditionally discouraged in this setting, radical prostatectomy (RP) lowers the risk of metastatic progression and cancer-specific death. We report a review of the available evidences and describe our surgical technique of extrafascial robot-assisted RP.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The PubMed/Medline database was searched for "prostate cancer," "high-risk," "locally advanced," "prostatectomy." Duplicates and expert opinion papers were removed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

RP is an option in selected patients with LA-PCa and >10 years life expectancy. Five, 10 and 15 years after open RP, disease free survival rates were 85%, 73% and 67%. At the same time-points, cancer specific survival and overall survival were 95%, 90%, 79% and 90%, 76%, 53%, respectively. Postoperative potency was achieved by 25% of the patients while 79% were continent. Robotic prostatectomy provides comparable cancer control outcomes, but it is associated with a lower transfusion rate and a shorter hospitalization time. The concept of "extrafascial prostatectomy" was introduced in 2000 by Villers: this surgical approach reduces the incidence of mid- and postero-lateral positive margins (28% vs. 51%, when compared to intrafascial; P=0.08), expecially in pT3 cancers, but markedly affects potency.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted RP is an option in patients with LA-PCa. Removing the prostate gland and the seminal vesicles still contained inside their aponeurotic covering, minimize the risk of positive surgical margins and clinical recurrence.

[Radical prostatectomy in locally advanced prostate cancer]

BACKGROUND

Due to an inverse stage migration, the proportion of patients with more aggressive and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) has increased over the last few years. The natural history in these patients shows a higher risk of local complications and worse oncologic outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the impact of radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with locally advanced PCa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the literature was performed using PubMed and MEDLINE databases focusing on articles addressing locally advanced PCa.

RESULTS

Current guidelines recommend local therapy in patients with locally advanced PCa among other treatment options. Thereby no strong evidence favoring radiotherapy or RP is present. Compared to patients without local treatment, RP may improve oncologic outcome and decrease the risk of local complications. Due to more difficult surgery and an increased need of multimodal therapy, higher perioperative morbidity and worse functional outcomes compared to patients with localized PCa are reported. No reliable prospective data indicating a widespread use of neoadjuvant treatment exists. Indication for further adjuvant or salvage therapies depends on pathologic results and postoperative course.

CONCLUSIONS

RP is one of the treatment options with good long-term results which can be offered to patients with locally advanced PCa. Nevertheless, patients need to be counselled especially about the worse postoperative functional outcome compared to patients with localized PCa.

Role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in locally advanced prostate cancer

Locally advanced prostate cancer is regarded as a very high-risk disease with a poor prognosis. Although there is no definitive consensus on the definition of locally advanced prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer as a primary treatment or part of a multimodal therapy has been reported. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is currently carried out even in high-risk prostate cancer because it provides optimal outcomes. However, limited studies have assessed the role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Herein, we summarize and review the current knowledge in terms of the definition and surgical indications of locally advanced prostate cancer, and the surgical procedure and perisurgical/oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer.

Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Locally-advanced Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on the role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

To describe our surgical technique of extrafascial RARP and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) in locally advanced PCa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-four patients with clinical stage ≥T3 undergoing RARP with ePLND at three European centers between 2011 and 2015 were retrospectively evaluated.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

Surgery was performed using the DaVinci Si system. The anatomically defined ePLND included nodes overlying the external iliac axis, those in the obturator fossa, and around the internal iliac artery up to the ureter. RARP was performed using an extrafascial approach where the Denonvillers' fascia was dissected free and left on the posterior surface of the seminal vesicles.

MEASUREMENTS

Perioperative outcomes consisted of operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complications occurred within 30 d after surgery. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as two consecutive prostate-specific antigen values ≥0.2ng/ml. Kaplan-Meier analyses assessed time to BCR and clinical recurrence. Multivariable Cox regression analyses assessed predictors of BCR.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Median operative time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were 230min, 200ml, and 6 d. Overall, 12 (12.7%) patients experienced complications and five (5.3%), four (4.3%), and three (3.2%) patients had Clavien I, II, and III/IV complications. Overall, 72 (76.6%), 35 (37.2%), and 30 (32.3%) patients had pT3/4, pN1, and positive margins. The median number of nodes removed was 16. Overall, 19 (20.2%) and 21 (22.3%) patients received adjuvant radiotherapy and hormonal therapy. The median follow-up was 23.5 mo. At 3-yr follow-up, the BCR- and clinical recurrence-free survival rates were 63.3% and 95.8%. Pathologic stage, Gleason score, and positive margins represented predictors of BCR (all p≤0.03). Our study is limited by its retrospective nature and by the follow-up duration.

CONCLUSIONS

RARP represents a well-standardized, safe, and oncological effective option in patients with locally advanced PCa. Pathologic stage, Gleason score, and positive margins should be considered to select patients for multimodal approaches.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Robot-assisted surgery represents a well-standardized, safe, and oncological effective option in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Two out of three patients treated with this approach are free from recurrence at 3-yr follow-up. Pathologic stage, Gleason score, and positive surgical margins represent predictors of BCR and should be considered to select patients for multimodal approaches.

Role of Surgery in locally advanced prostate cancer

A significant proportion of patients present with locally advanced prostate cancer with inherent higher risk of local recurrence and systemic relapse after initial treatment. Recent literature favors combination of radiation therapy and extended hormonal therapy for this subset of patients. The effectiveness of Radical prostatectomy (RP) alone for locally advanced prostate cancer is controversial and is a focus of debate. However, it can decrease the tumor burden and allows the accurate and precise pathological staging with the need for subsequent treatment. Comparison of RP and other treatment modalities is difficult and incorrect because of inherent selection bias. RP as a part of multi-modality treatment (with neo-adjuvant hormonal therapy (HT) and with adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy (RT)/HT) can provide long term overall and cancer specific survival. Surgical treatment (such as transurethral resection (TUR), JJ stenting and percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) placement etc.) can also provide symptomatic improvement and palliative care to improve quality of life of patients with advanced prostate cancer.

Oncological outcomes of cryosurgery as primary treatment in T3 prostate cancer: experience of a single centre

OBJECTIVE

To assess the oncological outcomes and determine prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) after cryosurgery for clinical stage T3 prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2002 and 2007, 75 patients with clinical stage T3 prostate cancer received cryosurgery as primary treatment in our institution. No adjuvant treatment was provided until biochemical failure. After biochemical failure, hormone therapy was administered. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate the OS, CSS, and BPFS. Cox regression was used to identify factors predictive of survival.

RESULTS

Clinical stage T3a (cT3a) was detected in 60% (45/75) of patients and cT3b detected in 40% (30/75). The 5-year OS, CSS, and BPFS rates were 85.3%, 92.0%, and 48%, respectively. There was a significant difference when comparing the pT3a with the pT3b group for 5-year OS (88.9% vs 80%, P = 0.02) and BPFS (55.6% vs 36.7%, P = 0.01), but there was no difference in CSS (93.3% vs 90%, P = 0.63). Stage, Gleason score, and nadir prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were associated with BPFS, while Gleason score and nadir PSA were the most significant predictors for CSS.

CONCLUSIONS

Cryosurgery can offer good 5-year OS, CSS, and BPFS rates for cT3 prostate cancer, and there was no difference between T3a and T3b for CSS. Gleason score and nadir PSA were the most significant predictors of survival. Further clinical trials are warranted for evaluating the role of cryosurgery for cT3 prostate cancer.

[Risk factors of recurrence after radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer]

PURPOSE

We reviewed our retrospective surgical database and assessed the outcome after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with clinical T3 (cT3) prostate cancer (PC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty four men underwent RP for cT3 PC in our hospital from 1995 to 2011. Clinical stage was diagnosed with MRI and rectal digital examination in all cases. We investigated the postoperative outcome, cancer specific survival and overall survival of all patients. We also investigated the risk factors of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in the patients without any adjuvant therapy. All survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier plots. We performed univariate analysis by Mann-Whitney test, Fisher exact test and Log-Rank test, and multivariate analysis by Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Median age at RP was 67 years (range: 48-74), and median initial PSA was 14.1 ng/ml (2.2-76.2). Sixty cases (93.8%) were classified into cT3a, and 4 cases (6.3%) into cT3b. Median follow-up period after RP was 62 months (3-172). Fifty three (83%) patients received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. Median duration of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy was 7 months (3-31). Adjuvant therapy underwent in 20 cases. Of the 64 patients, overall survival and cancer specific survival rates at 10 years were 98% and 100%, respectively. Of the 44 patients who didn't receive any adjuvant therapy, BCR free survival rates at 5 and 10 years was 59% and 51%, respectively. Univariate analysis revealed that both PSA > or = 15 ng/ml and GS > or = 8 were associated with a significant risk of BCR. Any significant risk factor was not identified by multivariate analysis. In 16 patients who have cT3a, PSA < 15 ng/ml and GS < 8, BCR free survival rate at 5 years was 78%. On the other hand, that of the other patients was 37% (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested that RP is effective for some patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, especially who have cT3a diagnosed by MRI, PSA < 15 ng/ml and GS < 8.

Surgical management of prostate cancer

Surgery remains a mainstay in the management of localized prostate cancer. This article addresses surgical aspects germane to the management of men with prostate cancer, including patient selection for surgery, nerve-sparing approaches, minimization of positive surgical margins, and indications for pelvic lymph node dissection. Outcomes for men with high-risk prostate cancer following surgery are reviewed, and the present role of neoadjuvant therapy before radical prostatectomy is discussed. In addition, there is a review of the published literature on surgical ablative therapies for prostate cancer.

Results of surgery for high-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Surgery for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is applied frequently nowadays. Nevertheless, this approach is still surrounded by many controversies. The present review discusses the most recent literature regarding surgery for high-risk PCa.

RECENT FINDINGS

As there is no standard definition of high-risk PCa, outcome comparison between series and treatment approaches is hampered. Nevertheless, recent radical prostatectomy series have shown excellent cancer-specific survival in patients with high-risk PCa. Even for very-high-risk PCa (cT3b-T4 or any cT, N1), surgery may be applied to highly selected patients as a first step of a multimodality approach. Recent experience with robot-assisted surgery opens new possibilities for a minimally invasive approach in this field.Patient selection for surgery was also addressed in recent studies. Excellent cancer-specific survival is seen when specimen-confined PCa is found at final histopathology; a recently published nomogram enables the prediction of specimen-confined disease. Another issue in high-risk PCa is the impact of age and comorbidities on cancer-specific and overall mortality. In a recent study, it was shown that patients with low comorbidity scores, even when at least 70 years old, had a significant risk of dying from their cancer and may benefit most from a surgical approach. A modified extended pelvic lymphadenectomy template was presented, providing optimal removal of positive lymph nodes.

SUMMARY

Radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy delivers very good cancer-related outcomes in high-risk and very-high-risk PCa, often within a multimodal approach. Minimally invasive surgery and improved patient selection will be key to further improve oncological and functional outcomes.

External validation of nomogram predicting the probability of specimen-confined disease (pT2-3a, R0N0) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection

INTRODUCTION

Before radical prostatectomy (RP), a nomogram [Briganti et al., Eur Urol 2012;61:584-592] permits to measure the probability of specimen-confined (SC) disease (pT2-pT3a, node negative with negative margins) in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of our study was to perform an external validation of this nomogram.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2007 and 2011, 623 patients with high-risk PCa (prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng/ml and/or biopsy Gleason score ≥8 and/or clinical stage T3) underwent RP and pelvic lymph node dissection at tertiary referral centers. Multivariable logistic regression models predicting the presence of SC disease were built in; we then used the area under curve of the receiver operating characteristic analysis to quantify accuracy of the nomogram to predict SC disease. The extent of over- or underestimation was evaluated within calibration plots.

RESULTS

29% (181/623) of men had SC disease at RP. Preoperative PSA, biopsy Gleason score and stage differed significantly (all p < 0.001) between men with SC disease and those without. External validation of the nomogram showed an acceptable accuracy (area under curve: 66.3, 95% CI 62.4-70%) and a perfect calibration plot.

CONCLUSIONS

The external cohort validates the original nomogram, with perfect calibration characteristics. The adequate although reduced accuracy may reflect the wide spectrum and behavior of the so-called high-risk PCa.

Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience

OBJECTIVES

To compare oncological outcomes of a consecutive retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) series performed by a single surgeon who had performed >750 prior RRPs and was starting to perform RARPs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected longitudinal data of 277 RRP and 730 RARP cases over a 5-year period were retrospectively analyzed. The RARP series were divided into 3 subgroups (1st, <250 cases; 2nd, 250-500; and 3rd, >500) according to the surgical period. The positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) rates were compared at each pathological stage.

RESULTS

The pT2 PSM rates showed no significant difference between the RRP (7.8%) and RARP series (1st, 9.5%; 2nd, 14.1%; and 3rd, 9.8%) throughout the study period (P = 0.689, 0.079, and 0.688, respectively). Although the pT3 PSM rates of the 1st (50.6%) and 2nd RARP series (50.0%) were higher than that of the RRP series (36.0%; P = 0.044 and P = 0.069, respectively), the 3rd RARP series had a comparable pT3 PSM rate (32.4%, P = 0.641). The 3-year BCRFS rates of the RRP and RARP series were similar at each pathological stage (pT2, 92.1 vs. 96.8%, P = 0.517; pT3, 60.0 vs. 67.3%, P = 0.265, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The pT2 PSM and short-term BCRFS rates were similar between RRP and RARP, and RARP showed comparable pT3 PSM rate with RRP after >500 cases of surgical experience. Our data suggest that an experienced robotic surgeon at a high-volume center may achieve comparable oncological outcomes with open prostatectomy even in locally advanced disease.

Robotic-assisted prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy for locally-advanced prostate cancer: multi-institution comparison of oncologic outcomes

Purpose:

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) offers reportedly comparable oncologic outcomes for localized disease compared with open radical retropubic prostatectomy (ORRP). However, the oncologic efficacy of RALP in locally-advanced prostate cancer (PCa) is less clear. We report and compare our experience with RALP and ORRP in men with locally advanced PCa.

Methods:

Patients with locally advanced PCa (stage T3 or greater) were identified in both robotic and open cohorts. Clinicopathologic features including age, clinical stage, prostate-specific antigen, surgical margins, and Gleason score were reviewed. We further examined the incidence of positive surgical margins, the effect of the surgical learning curve on margins, and the need for adjuvant therapy.

Results:

From 1997 to 2010, 1,011 patients underwent RALP and 415 patients were identified who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) across four institutions. 140 patients in the RALP group and 95 in the RRP group had locally advanced PCa on final pathology. The overall robotic positive margin rate 47.1% compared with 51.4% in the RRP group. A trend towards a lower positive margin rate was seen after 300 cases in the RALP group, with 66.7% positive margin rate in the first 300 cases compared with 41.8% in the latter 700 cases. In addition, a lower incidence of biochemical recurrence was also noted in the latter cases (30.6% vs. 9.5%).

Conclusions:

Up to 2 out of 3 men undergoing RALP for locally-advanced PCa had positive margins during our initial experience. However, with increasing surgeon experience the overall positive margin rate decreased significantly and was comparable to the positive margin rate for patients with locally advanced disease undergoing ORRP over four academic institutions. We also noted a lower incidence of biochemical recurrence with increasing RALP experience, suggesting better oncologic outcomes with higher volume. Given this data, RALP has comparable oncologic outcomes compared to ORRP, especially with higher volume surgeons.

Radical Prostatectomy as a First-Line Treatment in Patients with Initial PSA >20 ng/mL

Initial PSA >20 ng/mL is generally considered an adverse prognostic feature in prostate cancer (PCa). Our goals were to estimate the impact of radical prostatectomy (RP) on biochemical recurrence- (BCR-) free and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates of PCa patients with PSA >20 ng/mL, and to identify patients with favorable oncological outcome. Using 20 ng/mL as a cut-point value, 205 PCa patients, who underwent RP, were stratified into two groups. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the significant outcome predictors among patients with PSA >20 ng/mL. Men in this group had significantly lower 10-yr BCR-free and CSS rates than patients with PSA ≤20 ng/mL (20.7% versus 79.6% (P < 0.001) and 65.0% versus 87.9% (P = 0.010), resp.). Pathological stage and lymph node status were found to be the only independent predictors of PSA failure. Patients with favorable combination of these variables (pT2, N0) had significantly longer 10-yr BCR-free and CSS rates (44.3% versus 0% (P = 0.001) and 100.0% versus 33.6% (P = 0.011), resp.). High PSA values do not uniformly indicate poor prognosis after surgery. Patients, who might benefit the most from RP, are those with organ confined PCa and negative lymph nodes.

Radical prostatectomy in very high-risk localized prostate cancer: long-term outcomes and outcome predictors

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to present the long-term outcomes and determine outcome predictors in very high-risk (cT3b-T4) prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy (RP).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January 1989 and December 2004, 51 patients with cT3b-T4 PCa underwent RP. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate the biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS), clinical progression-free survival (CPFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) rate. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the predictive power of clinical and pathological variables in BPFS and CPFS.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 108 months [interquartile range (IQR) 73.5-144.5]. The median serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 16.9 ng/ml (IQR 7-37.2). Median biopsy and pathological Gleason (pGS) score were both scored as 7 (range 4-10 and 5-9, respectively). Overstaging was frequent (37.2%); four patients (7.8%) had organ-confined stage pT2, while 15 (29.4%) had extracapsular extension only (pT3a). Another 23 (45.1%) were confirmed with seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b) and nine (17.7%) had adjacent structure invasion (pT4). Eleven patients (21.6%) had lymph-node involvement. Thirty-two patients (62.7%) had positive surgical margins. The BPFS, CPFS, CSS and OS at 5 and 10 years were 52.7%, 45.8%;78.0%, 72.5%; 91.9%, 91.9% and 88.0%, 70.7%. In the multivariate Cox proportional hazard models, pathological stage was an independent predictor of BPFS while preoperative PSA and pGS was an independent predictor of CPFS.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of cT3b-T4 PCa typically consists of a multimodality treatment in which RP is a valuable first step. Overstaging was frequent (37.2%), and almost one-quarter of the patients remained free of additional treatments. Long-term cancer-related outcomes were very satisfactory.

Outcome of a modified York Mason technique in men with iatrogenic urethrorectal fistula after radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Urethrorectal fistula formation is a rare but devastating complication after radical prostatectomy. Reconstructive surgery is usually required, and one surgical option is the York Mason procedure.

OBJECTIVE

We present our experience with a modified York Mason technique for the surgical management of urethrorectal fistula.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of medical records.

SETTING

Tertiary care university medical center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive male patients with urethrorectal fistula due to radical prostatectomy who underwent York Mason repair between 1998 and 2009.

INTERVENTION

All patients initially received both a urinary and a bowel diversion as the first step of the treatment. The second step consisted of a modification of the York Mason technique in which the approach began with a parasacrococcygeal incision extending from the coccyx to the anal verge.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All patients were seen 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery and yearly thereafter to assess the resolution of clinical functional disorders and the Wexner fecal incontinence score.

RESULTS

The study included 10 men with a mean age of 63.7 (range, 50-80) years who had urethrorectal fistula after open retropubic prostatectomy (n = 6) or after laparoscopic prostatectomy (n = 4). Confined prostate cancer (pT2) was found in 7 patients and extracapsular extension of the tumor (pT3) in 3 patients. Urethrorectal fistula was discovered because of fecaluria in 6 patients and pneumaturia in 6. The mean time from surgery to York Mason repair was 15 (range, 4-42) months. Five patients had each previously undergone 1 unsuccessful repair procedure. The mean operative time was 81 (range, 60-130) minutes and the mean hospital stay was 6 days. No fecal incontinence or anal stenosis developed after York Mason repair. No recurrence of urethrorectal fistula occurred during a mean follow-up of 24 (range, 18-38) months.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of objective fecal continence data.

CONCLUSIONS

: York Mason repair appears to be a safe and effective approach for management of urethrorectal fistula. The rates of fistula closure and symptom resolution are encouraging, and patients show rapid postoperative recovery with minimal morbidity. Thus, York Mason repair should always be considered for treatment of urethrorectal fistula after radical prostatectomy.

Accuracy of high resolution (1.5 tesla) pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in staging prostate cancer in candidates for radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of pelvic phased array MRI in staging prostate cancer (CaP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively collected data over 12 months on CaP patients who underwent preoperative MR imaging with a pelvic phased array before radical prostatectomy. MR images were analyzed prospectively by 2 radiologists. MR imaging findings were then correlated with pathologic findings.

RESULTS

Overall, 101 patients were included with a mean PSA level of 8 (range 1.8-30). Reader 1 (AUC 0.895, 95% CI 0.791-0.999) had a higher performance than reader 2 (AUC 0.687, 95% CI, 0.555-0.819) and than DRE (AUC 0.728, 95% CI, 0.599-0.857) in discriminating T2 from T3 CaP (P = 0.01). The κ-index of inter-observer agreement was 0.56. A model that combines MRI findings, DRE, PSA, and Gleason score was the most competitive for staging (AUC 0.895, 95% CI, 0.791-0.999). For the multivariate analysis, 3 criteria were significantly associated with extracapsular extension: asymmetry of the neuro-vascular bundles (P = 0.001), asymmetric enhancement of neurovascular bundles (P = 0.02), and bulging of the capsule (P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

Pelvic phased array MRI presented satisfying results in its ability to adequately stage CaP and notably in detecting the extracapsular extension of tumors. It is likely to provide reliable information but rather in the hands of an experienced radiologist.

Independent predictors of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a single center experience

Introduction

The aim of study was to establish pretreatment and postoperative factors which could predict the early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Materials and method

754 patients had undergone radical prostatectomy since January 2002 to December 2008 in our department and were included in this prospective study. Exclusion criteria were: neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment (radiation or hormonal treatment) and N+. Following parameters were evaluated: age, PSA at time of biopsy, time period from biopsy to operation, biopsy and postoperative Gleason score, stage, high grade intraepithelial neoplasias, perineural invasion. Biochemical recurrence was detected if PSA value after radical prostatectomy was ≥0.2 ng/ml. All factors likely to be predictive were evaluated by univariate analysis (Log-rank test). Multivariate analysis using Cox model was completed for all factors with p value <0.1 at univariate analysis.

Results

Final analysis was done using data of 496 patients. We detected 53 (10.7%) biochemical recurrences. Calculated actuarial biochemical recurrence free survival reached 64%. Multivariate analysis highlighted that PSA >10 ng/ml (HR 2.45, p = 0.008), pathological stage ≥pT3 (HR 2.371, p = 0.02), postoperative Gleason score ≥7 (HR 2.149, p = 0.049), positive surgical margins (HR 2.482, p = 0.014) and absence of high grade intraepithelial neoplasia in removed prostate (HR 0.358, p = 0.006) are independent factors influencing biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Conclusion

Patients with higher PSA, locally advanced disease, positive surgical margins, and Gleason score ≥7 are at the highest risk for biochemical recurrence.