Pelvic and inguinal single-site approach: PISA technique. New minimally invasive technique for lymph node dissection in penile cancer

OBJECTIVES

To describe our initial experience with a new minimally invasive inguinal and pelvic single-access laparoscopic approach, for performing lymph node dissection (LND) in penile cancer: the Pelvic and Inguinal Single Access (PISA) technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

10 patients with different penile squamous cell carcinoma stages (cN0 and ≥pT1G3 or cN1/cN2) were operated by means of the PISA technique, between 2015-2018. Intraoperative frozen section analysis was carried out routinely and if ≥2 inguinal nodes (pN2) or extracapsular nodal extension (pN3) are detected, ipsilateral pelvic LND was performed sequentially as a single-stage procedure and using the same surgical incisions.

VARIABLES

30-day PCs, estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion rate, operative time, time to drainage removal, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Medians and ranges of values for selected variables were reported as descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Inguinal LND was bilateral in all cases, and pelvic LND was required in 40%. Total operative time was 120-170 min and median EBL was 66 (30-100) cc. No blood transfusion was required. No intraoperative complications were noted, and postoperative complications rate was 40% (10% major complications-symptomatic inguinal lymphocele). Median LOS was 5.8 (3-10) days. Median time to inguinal drain removal was 4.7 days. Mean number of lymph nodes removed by inguinal LND: 10.25 (8-14). Limited volume retrospective experience from a referral center with short follow-up. Outcomes reported may not be reproducible by surgeons with less experience and skills.

CONCLUSIONS

PISA is a novel, minimally invasive single-site surgical approach to one stage bilateral inguinal/pelvic LNDs for penile cancer showing a low rate of major complications.

Comparison between laparoscopic and open prostatectomy: Oncological progression analysis

INTRODUCTION

There are very few Spanish studies that compare oncological outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) based on surgical approach, and their methodology is not appropriate.

OBJECTIVE

To compare oncological outcomes in terms of surgical margins (SM) and biochemical recurrence (BR) between open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Comparison of two cohorts (307 with ORP and 194 with LRP) between 2007-2015. Surgical margin status was defined as positive or negative, and BR as a PSA rise of >0.4 ng/ml after surgery. To compare the qualitative variables, we employed the Chi-squared test, and ANOVA was used for quantitative variables. We performed a multivariate analysis using logistic regression to evaluate the predictive factors of SM, and a multivariate analysis using Cox regression to evaluate the predictive factors of BR.

RESULTS

Gleason 7 (3+4) was determined in the surgical specimens of 43.5% of patients, and 31.7% had positive SM. The most frequent pathological stage was pT2c, on the 61.9% of the cases. No significant differences were found between both groups, except for extracapsular extension (p=0.001), more frequent in LRP. The median follow-up was 49 months. BR was seen in the 23% of patients, without significant differences between groups. In the multivariable analysis, only the D'Amico risk group behaved as an independent predictive factor of positive SM, and Gleason score and positive SM acted as independent predictive factors of BR.

CONCLUSION

The surgical approach did not influence SM status or BR.

Oncological control in high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy compared to radiotherapy plus primary hormone therapy

INTRODUCTION

In patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRPCa), multimodal treatment plays a fundamental role.

OBJECTIVE

To compare relapse-free survival (RFS) in patients with HRPCa, treated primarily with radiotherapy (RT)+hormone therapy (HT) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) and salvage RT (sRT)±HT when biochemical recurrence (BCR) appears.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 226 patients with HRPCa (1996-2008), treated primarily with RT+HT (n=137) or RP (n=89). The Kaplan-Meier method has been used to evaluate survival and the log-rank test has been used to evaluate the contrast between the different categories of the variables. Multivariate analysis has been performed using Cox regression to determine variables with an impact on RFS with statistical significance (P<0.05).

RESULTS

The median follow-up of the series was 111 (IQR 85-137.5) months. After RT+HT, 32 (23.4%) patients relapsed, and after RP (P=0.0001), 41 (46.1%) cases. When comparing the primary treatments, the RFS at 5 and 10 years was higher after RT+HT versus RP in monotherapy (P=0.001). The primary treatment with RT+HT reduced the risk of BCR when compared to the RP (HR=0.41, P=0.002). The estimation of the RFS at 5 and 10 years after RP+sRT±HT was 89.7 and 87.1%, while after primary RT+HT was 91.6 and 71.1%, respectively (P=0.01). The only factor that behaved as an independent predictor of RFS was the multimodal treatment with RP+sRT±HT when BCR showed up (HR=2.39, P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

In HRPCa, multimodal treatment with RP+sRT±HT if BCR, significantly improves RFS with respect to treatment with RT+HT.

Differences in overall survival and cancer-specific survival in high-risk prostate cancer patients according to the primary treatment

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

There is no high-level evidence as to which primary treatment provides an overall survival (OS) or cancer-specific survival (CSS) advantage in high-risk localised prostate cancer (HRLPC). Our aim was to analyse the differences in survival and predictive factors in this group of patients, according to their primary treatment (radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy and androgen blockade (RT+HT)).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study of 286 HRLPC patients diagnosed between 1996-2008, treated by RP (n=145) or RT+HT(n=141). Survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Significant differences between the different variables were analysed using the log-rank test. A uni and multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors.

RESULTS

the median follow-up was 117.5 (IQR 87-158) months. The OS was longer (p=.04) in the RP patients, while there were no differences (P=.44) in CSS between either group. The type of primary treatment was not related to OS or CSS. Age (P=.002), the onset during follow-up of a 2nd tumour (P=.0001), and stage cT3a (P=.009) behaved as independent predictive variables of OS. None of the variables behaved as an independent predictive variable of CSS, although biochemical recurrence after rescue treatment (P=.058), and the onset of a 2nd tumour during follow-up showed a significant trend to statistical significance, the latter reducing specific cancer mortality (HR .16, 95%CI .02-1.18, P=.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary treatment did not relate to OS or CSS in patients with HRPC.

Incidence of second tumours in high risk prostate cancer patients according to the primary treatment applied

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The onset of second primary tumours should be considered in high-risk prostate cancer patients in the natural course of the disease. Our aim was to evaluate the influence of primary treatment with curative intent for these patients on the development of second primary tumours.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study of 286 patients diagnosed between 1996 and 2008, treated by radical prostatectomy (n=145) or radiotherapy and androgen blockade (n=141). The homogeneity of both series was analysed using the Chi-squared test for the qualitative variables, and the Student's t-test for the quantitative variables. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to assess whether the type of primary treatment influenced the development of second tumours.

RESULTS

The median age was 66 years, and the median follow-up was 117.5 months. At the end of follow-up, 60 patients (21%) had developed a second primary tumour. In the prostatectomy group it was located in the pelvis in 13 (9%) cases, and those treated with radiotherapy and hormonotherapy in 8 (5.7%) cases (P=.29). The most common organ sites were: colo-rectal in 17 (28.3%) patients, the lung in 11 (18.3%), and the bladder in 6 (10%) patients. In the multivariable analysis, the risk of a second tumour doubled for those treated with radiotherapy and hormonotherapy (HR=2.41, 95%CI: 1.31-4.34, P=.005) compared to the patients treated by prostatectomy. Age and rescue radiotherapy did not behave as independent predictive factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The onset of a second primary tumour was related with the primary treatment given; thus the risk for those treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy more than doubled.