Percutaneous Ureteral Elevation in Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Radical Nephrectomy

Laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy may be feasible in select patients. Suture-assisted retraction of the ureteral and lower pole attachments facilitate safe dissection

A Comparison of Radical Perineal, Radical Retropubic, and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomies in a Single Surgeon Series

Objective. We sought to compare positive surgical margin rates (PSM), estimated blood loss (EBL), and quality of life outcomes (QOL) among perineal (RPP), retropubic (RRP), and robot-assisted laparoscopic (RALP) prostatectomies. Methods. Records from 463 consecutive men undergoing RPP (92), RRP (180), or RALP (191) for clinically localized prostate cancer were retrospectively reviewed. Age, percent tumor volume, Gleason score, stage, EBL, PSM, and QOL using the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) were compared. Results. PSM were similar when adjusted for stage, grade, and volume. EBL was significantly less in the RALP (189 ml) group compared to both RPP (475 ml) and RRP (999 ml) groups. When corrected for nerve sparing, there were no differences in erectile function and sexual function amongst the three groups. Urinary summary and pad usage scores showed no significant differences. Conclusion. RPP, RRP, and RALP offer similar surgical and QOL outcomes. RALP and RPP demonstrate less EBL compared to RRP

Metastatic prostate cancer in the modern era of PSA screening

ABSTRACT Introduction To characterize initial presentation and PSA screening status in a contemporary cohort of men treated for metastatic prostate cancer at our institution. Materials and methods We reviewed records of 160 men treated for metastatic prostate cancer between 2008-2014 and assessed initial presentation, categorizing patients into four groups. Groups 1 and 2 presented with localized disease and received treatment. These men suffered biochemical recurrence late (>1 year) or earlier (<1 year), respectively, and developed metastases. Groups 3 and 4 had asymptomatic and symptomatic metastases at the outset of their diagnosis. Patients with a first PSA at age 55 or younger were considered to have guideline-directed screening. Results Complete records were available on 157 men for initial presentation and 155 men for PSA screening. Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 included 27 (17%), 7 (5%), 69 (44%) and 54 (34%) patients, respectively. Twenty (13%) patients received guideline-directed PSA screening, 5/155 (3%) patients presented with metastases prior to age 55 with their first PSA, and 130/155 (84%) had their first PSA after age 55, of which 122/130 (94%) had metastasis at the time of diagnosis. Conclusion Despite widespread screening, most men treated for metastatic prostate cancer at our institution presented with metastases rather than progressed after definitive treatment. Furthermore, 25 (16%) patients received guideline-directed PSA screening at or before age 55. These data highlight that, despite mass screening efforts, patients treated for incurable disease at our institution may not have been a result of a failed screening test, but a failure to be screened

Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer: Translating Biology into Population Health

PurposeGleason 6 (3+3) is the most commonly diagnosed prostate cancer among men with prostate specific antigen screening, the most histologically well differentiated and is associated with the most favorable prognosis. Despite its prevalence, considerable debate exists regarding the genetic features, clinical significance, natural history, metastatic potential and optimal management.Materials and methodsMembers of the Young Urologic Oncologists in the Society of Urologic Oncology cooperated in a comprehensive search of the peer reviewed English medical literature on Gleason 6 prostate cancer, specifically focusing on the history of the Gleason scoring system, histological features, clinical characteristics, practice patterns and outcomes.ResultsThe Gleason scoring system was devised in the early 1960s, widely adopted by 1987 and revised in 2005 with a more restrictive definition of Gleason 6 disease. There is near consensus that Gleason 6 meets pathological definitions of cancer, but controversy about whether it meets commonly accepted molecular and genetic criteria of cancer. Multiple clinical series suggest that the metastatic potential of contemporary Gleason 6 disease is negligible but not zero. Population based studies in the U.S. suggest that more than 90% of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer undergo treatment and are exposed to the risk of morbidity for a cancer unlikely to cause symptoms or decrease life expectancy. Efforts have been proposed to minimize the number of men diagnosed with or treated for Gleason 6 prostate cancer. These include modifications to prostate specific antigen based screening strategies such as targeting high risk populations, decreasing the frequency of screening, recommending screening cessation, incorporating remaining life expectancy estimates, using shared decision making and novel biomarkers, and eliminating prostate specific antigen screening entirely. Large nonrandomized and randomized studies have shown that active surveillance is an effective management strategy for men with Gleason 6 disease. Active surveillance dramatically reduces the number of men undergoing treatment without apparent compromise of cancer related outcomes.ConclusionsThe definition and clinical relevance of Gleason 6 prostate cancer have changed substantially since its introduction nearly 50 years ago. A high proportion of screen detected cancers are Gleason 6 and the metastatic potential is negligible. Dramatically reducing the diagnosis and treatment of Gleason 6 disease is likely to have a favorable impact on the net benefit of prostate cancer screening