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

BACKGROUND: Although an increasing number of prostate cancer (PCa) patients received holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) previously for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), there is still no evidence regarding the outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) in this setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess functional and oncological results of RP in PCa patients who received HoLEP for BPO previously in a contemporary multi-institutional cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 95 patients who underwent RP between 2011 and 2019 and had a history of HoLEP were identified in two institutions. Functional as well as oncological follow-up was prospectively assessed and retrospectively analyzed. INTERVENTION: RP following HoLEP compared with RP without previous transurethral surgery. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patients with complete follow-up data were matched with individuals with no history of BPO surgery using propensity score matching. Complications were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo scale. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up was 50.5 mo. We found no significant impact of previous HoLEP on positive surgical margin rate (14.0% [HoLEP] vs 18.8% [no HoLEP], p =  0.06) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-1.70, p =  0.4). Patients with a history of HoLEP had increased 1-yr urinary incontinence rates after RP. After adjusting for confounders, no significant impact of previous HoLEP was found (odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95% CI 0.74-1.01; p = 0.07). Previous HoLEP did not hamper 1-yr erectile function recovery (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05-1.43; p =  0.01). Limitations include retrospective design and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: RP after previous HoLEP is surgically feasible, with low complication rates and no negative impact on biochemical recurrence-free survival. However, in a multivariable analysis, we observed significantly worse 1-yr continence rates in patients after previous HoLEP. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the current study, we assessed the oncological and functional outcomes of radical prostatectomy in patients who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) previously due to prostatic bladder outlet obstruction. A history of HoLEP did not hamper oncological results, 1-yr continence, and erectile function recovery

What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel

Context: It remains unclear whether patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) and negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can safely obviate prostate biopsy. Objective: To systematically review the literature assessing the negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI in patients with a suspicion of PCa. Evidence acquisition: The Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases were searched up to February 2016. Studies reporting prebiopsy mpMRI results using transrectal or transperineal biopsy as a reference standard were included. We further selected for meta-analysis studies with at least 10-core biopsies as the reference standard, mpMRI comprising at least T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging, positive mpMRI defined as a Prostate Imaging Reporting Data System/Likert score of ≥3/5 or ≥4/5, and results reported at patient level for the detection of overall PCa or clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as Gleason ≥7 cancer. Evidence synthesis: A total of 48 studies (9613 patients) were eligible for inclusion. At patient level, the median prevalence was 50.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 36.4–57.7%) for overall cancer and 32.9% (IQR, 28.1–37.2%) for csPCa. The median mpMRI NPV was 82.4% (IQR, 69.0–92.4%) for overall cancer and 88.1% (IQR, 85.7–92.3) for csPCa. NPV significantly decreased when cancer prevalence increased, for overall cancer (r = –0.64, p < 0.0001) and csPCa (r = –0.75, p = 0.032). Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Seven reported results for overall PCa. When the overall PCa prevalence increased from 30% to 60%, the combined NPV estimates decreased from 88% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 77–99%) to 67% (95% CI, 56–79%) for a cut-off score of 3/5. Only one study selected for meta-analysis reported results for Gleason ≥7 cancers, with a positive biopsy rate of 29.3%. The corresponding NPV for a cut-off score of ≥3/5 was 87.9%. Conclusions: The NPV of mpMRI varied greatly depending on study design, cancer prevalence, and definitions of positive mpMRI and csPCa. As cancer prevalence was highly variable among series, risk stratification of patients should be the initial step before considering prebiopsy mpMRI and defining those in whom biopsy may be omitted when the mpMRI is negative. Patient summary This systematic review examined if multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan can be used to reliably predict the absence of prostate cancer in patients suspected of having prostate cancer, thereby avoiding a prostate biopsy. The results suggest that whilst it is a promising tool, it is not accurate enough to replace prostate biopsy in such patients, mainly because its accuracy is variable and influenced by the prostate cancer risk. However, its performance can be enhanced if there were more accurate ways of determining the risk of having prostate cancer. When such tools are available, it should be possible to use an MRI scan to avoid biopsy in patients at a low risk of prostate cancer

Active surveillance in renal transplant patients with prostate cancer: a multicentre analysis

Introduction: Due to medical improvements leading to increased life expectancy after renal transplantation and widened eligibility criteria allowing older patients to be transplanted, incidence of (low-risk) prostate cancer (PCa) is increasing among renal transplant recipients (RTR). It remains to be established whether active surveillance (AS) for PCa represents a safe treatment option in this setting. Therefore, we aim to compare AS discontinuation and oncological outcomes of AS for PCa of RTR vs. non-transplant patients. Methods: Multicentre study including RTR diagnosed with PCa between 2008 and 2018 in whom AS was initiated. A subgroup of non-RTR from the St. Antonius hospital AS cohort was used as a control group. Comparison of RTR vs. non-RTR was performed by 2:1 propensity score matched survival analysis. Outcome measures included tumour progression-free survival, treatment-free survival, metastasis rates, biochemical recurrence rates and overall survival. Patients were matched based on age, year of diagnosis, PSA, biopsy ISUP grade group, relative number of positive biopsy cores and clinical stage. Results: A total of 628 patients under AS were evaluated, including 17 RTRs and 611 non-RTRs. A total of 13 RTR cases were matched with 24 non-RTR cases. Median overall follow-up for the RTR and non-RTR matched cases was, respectively, 5.1 (IQR 3.2–8.7) years and 5.7 (IQR 4.8–8.1) years. There were no events of metastasis and biochemical recurrence among matched cases. The matched-pair analysis results in a 1-year and 5-year survival of the RTR and non-RTR patients were, respectively, 100 vs. 92%, and 39 vs. 76% for tumour progression, 100 vs. 91% and 59 vs. 76% for treatment-free survival and, respectively, 100 vs. 100% and 88 vs. 100% for overall survival. No significant differences in tumour progression-free survival (p = 0.07) and treatment-free survival were observed (p = 0.3). However, there was a significant difference in overall survival comparing both groups (p = 0.046). Conclusions: AS may be carefully considered in RTR with low-risk PCa. In our preliminary analysis, no major differences were present in AS outcomes between RTR and non-RTR. Overall mortality was significantly higher in the RTR subgroup

The impact of a second MRI and re-biopsy in patients with initial negative mpMRI-targeted and systematic biopsy for PIRADS ≥ 3 lesions

Objective: To evaluate the proportions of detected prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa), as well as identify clinical predictors of PCa, in patients with PI-RADS > = 3 lesion at mpMRI and initial negative targeted and systematic biopsy (initial biopsy) who underwent a second MRI and a re-biopsy. Methods: A total of 290 patients from 10 tertiary referral centers were included. The primary outcome measures were the presence of PCa and csPCa at re-biopsy. Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate predictors of PCa and csPCa, adjusting for relevant covariates. Results: Forty-two percentage of patients exhibited the presence of a new lesion. Furthermore, at the second MRI, patients showed stable, upgrading, and downgrading PI-RADS lesions in 42%, 39%, and 19%, respectively. The interval from the initial to repeated mpMRI and from the initial to repeated biopsy was 16 mo (IQR 12–20) and 18 mo (IQR 12–21), respectively. One hundred and eight patients (37.2%) were diagnosed with PCa and 74 (25.5%) with csPCa at re-biopsy. The presence of ASAP on the initial biopsy strongly predicted the presence of PCa and csPCa at re-biopsy. Furthermore, PI-RADS scores at the first and second MRI and a higher number of systematic biopsy cores at first and second biopsy were independent predictors of the presence of PCa and csPCa. Selection bias cannot be ruled out. Conclusions: Persistent PI-RADS ≥ 3 at the second MRI is suggestive of the presence of a not negligible proportion of csPca. These findings contribute to the refinement of risk stratification for men with initial negative MRI-TBx

The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review

Context: There is controversy regarding the therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To systematically review the relevant literature assessing the relative benefits and harms of PLND for oncological and non-oncological outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for PCa. Evidence acquisition: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to December 2015. Comparative studies evaluating no PLND, limited, standard, and (super)-extended PLND that reported oncological and non-oncological outcomes were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Evidence synthesis: Overall, 66 studies recruiting a total of 275,269 patients were included (44 full-text articles and 22 conference abstracts). Oncological outcomes were addressed by 29 studies, one of which was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Non-oncological outcomes were addressed by 43 studies, three of which were RCTs. There were high risks of bias and confounding in most studies. Conflicting results emerged when comparing biochemical and clinical recurrence, while no significant differences were observed among groups for survival. Conversely, the majority of studies showed that the more extensive the PLND, the greater the adverse outcomes in terms of operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. No significant differences were observed in terms of urinary continence and erectile function recovery. Conclusions: Although representing the most accurate staging procedure, PLND and its extension are associated with worse intraoperative and perioperative outcomes, whereas a direct therapeutic effect is still not evident from the current literature. The current poor quality of evidence indicates the need for robust and adequately powered clinical trials. Patient summary: Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, this article summarizes the benefits and harms of removing lymph nodes during surgery to remove the prostate because of PCa. Although the quality of the data from the studies was poor, the review suggests that lymph node removal may not have any direct benefit on cancer outcomes and may instead result in more complications. Nevertheless, the procedure remains justified because it enables accurate assessment of cancer spread