Archive for category: Article of the Week

You are here: / Article of the Week

Video: Guideline of Guidelines – Thromboprophylaxis for Urological Surgery

/by

Guideline of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery

Philippe D. Violette*, Rufus Cartwright†‡, Matthias Briel§, Kari A.O. Tikkinen¶ and Gordon H. Guyatt**,††

 

*Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Woodstock Hospital, Woodstock, ON, Canada, † Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London, London, UK, ‡Department of Urogynaecology, St. Mary’s Hospital, London, UK, §Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland, Departments of Urology and Public Health, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, **Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, and ††Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
Read the full article
Decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis in urologic surgery involve a trade-off between decreased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and increased risk of bleeding. Both patient- and procedure-specific factors are critical in making an informed decision on the use of thromboprophylaxis. Our systematic review of the literature revealed that existing guidelines in urology are limited. Recommendations from national and international guidelines often conflict and are largely based on indirect as opposed to procedure-specific evidence. These issues have likely contributed to large variation in the use of VTE prophylaxis within and between countries. The majority of existing guidelines typically suggest prolonged thromboprophylaxis for high-risk abdominal or pelvic surgery, without clear clarification of what these procedures are, for up to 4 weeks post-discharge. Existing guidance may result in the under-treatment of procedures with low risk of bleeding and the over-treatment of oncological procedures with low risk of VTE. Guidance for patients who are already anticoagulated are not specific to urological procedures but generally involve evaluating patient and surgical risks when deciding on bridging therapy. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office has commissioned an ad hoc guideline panel that will present a formal thromboprophylaxis guideline for specific urological procedures and patient risk factors.
Read more articles of the week

 

Article of the Week: Complications after serial prostate biopsies in men on AS

/by

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

 

Complications after prostate biopsies in men on active surveillance and its effects on receiving further biopsies in the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study

Leonard P. Bokhorst*, Inari Lepisto†, Yoshiyuki Kakehi‡, Chris H. Bangma*, Tom Pickles§, Riccardo Valdagni¶, Arnout R. Alberts*, Axel Semjonow**, Petra Str
olin††, Manuel F. Montesino‡‡, Viktor Berge§§, Monique J. Roobol* and Antti Rannikko†

*Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
†Department of Urology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland,
‡ Department of Urology, Kagawa University Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa, Japan,
§Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
¶Prostate Cancer Program and Radiation Oncology 1, Fondazione IRCSS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy,
**Department of Urology, Prostate Center, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster,
††Department of Urology, Martini Klinik, Hamburg, Germany,
‡‡Department of Urology, Hospital Virgen del Camino, Pamplona, Spain, and
§§Department of Urology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

 

Read the full article

 

Objective

To study the risk of serial prostate biopsies on complications in men on active surveillance (AS) and determine the effect of complications on receiving further biopsies.

Patients and methods

In the global Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study, men are prospectively followed on AS and repeat prostate biopsies are scheduled at 1, 4, and 7 years after the diagnostic biopsy, or once yearly if prostate-specific antigen-doubling time is <10 years. Data on complications after biopsy, including infection, haematuria, haematospermia, and pain, were retrospectively collected for all biopsies taken during follow-up in men from several large participating centres. Generalised estimating equations were used to test predictors of infection after biopsy. Competing risk analysis was used to compare the rates of men receiving further biopsies between men with and without previous complications.

Results

In all, 2 184 biopsies were taken in 1 164 men. Infection was reported after 55 biopsies (2.5%), and one in five men reported any form of complication. At multivariable analysis, the number of previous biopsies was not a significant predictor of infection (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.76–1.43). The only significant predictor for infection was the type of prophylaxis used. Of all men with a complication at the diagnostic or first repeat biopsy, 21% did not have a repeat biopsy at the time a repeat biopsy was scheduled according to protocol, vs 12% for men without a previous biopsy complication.

aotwsept-1

Conclusion

In our present cohort of men on AS, we found no evidence that repeat prostate biopsy in itself posed a risk of infection. However, complications after biopsy were not uncommon and after a complication men were less likely to have further biopsies. We should aim to safely reduce the amount of repeat biopsies in men on AS.

 

Read the full article

Editorial: Active surveillance for prostate cancer: is it too active?

/by

The wide dissemination of prostate cancer screening has increased the number of men diagnosed with low-risk, indolent cancers that are better managed with active surveillance (AS) rather than immediate treatment. During the past decade, the number of men managed with AS has increased from <10% to 40% in community based practice registries [1]. Prostate needle biopsy has a central role in diagnosis and reclassification of cancer for men on AS, and the number of these procedures has increased on an individual patient level and overall in the population. The rise of prostate biopsies repeated in the same patients has mirrored the increased rate of biopsy related infectious complications. An association between the number of repeat prostate biopsies and risk of infectious complications was reported in a single-centre observational study [2].

In this issue of BJUI, Bokhort et al. [3] report the risk of complications of serial prostate biopsies in men on AS in the multi-institutional Prostate cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study. Although they did not identify the number of previous biopsies as an independent predictor of infection, the type of prophylactic antibiotic was associated with risk of infection. Overall, one in five men reported any complication during AS and the rate of infectious complications was 2.5%. These figures are more relevant if we consider that men in whom an infection occurred were twice as likely to discontinue AS. Although the rate of attrition may have confounded the association of repeat biopsies on infectious complications or guided a more augmented antibiotic prophylaxis regimen, the most important finding of this study remains the significant morbidity associated with AS.

In the PRIAS study, institutions are guided to perform surveillance biopsies at 1, 4, and 7 years after the diagnostic biopsy. However, the schedule of biopsies varies significantly globally across institutions. In some academic centres, prostate biopsies are taken annually for men on AS, while other experts in AS have discussed taking biopsies every 5 years [4, 5]. As more studies emerge demonstrating the oncological safety of AS, we must address how ‘active’ AS should be and develop individualised recommendations based on tumour characteristics. A barrier to AS remains the burden of morbidity associated with prostate biopsies and efforts to reduce these procedures will contribute to further reducing the overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancer. In addition, the patient costs associated with serial office visits and the burden on physicians and healthcare systems stemming from the increased clinical volume following these patients remain an unmet need for the future.

Read the full article

 

Behfar Ehdaie
Department of Surgery, Urology Service, and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center of Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

 

References

1. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990–2013. JAMA 2015; 314: 80–2

2. Ehdaie B, Vertosick E, Spaliviero M et al. The impact of repeat biopsies on infectious complications in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 2014; 191: 660–4

3. Bokhorst LP, Lepistö I, Kakehi Y et al. Complications after prostate biopsies in men on active surveillance and its effects on receiving further biopsies in the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study. BJU Int 2016; 118: 366–71

4. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 3379–85

5. Klotz L. Active surveillance: current and future directions. Curr Opin Urol 2013; 23: 237–8

 

 

Article of the Week: Multicentre outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy after major open abdominal surgery

/by

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Craig Rogers, discussing his paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Multicentre outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy after major open abdominal surgery

 

Newaj Abdullah*, Haider Rahbar*, Ravi Barod*, Deepansh Dalela*, Jeff Larson†, Michael Johnson‡, Alon Mass§, Homayoun Zargar, Mohamad Allaf‡, Sam Bhayani†, Michael Stifelman§, Jihad Kaouk¶ and Craig Rogers*

 

*Vattikutti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, †Division of Urology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, ‡James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, §Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, and Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA

 

Read the full article

Objective

To evaluate the outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy RAPN after major prior abdominal surgery (PAS) using a large multicentre database.

Patients and methods

We identified 1 686 RAPN from five academic centres between 2006 and 2014. In all, 216 patients had previously undergone major PAS, defined as having an open upper midline/ipsilateral incision. Perioperative outcomes were compared with those 1 470 patients who had had no major PAS. The chi-squared test and Mann–Whitney U-test were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

AugAOTW4FI

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in Charlson comorbidity index, tumour size, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score or preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the groups. Age and body mass index were higher in patients with PAS. The PAS group had a higher estimated blood loss (EBL) but this did not lead to a higher transfusion rate. A retroperitoneal approach was used more often in patients with major PAS (11.2 vs 5.4%), although this group did not have a higher percentage of posterior tumours (38.8 vs 43.3%, P = 0.286). Operative time, warm ischaemia time, length of stay, positive surgical margin, percentage change in eGFR, and perioperative complications were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions

RAPN in patients with major PAS is safe and feasible, with increased EBL but no increased rate of transfusion. Patients with major PAS had almost twice the likelihood of having a retroperitoneal approach.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: excellent outcomes can persist despite previous abdominal surgery

/by

Robot-assisted surgery is increasing and patient selection is important to ensure mitigation of risk, patient safety and allow for the surgeon’s training curve. This is especially pertinent for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), as increasingly complex tumours and increasingly complex patients are considered potentially suitable. One factor that contributes to patient complexity is the presence of intra-abdominal adhesions, which can be predicted by previous abdominal surgery. This month’s article by Abdullah et al. [1] ‘Multicentre outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy after major open abdominal surgery’ eloquently describes their outcomes in patients who underwent RAPN with a history of previous open abdominal surgery.

The study retrospectively analysed 1 686 patients who had undergone RAPN from a prospective database from five large American academic institutions. A sub-group of 216 patients (13%) had undergone major prior abdominal surgery (PAS); this was defined as those marked by upper midline or ipsilateral incisions. The authors chose such incisions due to the increased potential for adhesions within the expected surgical field for RAPN, which could interfere with performance [2]. The list of prior surgeries is wide ranging such as laparotomy, open cholecystectomy, open appendicectomy and open ipsilateral PN; 12% (25 patients) had had multiple previous procedures.

The study found that there was no statistical difference between the two groups in the areas of Charlson comorbidities index, tumour size, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score [consists of (R)adius (tumour size as maximal diameter), (E)xophytic/endophytic properties of the tumour, (N)earness of tumour deepest portion to the collecting system or sinus, (A)nterior (a)/posterior (p) descriptor and the (L)ocation relative to the polar line], and preoperative estimated GFR. They also found no difference between intraoperative and postoperative complications (<4% Clavien ≥3 in PAS group), positive surgical margins and change in renal function.

Their initial concern that previous surgery increases robotic operative time was ill founded, as there was no statistical difference in median (interquartile range) operative times: PAS 172 (132–224) vs169 (139–208) min. However, they did find statistical difference in estimated blood loss, which was higher in the PAS group (150 vs 100 mL; P = 0.039); but this did not translate to a difference in transfusion rates.

They also found the PAS patients were older (median 63 vs 60 years) and had a higher median body mass index (30.3 vs 29 kg/m2). This is an important finding in the context of offering robotic minimally invasive surgery in an increasingly obese and ageing surgical population.

Achieving safe access is a crucial step in all laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgery and is potentially complicated by the presence of adhesions. It was of particular interest to read of the access techniques used: Hasson vs Veress needle vs retroperitoneal approach. The latter was used more in the PAS group (11.2% vs 5.4%), despite a lower percentage of posterior tumours (38.8% vs 43.3%). This suggests surgical preference for choosing a retroperitoneal approach was related to avoidance of potential adhesions rather than tumour location.

Conceptually the Hassan technique, with access achieved by direct vision, could offer safety benefits in the presence of potential adhesions; however, access via Veress needle insufflation occurred in most of their cases. The authors describe the use of the Hassan technique in instances of failure of Veress access but the incidence that this occurred is not provided. They estimated that 24 cases were converted to open due to access-related issues.

Further interrogation of the 180 open PNs performed during the study period could provide a valuable comparative group and understand why they were not deemed suitable for a robot-assisted approach.

The study can be commended for its large patient database, multicentre design, and breadth of outcomes assessed. It supports the findings of Zargar et al. [3] showing comparable perioperative complications and open conversions of RAPN in patients with and without a history of PAS in their similar sized, but single-centre study. This is also in agreement with assessments of other robotic procedures supporting the relative safety of robotic surgery in patients with a history of PAS.

One of the limitations of this study is the lack of discussion on the decision-making process for choice of access technique. Individual surgeons and/or the recommendations of multi-disciplinary teams will favour the technique with the perceived best outcome and may select out more favourable cases to each arm. Abdullah et al. [1] results may be an indication of appropriate technique selection rather than safety of the robot or individual access techniques.

This study provides robotic surgeons with increasing confidence to offer RAPN and its potential advantages of reduced blood loss, pain and recovery time to patients despite the presence of potential adhesions from PAS. Individual case selection remains imperative to maintain optimal surgical outcomes. Complex cases may be safely tackled in high-volume established RAPN programmes; but they may not be suitable for surgeons earlier in their experience. Robotic surgeons should be well trained and confident in managing the potential complications of bowel injury in these challenging cases.

Sophie Rintoul-Hoad, Rick Catterwell and Ben Challacombe
Urology Centre, Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospitals NHS Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, UK

 

Read the full article

 

References

 

1 Abdullah N, Rahbar H, Barod R et al. Multicentre outcomes of robot- assisted partial nephrectomy after major open abdominal surgery. BJU Int 2016; 118: 298–301

 

2 Liakakos T, Thomakos N, Fine PM, Dervenis C, Young RL. Peritoneal adhesions: etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical significance. Recent advances in prevention and management. Dig Surg 2001; 18: 260–73

 

3 Zargar H, Isac W, Autorino R et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in patients with previous abdominal surgery: single center experience. Int J Med Robot 2015; 11: 389–94

 

Video: Multicentre outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy after major open abdominal surgery

/by

Multicentre outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy after major open abdominal surgery

Newaj Abdullah*, Haider Rahbar*, Ravi Barod*, Deepansh Dalela*, Jeff Larson†, Michael Johnson‡, Alon Mass§, Homayoun Zargar, Mohamad Allaf‡, Sam Bhayani†, Michael Stifelman§, Jihad Kaouk¶ and Craig Rogers*

 

*Vattikutti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, †Division of Urology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, ‡James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, §Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, and Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA

 

Read the full article

Objective

To evaluate the outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy RAPN after major prior abdominal surgery (PAS) using a large multicentre database.

Patients and methods

We identified 1 686 RAPN from five academic centres between 2006 and 2014. In all, 216 patients had previously undergone major PAS, defined as having an open upper midline/ipsilateral incision. Perioperative outcomes were compared with those 1 470 patients who had had no major PAS. The chi-squared test and Mann–Whitney U-test were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

AugAOTW4FI

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in Charlson comorbidity index, tumour size, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score or preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the groups. Age and body mass index were higher in patients with PAS. The PAS group had a higher estimated blood loss (EBL) but this did not lead to a higher transfusion rate. A retroperitoneal approach was used more often in patients with major PAS (11.2 vs 5.4%), although this group did not have a higher percentage of posterior tumours (38.8 vs 43.3%, P = 0.286). Operative time, warm ischaemia time, length of stay, positive surgical margin, percentage change in eGFR, and perioperative complications were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions

RAPN in patients with major PAS is safe and feasible, with increased EBL but no increased rate of transfusion. Patients with major PAS had almost twice the likelihood of having a retroperitoneal approach.

Read more articles of the week

Article of the Week: LAPPRO trial – Oncological and Functional Outcomes 1 Year after RP for Very-Low-Risk PCa

/by

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Dr. Stefan Carlsson, Dr. Anna Wallerstedt and Dr Rodolfo Sanchez, discussing their paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Oncological and functional outcomes 1 year after radical prostatectomy for very-low-risk prostate cancer: results from the prospective LAPPRO trial

Stefan Carlsson*, Fredrik Jaderling†, Anna Wallerstedt*, Tommy Nyberg‡, Johan Stranne§
, Thordis Thorsteinsdottir, Sigrid V. Carlsson**, Anders Bjartell††, Jonas Hugosson§, Eva Haglind‡‡ and Gunnar Steineck‡,§§

 

*Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, †Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Radiology, Karolinska Institutet, ‡Department of Oncology and Pathology, Division of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, §Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Faculty of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Iceland, **Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA, ††Department of Urology, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, ‡‡ Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, and §§Division of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

 

Read the full article
Carlsson-et-al-infographic-cropped

 

Click on image for full size infographic

 

Objectives

To analyse oncological and functional outcomes 12 months after treatment of very-low-risk prostate cancer with radical prostatectomy in men who could have been candidates for active surveillance.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a prospective study of all men with very-low-risk prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy at one of 14 participating centres. Validated patient questionnaires were collected at baseline and after 12 months by independent healthcare researchers. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥0.25 ng/mL or treatment with salvage radiotherapy or with hormones. Urinary continence was defined as <1 pad changed per 24 h. Erectile function was defined as ability to achieve erection hard enough for penetration more than half of the time after sexual stimulation. Changes in tumour grade and stage were obtained from pathology reports. We report descriptive frequencies and proportions of men who had each outcome in various subgroups. Fisher’s exact test was used to assess differences between the age groups.

AugAOTW3Results

Results

Of the 4003 men in the LAPPRO cohort, 338 men fulfilled the preoperative national criteria for very-low-risk prostate cancer. Adverse pathology outcomes included upgrading, defined as pT3 or postoperative Gleason sum ≥7, which was present in 35% of the men (115/333) and positive surgical margins, which were present in 16% of the men (54/329). Only 2.1% of the men (7/329) had a PSA concentration >0.1 ng/mL 6–12 weeks postoperatively. Erectile function and urinary continence were observed in 44% (98/222) and 84% of the men (264/315), respectively, 12 months postoperatively. The proportion of men achieving the trifecta, defined as preoperative potent and continent men who remained potent and continent with no BCR, was 38% (84/221 men) at 12 months.

Conclusions

Our prospective study of men with very-low-risk prostate cancer undergoing open or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy showed that there were favourable oncological outcomes in approximately two-thirds. Approximately 40% did not have surgically induced urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction 12 months postoperatively. These results provide additional support for the use of active surveillance in men with very-low-risk prostate cancer; however, the number of men with risk of upgrading and upstaging is not negligible. Improved stratification is still urgently needed.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: Management Dilemmas in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

/by

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed solid organ tumour and the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the USA. The exact path of these tumours from inception to metastasis is unclear; the same can also be said for those tumours that remain indolent. The varying genetic signatures of these tumours is the underlying determinant of the outcomes of these cancers and therein lies the key to selecting patients that do and do not need treatment for their prostate cancers. Most low-risk tumours are relatively indolent; however, some low-risk tumours have the potential to metastasise and cause mortality. The problem is that currently we do not have the ability to accurately and confidently determine the tumour’s individual risk profiles.

In the recent LAPPRO trial (LAParoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open – a randomised, open trial of radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without lymph node dissection as part of a prospective, non-randomised, open trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open RP), the authors reported the RP results of patients with very-low-risk prostate cancer in a population-based study from Sweden compiling the results of open and laparoscopic RP over 14 centres of varying experience [1]. They reported pathological upgrading in 35% of patients and PSA recurrence in 2.1%. Functional outcomes at 1 year featured urinary continence levels of 84% and sexual potency of 44%. The overall trifecta rate at 1 year was 38%. What is important to note is that only 56% had optimal erectile function preoperatively (Sexual Health Inventory for Men score >21) and that it is unknown which patients received a full nerve preservation. Also the amount of postoperative continence and potency rehabilitation is unknown.

The results of the LAPPRO trial are not too dissimilar to data from the Medicare database publications on RP, which also take into account large populations of patients operated on at multiple institutions with variable surgical experience and volume [2]. The challenge with interpreting these data is that they often are quite variable based upon the preoperative status of the patient, type of surgery performed, surgeon experience, and institutional volumes [3]. If you compare the Medicare data or LAPPRO trial outcomes to large-volume single-surgeon series you often will see wide variances in outcomes favouring the single-surgeon experience. Single-surgeon and large-volume series have reported better outcomes often due to improved surgical experience, techniques, and outcomes overall [4].

Active surveillance is usually the primary choice for management of low- and very-low-risk prostate cancer lesions. However, some patients do still chose to undergo surgery due to personal choice, often related to the uncertainty associated with the diagnosis and the unknown risk of progression [5]. One would assume that low-risk tumours have a low risk of progression and metastasis; however, this is not always the case due to the varying genetic signature of the individual tumours. Also, recent studies have shown that in patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer 30–50% have non-low-risk disease harbouring intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer instead [1, 6]. This uncertainty on the part of the patient and physician can cause anxiety in patients and sometime influence their decision for treatment [7].

One would assume that patients with low- and very-low-risk patients are ideal candidates for the trifecta due to low tumour aggressiveness and volume. However, many factors influence patient outcome beyond the characteristics of the tumour. Preoperative features such as co-morbidities and pre-existing sexual dysfunction or incontinence are influential. Operative and postoperative factors include: surgeon experience, institutional volume, patients body habitus, number of prior biopsies, the ability to fully spare the nerves, and various other challenges during surgery. These are all variables that must be considered when projecting the success of surgical intervention.

While the results of surgery in the LAPPRO trial were not encouraging for surgery, we do have to take the results in context and not apply them broadly or globally without some thought. The results are blurred by combining open and laparoscopic RP, many patients were not optimal candidates’ preoperatively for the trifecta, many did not have a full nerve preservation and also many different institutions with varying levels of surgeon experience are analysed. This population was also ‘captive’, as they had to choose surgeons in their own locality, these ‘local’ surgeons may not have had the necessary experience or technique to achieve optimal outcomes. The conclusion that can be drawn is that if you sample a broad population of surgeons then the results are often quite poor due to the varying levels of skill of the surgeon and the varying level of surgical volume and experience. What the patients should glean from this is the fact that they should consider active surveillance for these types of tumours to avoid the associated morbidity. In addition, if they were to seek therapy they should select centres with higher surgical experience and proven outcomes.

For those patients that have low-risk tumours and seek treatment; judicious counselling of expectations must be performed by their healthcare advocate. Both the patient and physician must take the responsibility in making the correct assumptions and decisions. The physician must re-emphasise the available data and the low likelihood of progression in these tumours adding some caution from the fact that some of these may be upgraded. Patients must be given accurate data in the correct context. Most patients who have treatment for prostate cancer whether it be radiation, ablation or removal have a high chance of some deficit in the quality of life, functional recovery of urinary continence, and sexual potency. Educating the patient and managing realistic expectations is often the most important factor in patient satisfaction. Patients must take into account their own preoperative medical and functional status to properly stratify expectations.

If these patients after appropriate counselling are still intent to undergo surgery they should consider seeking centres with high-volume and individualised surgeons with proven quality outcomes. Large-volume single-surgeon series do show improvements in the trifecta outcomes [4]. However, none have shown perfect trifecta rates. No matter what method of treatment patients chose there would be some varying level of loss of functional outcome. The balance between cancer progression and quality of life must be weighted. For low-risk patients, we need to have a better road map of the genetic signatures of their tumour and only then will we be able to confidently tell our patients who will and who will not have the potential to harbour high-risk disease and potentially have mortality from the tumour. Until we are able to confidently deliver this information to the patient, many with low-risk disease will still seek treatment and endanger their quality of life. The recent increase in the availability of biomarkers to examine prostate biopsy specimens for risk stratification is encouraging, yet still in its infancy. Further study of these biomarkers will enhance our ability to read the genetic signature of prostate cancers at an early state and more appropriately risks stratify our patients.

The LAPPRO trial supports active surveillance as the primary choice for low- and very-low-risk tumours. However, their results are exclusive to their patient population and level of surgical experience. A similar trial with a high-volume experienced surgeon would undoubtedly show more optimistic results. Managing reasonable expectations, risk stratification, and picking expertise and experience, often makes the difference between a good and poor outcome.

Read the full article

 

Vipul R. Patel*† and Hariharan Palayapalayam Ganapathi*†
*Global Robotics Institute, Florida Hospital Celebration Health, and †University of Central Florida School of Medicine, Orlando, FL, USA

 

References

 

1 Carlsson S, Jaderling F, Wallerstedt A et al. Oncological and functional outcomes 1 year after radical prostatectomy for very-low-risk prostate cancer: results from the prospective LAPPRO trial. BJU Int 2016; 118: 205–12

 

2 Barry MJ, Gallagher PM, Skinner JS, Fowler FJ Jr. Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of Medicare-age men. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 513–8

 

3 Patel VR, Abdul-Muhsin HM, Schatloff O et al. Critical review of ‘pentafecta’ outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in high-volume centres. BJU Int 2011; 108: 1007–17

 

4 Patel VR, Coelho RF, Chauhan S et al. Continence, potency and oncological outcomes after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: early trifecta results of a high-volume surgeon. BJU Int 2010; 106: 696–702

 

5 Simpkin AJ, Tilling K, Martin RM et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors determining change to radical treatment in active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 993–1005

 

6 El Hajj A, Ploussard G, de la Taille A et al. Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS). BJU Int 2013; 111: 53–9

 

7 Van den Bergh RC, Essink-Bot ML, Roobol MJ et al. Anxiety and distress during active surveillance for early prostate cancer. Cancer 2009; 115: 3868–78

 

Video: LAPPRO trial – Oncological and Functional Outcomes 1 Year after RP for Very-Low-Risk PCa

/by

Oncological and functional outcomes 1 year after radical prostatectomy for very-low-risk prostate cancer: results from the prospective LAPPRO trial

Stefan Carlsson*, Fredrik Jaderling†, Anna Wallerstedt*, Tommy Nyberg‡, Johan Stranne§
, Thordis Thorsteinsdottir, Sigrid V. Carlsson**, Anders Bjartell††, Jonas Hugosson§, Eva Haglind‡‡ and Gunnar Steineck‡,§§

 

*Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, †Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Radiology, Karolinska Institutet, ‡Department of Oncology and Pathology, Division of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, §Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Faculty of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Iceland, **Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA, ††Department of Urology, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, ‡‡ Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, and §§Division of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

 

Read the full article

Objectives

To analyse oncological and functional outcomes 12 months after treatment of very-low-risk prostate cancer with radical prostatectomy in men who could have been candidates for active surveillance.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a prospective study of all men with very-low-risk prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy at one of 14 participating centres. Validated patient questionnaires were collected at baseline and after 12 months by independent healthcare researchers. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥0.25 ng/mL or treatment with salvage radiotherapy or with hormones. Urinary continence was defined as <1 pad changed per 24 h. Erectile function was defined as ability to achieve erection hard enough for penetration more than half of the time after sexual stimulation. Changes in tumour grade and stage were obtained from pathology reports. We report descriptive frequencies and proportions of men who had each outcome in various subgroups. Fisher’s exact test was used to assess differences between the age groups.

AugAOTW3Results

Results

Of the 4003 men in the LAPPRO cohort, 338 men fulfilled the preoperative national criteria for very-low-risk prostate cancer. Adverse pathology outcomes included upgrading, defined as pT3 or postoperative Gleason sum ≥7, which was present in 35% of the men (115/333) and positive surgical margins, which were present in 16% of the men (54/329). Only 2.1% of the men (7/329) had a PSA concentration >0.1 ng/mL 6–12 weeks postoperatively. Erectile function and urinary continence were observed in 44% (98/222) and 84% of the men (264/315), respectively, 12 months postoperatively. The proportion of men achieving the trifecta, defined as preoperative potent and continent men who remained potent and continent with no BCR, was 38% (84/221 men) at 12 months.

Conclusions

Our prospective study of men with very-low-risk prostate cancer undergoing open or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy showed that there were favourable oncological outcomes in approximately two-thirds. Approximately 40% did not have surgically induced urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction 12 months postoperatively. These results provide additional support for the use of active surveillance in men with very-low-risk prostate cancer; however, the number of men with risk of upgrading and upstaging is not negligible. Improved stratification is still urgently needed.

Read more articles of the week

Article of the Week: eNOS G894T gene polymorphism and responsiveness to a selective α1-blocker in BPH/LUTS

/by

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

The association of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) G894T gene polymorphism with responsiveness to a selective α1-blocker in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia related lower urinary tract symptoms

Yung-Chin Lee*,†, Yung-Shun Juan*,†,‡, Chia-Chu Liu*,†,§, Bo-Ying Bao,**,††, Chii-Jye
Wang*,†, Wen-Jeng Wu*,†, Chun-Nung Huang*,† and Shu-Pin Huang*,†,‡‡
*Department of Urology, †Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, ‡Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Municipal Hsiao-Kang Hospital, Kaohsiung, §Department of Health, Executive Yuan, Pingtung Hospital, Pingtung,

 

Department of Pharmacy, **Sex Hormone Research Center, China Medical University Hospital, ††Department of Nursing, Asia University, Taichung, and ‡‡Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Read the full article

Objective

To prospectively investigate the association of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) G894T gene polymorphism with responsiveness to a selective α1-blocker in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia related lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH/LUTS), as nitric oxide has recently gained increasing recognition as an important neurotransmitter of functions in the lower urinary tract.

Patients and Methods

In all, 136 men with BPH/LUTS were recruited from urology outpatient clinics in a university hospital. Oral therapy with doxazosin gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) 4 mg once-daily was given for 12 weeks. The drug efficacy was assessed by the changes from baseline in the total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR) at 12 weeks of treatment. The ‘responders’ to doxazosin GITS were defined as those who had a total IPSS decrease of >4 points from baseline. eNOS G894T polymorphism was determined using the polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism method.

AugAOTW2

Results

Patients had statistically significant improvements in total IPSS, quality of life score, and Qmax (P < 0.01) after a 12-week period of treatment. Using multiple logistic regression analysis adjusted for age and IPSS, our results showed that being a eNOS 894T allele carrier was an independent risk factor for being a drug non-responder (P = 0.03, odds ratio 4.19). Moreover, a decreased responder rate (P = 0.01), as well as the lower improvements in IPSS (P = 0.02) and Qmax (P = 0.03) were significantly associated with increment in the T allele number.

Conclusions

The presence of the eNOS 894T allele had a significantly negative impact on responsiveness to a selective α1-blocker in BPH/LUTS treatment, suggesting that eNOS G894T gene polymorphism may be a genetic susceptibility factor for α1-blocker efficacy in men with BPH/LUTS.

Read more articles of the week
© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.