Tag Archive for: Prostate cancer

You are here: / Prostate cancer

Posts

Article of the Week: Performance comparison of two AR-V7 detection methods

/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.

Performance comparison of two androgen receptor splice variant 7 (AR‐V7) detection methods

Christof Bernemann* , Julie Steinestel*, Verena Humberg*, Martin Bogemann*, € Andres Jan Schrader* and Jochen K. Lennerz†

*Urology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Muenster, Germany, and † Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the performance of two established androgen receptor splice variant 7 (AR‐V7) mRNA detection systems, as paradoxical responses to next‐generation androgen‐deprivation therapy in AR‐V7 mRNA‐positive circulating tumour cells (CTC) of patients with castration‐resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) could be related to false‐positive classification using detection systems with different sensitivities.

Materials and Methods

We compared the performance of two established mRNA‐based AR‐V7 detection technologies using either SYBR Green or TaqMan chemistries. We assessed in vitro performance using eight genitourinary cancer cell lines and serial dilutions in three AR‐V7‐positive prostate cancer cell lines using even 2D barcoded tubes as well as in 32 blood samples from patients with CRPC.

Results

Both assays performed identically in the cell lines and serial dilutions showed identical diagnostic thresholds. Performance comparison in 32 clinical patient samples showed perfect concordance between the assays. In particular, both assays determined AR‐V7 mRNA‐positive CTCs in three patients with unexpected responses to next‐generation anti‐androgen therapy. Thus, technical differences between the assays can be excluded as the underlying reason for the unexpected responses to next‐generation anti‐androgen therapy in a subset of AR‐V7 patients.

Conclusions

Irrespective of the method used, patients with AR‐V7 mRNA‐positive CRPC should not be systematically precluded from an otherwise safe treatment option.

Read more articles of the week

 

Article of the Week: Cost‐effectiveness of MRI and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer

/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.

Cost‐effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer

Christine L. Barnett* , Matthew S. Davenport†, Jeffrey S. Montgomery‡, John T. Wei‡, James E. Montie‡ and Brian T. Denton*‡

 

*Departments of Industrial and Operations Engineering, †Radiology, and ‡Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

 

Read the full article

Objective

To determine how best to use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and targeted MRI/ultrasonography fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in men with elevated prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) concentrations and whether it can be cost‐effective.

Methods

A Markov model of PCa onset and progression was developed to estimate the health and economic consequences of PCa screening with MRI. Patients underwent PSA screening from ages 55 to 69 years. Patients with elevated PSA concentrations (>4 ng/mL) underwent MRI, followed by targeted fusion or combined (standard + targeted fusion) biopsy on positive MRI, and standard or no biopsy on negative MRI. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) score on MRI was used to determine biopsy decisions. Deaths averted, quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs), cost and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated for each strategy.


Results

With a negative MRI, standard biopsy was more expensive and had lower QALYs than performing no biopsy. The optimum screening strategy (ICER $23 483/QALY) recommended combined biopsy for patients with PI‐RADS score ≥3 and no biopsy for patients with PI‐RADS score <3, and reduced the number of screening biopsies by 15%. Threshold analysis suggests MRI continues to be cost‐effective when the sensitivity and specificity of MRI and combined biopsy are simultaneously reduced by 19 percentage points.

Conclusions

Our analysis suggests MRI followed by targeted MRI/ultrasonography fusion biopsy can be a cost‐effective approach to the early detection of PCa.

Read more articles of the week

Residents’ Podcast: CUA 2018 review

/by

Jesse Ory and Andrea Kokorovic
Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Dalhousie residents Jesse Ory and Andrea Kokorovic sum up the highlights of day 1 at the 2018 Canadian Urological Association annual meeting in Halifax

Song credits
Don’t fear the reaper: Blue oyster cult
Mute city: F Zero
Mortal Kombat Theme: The Immortals
Funky Suspense – Bensound.com

BJUI Podcasts now available on iTunes, subscribe here https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/bju-international/id1309570262

 

 

Article of the Month: MRI supported transperineal prostate biopsy

/by

Every Month, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month 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.

Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy‐naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer

 

Nienke L. Hansen*1, Tristan Barrett*†, Claudia Kesch‡, Lana Pepdjonovic§, David Bonekamp, Richard O’Sullivan**, Florian Distler‡, Anne Warren*††, Christina Samel‡‡, Boris Hadaschik‡2, Jeremy Grummet§ and Christof Kastner*§§
*CamPARI Clinic, †Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, ‡Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany, §Australian Urology Associates and Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia, Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, **Healthcare Imaging and Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia, ††Department of Pathology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, ‡‡Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany, and §§Department of Urology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 

 

Current addresses: 1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology University Hospital Cologne Cologne Germany, 2Department of Urology University Hospital Essen Essen Germany. 

 

B.H., J.G., and C.K. contributed equally to this work.

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To analyse the detection rates of primary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)‐fusion transperineal prostate biopsy using combined targeted and systematic core distribution in three tertiary referral centres.

Patients and Methods

In this multicentre, prospective outcome study, 807 consecutive biopsy‐naïve patients underwent MRI‐guided transperineal prostate biopsy, as the first diagnostic intervention, between 10/2012 and 05/2016. MRI was reported following the Prostate Imaging‐Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) criteria. In all, 236 patients had 18–24 systematic transperineal biopsies only, and 571 patients underwent additional targeted biopsies either by MRI‐fusion or cognitive targeting if PI‐RADS ≥3 lesions were present. Detection rates for any and Gleason score 7–10 cancer in targeted and overall biopsy were calculated and predictive values were calculated for different PI‐RADS and PSA density (PSAD) groups.

Results

Cancer was detected in 68% of the patients (546/807) and Gleason score 7–10 cancer in 49% (392/807). The negative predictive value of 236 PI‐RADS 1–2 MRI in combination with PSAD of <0.1 ng/mL/mL for Gleason score 7–10 was 0.91 (95% confidence interval ± 0.07, 8% of study population). In 418 patients with PI‐RADS 4–5 lesions using targeted plus systematic biopsies, the cancer detection rate of Gleason score 7–10 was significantly higher at 71% vs 59% and 61% with either approach alone (P < 0.001). For 153 PI‐RADS 3 lesions, the detection rate was 31% with no significant difference to systematic biopsies with 27% (P > 0.05). Limitations include variability of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) reading and Gleason grading.

Conclusion

MRI‐based transperineal biopsy performed at high‐volume tertiary care centres with a significant experience of prostate mpMRI and image‐guided targeted biopsies yielded high detection rates of Gleason score 7–10 cancer. Prostate biopsies may not be needed for men with low PSAD and an unsuspicious MRI. In patients with high probability lesions, combined targeted and systematic biopsies are recommended.

Read more articles of the week

Article of the Week: Comparing LRP and RARP to ORP to treat 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.

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

Laparoscopic and robot‐assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review

 

Dragan Ilic*, Sue M. Evans†, Christie Ann Allan*, Jae Hung Jung‡§¶, Declan Murphy** and Mark Frydenberg††

 

*Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, †Centre of Research Excellence in Patient Safety, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia, ‡Department of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea, §Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Urology Section, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA, **Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, and ††Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

To determine the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with localized prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We included all randomized or pseudo‐randomized controlled trials that directly compared LRP and RARP with ORP. Two review authors independently examined full‐text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random‐effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The primary outcomes were prostate cancer‐specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence‐free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions.

Results

We included two unique studies in a total of 446 randomized participants with clinically localized prostate cancer. All available outcome data were short‐term (up to 3 months). We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer‐specific survival. Based on one trial, RARP probably results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (mean difference [MD] −1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] −4.65 to 2.05; moderate quality of evidence) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI: −1.84 to 9.64; moderate quality of evidence). No study addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence‐free survival or overall survival. Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.41, 95% CI: 0.16−1.04; low quality of evidence) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.02–1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at 1 day (MD −1.05, 95% CI: −1.42 to −0.68; low quality of evidence) and up to 1 week (MD −0.78, 95% CI: −1.40 to −0.17; low quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI: −0.32 to 0.34; moderate quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably reduces the length of hospital stay (MD −1.72, 95% CI: −2.19 to −1.25; moderate quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12–0.46; low quality of evidence). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1,000 men (95% CI: 78–48 fewer).

Conclusions

There is no evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared with ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life appear similar. Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: RARP and a Parachute

/by

Radical prostatectomy is probably the most scrutinized, debated and re‐invented procedure in the field of urology. This is with good reason. Dr Hugh Hampton Young gave the first formal account of a radical treatment for prostate cancer in 1905. It was a procedure performed perineally with the prime intention of total cancer extirpation. The oncological results were tremendous given the nascency of the procedure. Functional outcomes, however, were less so, with only ~25% of the patients achieving urinary continence and almost none achieving potency 1. Seminal studies undertaken by Drs Patrick C. Walsh and Pieter J. Donker in the 1980s led to the next major advance in technique: nerve‐sparing. It lead to dramatic improvements in sexual and urinary function preservation, with urinary continence achieved in upwards of 90% and potency in upwards of 60% of patients 2, 3. Nerve‐sparing retropubic radical prostatectomy was rapidly adopted by urologists across the world. No randomized trial was conducted as the operation ‘made sense’, and it would have been unethical to offer patients an alternative, inferior operation. Retropubic radical prostatectomy, however, remained a morbid operation that was difficult to master; 1 200 mL blood loss and 20% incontinence, 15% stricture and 60–90% erectile dysfunction rates were the norm. Robot‐assisted surgery changed much of this. This surgery was perfected and popularized by Dr Mani Menon and his team at the Henry Ford Hospital. Blood loss dropped to ~100 mL, and incontinence and stricture rates today are ~1–5% with potency rates between 70% and 80% 4.

In the systematic review by Ilic et al. 5 trials that compared open with minimally invasive radical prostatectomy were evaluated. The authors are commended for combing through vast quantities of data to arrive at the final sample of two clinical trials (one laparoscopic, one robot‐assisted). The authors found no data on oncological endpoints. With respect to functional outcomes, the data reported in their systematic review are essentially from the recent Yaxley trial. It is true that randomized controlled trials form the backbone of medical progress, but they must be interpreted with care. The Yaxley trial has been criticized for comparing surgeons of vastly varying surgical expertise (1 500‐case experience for open prostatectomies, 200‐case experience for robot‐assisted prostatectomies), having a small sample size (~150 patients in each arm) and having a limited follow‐up (3 months). In line with this, Dr Gordon Smith has eloquently argued about the judicious use of randomized trials in evidence‐based medicine in his classic paper on parachutes and gravitational challenge 6. It is our sincere belief that robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy is a procedure in the service of the patients, and we believe that anyone who has performed both an open radical prostatectomy and a robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy would agree. Operating deep in the pelvis and being able to visualize the anatomy up‐close with robotic assistance ‘makes sense’, much like the anatomical radical prostatectomy did in the 1980s 2, 3.

‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’, the old saying goes. In case of radical prostatectomy, the converse has been true, for the most part. The procedure is still not perfect, and nuances need to be worked out. Nonetheless, over the last century, radicalprogress has been made in the surgery for prostate; the two issues that now remain to be solved are: improving potency and improving cost‐effectiveness. With the potential arrival of competing robotic systems and improvements in technology, the costs associated with robotic surgery may become less of an issue in the future. With regard to potency, focal therapies, whether surgical or otherwise, hold promise.

Akshay Sood, Firas Abdollah, and Mani Menon
Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA

 

Read the full article

 

References
  • 1 Young HH. The cure of cancer of the prostate by radical perineal prostatectomy (prostato‐seminal Vesiculectomy): History, Literature and Statistics of Young’s Operation1. J Urol 1945; 53: 188–252

 

 

 

  • 4 Menon M, Dalela D, Jamil M et al. Functional recovery, oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy: an evidence‐based analysis comparing the Retzius sparing and standard approaches. J Urol 2018; 199: 1210–7

 

  • 5 Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M. Laparoscopic and robot‐assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review. BJU Int 2018; 121: 845–53

 

  • 6 Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2003; 20: 1459–61

 

Article of the Week: Focal irreversible electroporation as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer

/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.

Focal irreversible electroporation as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer

 

Willemien van den Bos*†‡, Matthijs J. Scheltema*†‡, Amila R. Siriwardana*†, Anton M.F. Kalsbeek*, James E. Thompson†, Francis Ting*†, Maret Bohm*,
Anne-Maree Haynes*, Ron Shnier§, Warick Delprado¶ and Phillip D. Stricker†

 

*Garvan Institute of Medical Research and Kinghorn Cancer Centre, †St Vincent’s Prostate Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia, ‡Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, §Southern Radiology, Randwick, and Douglass Hanly Moir Pathology, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the safety, quality of life (QoL) and short‐term oncological outcomes of primary focal irreversible electroporation (IRE) for the treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa), and to identify potential risk factors for oncological failure.

Patients and Methods

Patients who met the consensus guidelines on patient criteria and selection methods for primary focal therapy were eligible for analysis. Focal IRE was performed for organ‐confined clinically significant PCa, defined as high‐volume disease with Gleason sum score 6 (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade 1) or any Gleason sum score of 7 (ISUP grades 2–3). Oncological, adverse event (AE) and QoL outcome data, with a minimum of 6 months’ follow‐up, were analysed. Patient characteristics and peri‐operative treatment variables were compared between patients with and without oncological failure on follow‐up biopsy. Wilcoxon’s signed rank test, Wilcoxon’s rank sum test and the chi‐squared test were used to assess statistically significant differences in paired continuous, unpaired continuous and categorical variables respectively.

Results

A total of 63 patients met all eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. No high‐grade AEs occurred. QoL questionnaire analysis demonstrated no significant change from baseline in physical (P = 0.81), mental (P = 0.48), bowel (P = 0.25) or urinary QoL domains (P = 0.41 and P = 0.25), but there was a mild decrease in the sexual QoL domain (median score 66 at baseline vs 54 at 6 months; P < 0.001). Compared with baseline, a decline of 70% in prostate‐specific antigen level (1.8 ng/mL, interquartile range 0.96–4.8 ng/mL) was seen at 6–12 months. A narrow safety margin (P = 0.047) and system errors (P = 0.010) were identified as potential early risk factors for in‐field oncological failure. In‐field and whole‐gland oncological control on follow‐up biopsies was 84% (38/45 patients) and 76% (34/45 patients); this increased to 97% (38/39 patients) and 87% (34/39 patients) when patients treated with a narrow safety margin and system errors were excluded.

Conclusion

Our data support the safety and feasibility of focal IRE as a primary treatment for localized PCa with effective short‐term oncological control in carefully selected men.

Read more articles of the week

Article of the Week: More PLND template at RP detects metastases in the common iliac region and in the fossa of Marcille

/by

Every Month, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month 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.

More extended lymph node dissection template at radical prostatectomy detects metastases in the common iliac region and in the fossa of Marcille

 

Lydia Maderthaner, Marc A. Furrer, Urs E. Studer, Fiona C. Burkhard, George N. Thalmann and Daniel P. Nguyen

 

Department of Urology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Read the full article

 

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the effect of adding lymph nodes (LNs) located along the common iliac vessels and in the fossa of Marcille to the extended pelvic LN dissection (PLND) template at radical prostatectomy (RP).

Patients and Methods

A total of 485 patients underwent RP and PLND at a referral centre between 2000 and 2008 (historical cohort: classic extended PLND template) and a total of 268 patients between 2010 and 2015 (contemporary cohort: extended PLND template including LNs located along the common iliac vessels and in the fossa of Marcille). Descriptive analyses were used to compare baseline, pathological, complication and functional data between the two cohorts. A logistic regression model was used to assess the template’s effect on the probability of detecting LN metastases.

Results

Of 80 patients in the historical cohort with pN+ disease, the sole location of metastasis was the external iliac/obturator fossa in 23 (29%), and the internal iliac in 18 (23%), while 39 patients (49%) had metastases in both locations. Of 72 patients in the contemporary cohort with pN+ disease, the sole location of metastasis was the external iliac/obturator fossa in 17 patients (24%), the internal iliac in 24 patients (33%), and the common iliac in one patient (1%), while 30 patients (42%) had metastases in >1 location (including fossa of Marcille in five patients). Among all 46 patients in the contemporary cohort with ≤2 metastases, three had one or both metastases in the common iliac region or the fossa of Marcille. The adjusted probability of detecting LN metastases was higher, but not significantly so, in the contemporary cohort. There were no differences between the two cohorts in complication rates and functional outcomes.

Conclusion

A more extended template detects LN metastases in the common iliac region and the fossa of Marcille and is not associated with a higher risk of complications; however, the overall probability of detecting LN metastases was not significantly higher.

Read more articles of the week

 

Editorial: PLND during RP for PCa: extending the template in the right patients without increasing complications

/by

It took long time and consistent evidence to endorse the staging role of extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in prostate cancer (PCa). The poor performance of both conventional and functional imaging in identifying preoperative nodal status has contributed to making extended PLND the most accurate nodal staging procedure in PCa 1.

Current available guidelines recommend a standard extended PLND template that includes external, internal iliac and obturator lymph nodes 2–4; however, where does the need for a more extended template originate? Observational data suggest that a standard extended PLND template intercepts ~75% of all anatomical landing sites 4. Extending the anatomical template by adding nearby nodal stations would further minimize the risk of missing positive lymph nodes; however, it has previously been shown that a more accurate staging (i.e. a more extended template) might come at the price of longer operating time and a higher risk of procedure‐related complications 1.

According to the study by Maderthaner et al. 5, in the current issue of BJUI, an experienced academic surgical team is able to further extend the PLND template (including common iliac and the fossa of Marcille lymph nodes) without significantly increasing the risk of complications. In their study, 17% and 7% of the included men with pN+ disease had positive common iliac and fossa of Marcille lymph nodes, respectively.

Before celebrating this super‐extended template as safe and effective, however, at least three points need to be considered. First, these results were obtained by a group of skilled surgeons with longstanding experience in anatomical pelvic nodal dissection. It should not be taken for granted that this template in the hands of other surgeons would result in no additional complications, especially during the learning curve.

Second, >80% of men submitted to the super‐extended template did not have positive nodes outside the standard extended template boundaries, indicating possible overtreatment in a substantial proportion of men. Notably, extended PLND in this study was offered apparently without upfront preoperative lymph node invasion risk stratification.

Third, as a consequence, patient selection has a role to play. In other words, is super‐extended PLND appropriate for every patient? The use of available risk stratification tools in everyday clinical practice allows a more accurate decision process; this is the case for the Briganti nomogram concerning the need to perform an extended PLND 6. Could a similar approach be used in the setting of a super‐extended template to identify the best candidates? Recently, Gandaglia et al. 7 analysed data from 471 men with high‐risk PCa treated with radical prostatectomy and a super‐extended PLND including common iliac and pre‐sacral nodes in order to identify those men who really require such a super‐extended PLND. Interestingly, although not specifically designed for this task, the Briganti nomogram was able to provide a patient selection strategy: only 5% of patients with a nomogram‐derived N+ risk of <30% had positive common iliac and pre‐sacral nodes, indicating that the super‐extended PLND template should perhaps be considered exclusively in men with an N+ risk ≥30%.

In conclusion, a critical assessment of super‐extended staging PLND template would be welcome, allowing selection of the proper candidates, and a proper balance between accurate staging and the risk of treatment‐related complications.

 

Eugenio Vent imiglia, *†Alberto Briganti,*† and Francesco Montorsi,*†
*University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy and †Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

 

Read the full article

 

References

 

  • 1 Fossati N, Willemse P‐PM, Van den Broeck T et al. The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 84–109

 

  • 2 Santis D, Henry A, Joniau S et al. Prostate Cancer EAU ESTRO SIOG Guidelines on 2017.

 

  • 3 Mattei A, Fuechsel FG, Bhatta Dhar N et al. The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 118–25

 

 

  • 5 Maderthaner L, Furrer MA, Studer UE, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, Nguyen DP. More extended lymph node dissection template at radical prostatectomy detects metastases in the common iliac region and in the fossa of Marcille. BJU Int 2018; 121: 725–31

 

  • 6 Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 480–7

 

  • 7 Gandaglia G, Zaffuto E, Fossati N et al. Identifying the candidate for super extended staging pelvic lymph node dissection among patients with high‐risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2018; 121: 421–7

 

Article of the Week: The implications of baseline bone‐health assessment at initiation of androgen‐deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

/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 month, it should be this one.

The implications of baseline bone‐health assessment at initiation of androgen‐deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

 

Peter S. Kirk* , Tudor Borza*, Vah akn B. Shahinian†, Megan E.V. Caram‡§, Danil V. Makarov**, Jeremy B. Shelton††, John T. Leppert‡‡§§, Ryan M. Blake*, Jennifer A. Davis§, Brent K. Hollenbeck*, Anne Sales§¶¶ and Ted A. Skolarus *§

 

*Dow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, †Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, ‡Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, §Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research and Development, Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, Departments of Urology and Population Health, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York City, NY, USA, **VA New York Healthcare System, New York City, NY, USA, ††VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles City, LA, USA, ‡‡Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA, §§VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, CA, USA, and ¶¶Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To assess bone‐density testing (BDT) use amongst prostate cancer survivors receiving androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT), and downstream implications for osteoporosis and fracture diagnoses, as well as pharmacological osteoporosis treatment in a national integrated delivery system.

Patients and methods

We identified 17 017 men with prostate cancer who received any ADT between 2005 and 2014 using the Veterans Health Administration cancer registry and administrative data. We identified claims for BDT within a 3‐year period of ADT initiation. We then used multivariable regression to examine the association between BDT use and incident osteoporosis, fracture, and use of pharmacological treatment.

Results

We found that a minority of patients received BDT (n = 2 502, 15%); however, the rate of testing increased to >20% by the end of the study period. Men receiving BDT were older at diagnosis and had higher‐risk prostate cancer (both P < 0.001). Osteoporosis and fracture diagnoses, use of vitamin D ± calcium, and bisphosphonates were all more common in men who received BDT. After adjustment, BDT, and to a lesser degree ≥2 years of ADT, were both independently associated with incident osteoporosis, fracture, and osteoporosis treatment.

Conclusions

BDT is rare amongst patients with prostate cancer treated with ADT in this integrated delivery system. However, BDT was associated with substantially increased treatment of osteoporosis indicating an underappreciated burden of osteoporosis amongst prostate cancer survivors initiating ADT. Optimising BDT use and osteoporosis management in this at‐risk population appears warranted.

Read more articles of the week

 

© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.