Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Expert laparoscopic surgeons have demonstrated that laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with or without robotic assistance can be performed with excellent results. There is no evidence that laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with or without robotic assistance offers any clinically relevant advantage over open radical prostatectomy. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with or without robotic assistance requires a significant learning curve, is a longer surgical procedure, carries greater costs, and requires an expanded operating room team. The literature suggests that laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is associated with more intraoperative complications and higher positive surgical margins. The lesser amount of postoperative bleeding associated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is not clinically relevant. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is not associated with less pain and does not facilitate earlier urinary catheter removal. The best way to improve overall outcomes after radical prostatectomy is to direct patients to expert open or laparoscopic surgeons.     

Seminal vesicle invasion by prostate cancer: prognostic significance and therapeutic implications

When the pathologist's report following radical prostatectomy describes seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), generally the outlook for the patient is poor. But are we all on the same page of the same book when we talk about SVI? Does it mean muscular wall invasion? Does it include the ejaculatory duct? Getting a clear definition can have far-reaching clinical implications for patient prognosis and treatment.     

A review of surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy

Since the early 20th century, radical prostatectomy has been used in the treatment of prostate cancer. However, before the widespread acceptance of prostate-specific antigen screening, the majority of cancers were clinically advanced and not amenable to cure, so relatively few men were candidates for this procedure. Modern advances have contributed dramatically to the reduction of complications and morbidity associated with radical prostatectomy. As a result, the procedure has become the most common treatment selected by men with localized prostate cancer. This article reviews several issues regarding radical prostatectomy, including surgical techniques, cancer control, intraoperative localization of the cavernous nerves, patient selection, and laparoscopic versus robotic approaches.     

Radical perineal prostatectomy: a more optimal treatment approach than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in obese patients?

In comparison with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), the perineal approach to radical prostatectomy offers specific technical advantages related to obesity and its unique surgical challenges. Radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) reduces operative time and its associated risk of complication, which may be more pronounced in obese men. It allows for low blood loss, low postoperative use of narcotics for pain, short hospital stays, and requires only 1 small perineal incision. With a proven history of success, RPP presents obese men with an advantageous surgical option.     

Management of clinically localized prostate cancer

Critics of screening have stated that early detection of prostate cancer does not necessarily reflect a diminishing death rate from the disease. However, several recent reports have demonstrated that the death rate from prostate cancer is decreasing, representing the most compelling validation for aggressive screening. Prostate cancer can be halted only if there is no evidence of systemic or regional metastases and the disease is confined to the surgical field or the radiation template. Surgeons and radiation oncologists must make a concerted effort to exclude men with regional and systemic metastases who are unlikely to benefit from treatment. With the widespread acceptance of prostate-specific antigen screening, a greater proportion of men are being diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Both radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy are able to halt disease spread in this significant subset of men, but survival outcomes indicate that radical prostatectomy is a more reliable treatment than radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Overall, the immediate treatment-related morbidity of radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy in the modern era is quite low. Radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy appear to have a similar impact on continence and erectile function. There is a need for neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies that can be utilized in those cases where radical prostatectomy and radiation are less likely to completely eradicate or destroy the cancer.     

Bicalutamide adjuvant to radical prostatectomy

Prostate cancer recurrence affects up to 50% of men in the first 10 years after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized disease. New treatment approaches that reduce this risk are needed. Current published data on the use of adjuvant hormonal therapy in the post-radical prostatectomy setting are limited. New data from the bicalutamide (Casodex) Early Prostate Cancer program show that bicalutamide 150 mg/d, given as immediate adjuvant treatment, produces clear benefits with respect to both progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen progression when compared with standard management with radical prostatectomy. The greatest improvement of progression-free survival was observed in patient subgroups at highest risk.     

Treatment of localized prostate cancer

This article provides an overview of treatment of localized prostate cancer, which was discussed in detail in the second scientific session of the 16th International Prostate Cancer Update. The role of radical prostatectomy in localized disease was presented by Bob Djavan, MD. Benefits and risks of radical prostatectomy were addressed by Gerald Chodak, MD. Robert E. Donohue, MD, presented the role of radical prostatectomy in Gleason grade 8, 9, and 10 tumors. Impact of positive margins on outcomes after radical prostatectomy was presented by James A. Eastham, MD. E. David Crawford, MD, provided an overview of the role of targeted therapy. Indications and results of brachytherapy were presented by Mack Roach, III, MD. Finally, Michael J. Manyak, MD, described the evolution of radioimmunoscintigraphy and clinical outcomes data.     

MANAGEMENT OF EARLY PROSTATIC CARCINOMA

It is important to make a diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma as early as possible, because early treatment gives the best results whether radical prostatectomy is done or endocrine therapy used. Open perineal biopsy is the most accurate method of making a diagnosis. Perineal needle biopsy or the newer approach of transrectal needle biopsy is probably about 75 per cent accurate in making a diagnosis.Ten-year survival with conservative therapy, as determined in a review of a series of cases, was 50 per cent—about the same as that following radical prostatectomy; but the patients with prostatectomy are clinically free of malignant disease whereas the former are not. Radical prostatectomy is indicated in a few selected cases.The results from endocrine therapy begun immediately after diagnosis are significantly better than those from delayed treatment. Orchiectomy and estrogens promise a little longer survival than estrogens alone.     

前列腺癌根治性切除术后会阴部红外线照射提高患者控尿的 前瞻性的研究

目的:探讨对于前列腺癌根治术的患者,术后采用红外线会阴部照射,提高患者拔管后控尿的效果。方法:对76例前列腺癌根治术后患者,随机分为两组,实验组术后第一天起采用会阴部红外线照射治疗,连续10天,空白对照组不做任何处理,然后评估患者拔除尿管后控尿情况。结果:随访一年后发现,实验组中,37(97%)例的患者能够控制排尿,而对照组31(82%)例患者能够控制排尿(P=0.01)。实验组中可以控制排尿的患者,在拔除尿管以后,平均25±39天后可以控制排尿;而对照组中的患者则需要75±103天才能控制排尿(P<0.001)。接受红外线照射的患者尿控情况明显好于未接受治疗患者。结论:盆底红外线照射是前列腺癌根治术后提高患者尿控能力的有效的治疗方式。     

Effect of L-arginine supplement on liver regeneration after partial hepatectomy in rats

Background

To assess the outcome of neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy comprising complete androgen blockade followed by treatment with docetaxel and estramustine phosphate before radical prostatectomy in Japanese patients with a high risk of localized prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

Complete androgen blockade followed by 6 cycles of docetaxel (30 mg/m²) with estramustine phosphate (560 mg) were given to 18 PCa patients before radical prostatectomy. Subsequently, the clinical and pathological outcomes were analyzed.

Results

No patients had severe adverse events during chemohormonal therapy, and hence they were treated with radical prostatectomy. Two patients (11.1%) achieved pathological complete response. Surgical margins were negative in all patients. At a median follow-up of 18 months, 14 patients (77.8%) were disease-free without PSA recurrence. All 4 patients with PSA recurrence had pathologic T3b or T4 disease and 3 of these 4 patients had pathologic N1 disease.

Conclusion

We found that neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy with complete androgen blockade followed by treatment with docetaxel and estramustine phosphate before radical prostatectomy was safe, feasible, and associated with favorable pathological outcomes in patients with a high risk of localized PCa.     

Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma in needle biopsies vs. radical prostatectomy specimens

The Gleason grading system for prostatic carcinoma is the dominant method used around the world in research and in daily practice. It is based on glandular architecture. The grading system should be applied to all prostatic tissue samples, including needle core biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens. Its prognostic value was tested in a large population with long-term follow-up that included use of survival as an end point. The Gleason grading system shows a reasonable degree of correlation between biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Several sources of discrepancy between these 2 types of specimen have been identified. Further educational endeavors are needed to arrive at a greater consensus and accuracy in the use of the Gleason system.     

New techniques and management options for localized prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is diagnosed in younger men who want treatment that does not compromise their quality of life, take time away from work, or cause worrisome side effects. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and third-generation cryotherapy are modifications of previously used techniques in the treatment of prostate cancer and are presented in this article. Although some or all of the outcomes might be expected to change in the future, the urologic surgeon is left to select an approach, presumably on the basis of the experience, level of training, and care pathways at his or her institution.     

Advances in the Management of Post-Radical Prostatectomy Erectile Dysfunction: Treatment Strategies When PDE-5 Inhibitors Don't Work

Phosphodiesterase type-5 (PDE-5) inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of post-radical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction. For those patients who undergo a non-nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy or whose condition fails to respond to PDE-5 inhibitors, alternative treatment with intracavernous injection therapy, transurethral alprostadil, vacuum erection devices, and recently described combination therapy is available. The goals of therapy are to provide the patient with a means of obtaining an erection so that the patient and his partner may resume sexual relations as soon as possible following radical prostatectomy. There is evidence that early institution of treatment may promote improvement in the return of spontaneous erections in patients who have undergone nerve preservation. In patients who undergo non-nerve-sparing procedures, therapy may improve penile rigidity. Intracavernous injection therapy, transurethral alprostadil, and vacuum devices are highly effective in the management of post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction. High dropout rates, which are not related to adverse effects, have been described with all 3 modalities. Pre- and postoperative counseling may improve patient and partner satisfaction.     

CD44 and PTGS2 Methylation are Independent Prognostic Markers for Biochemical Recurrence Among Prostate Cancer Patients with Clinically Localized Disease

Up to 30% of men with clinically localized disease who receive radical prostatectomy develop a biochemical recurrence. Gene methylation in tumor tissue may distinguish men with aggressive cancer. This study evaluated methylation of GSTP1, RARβ2, CD44 and PTGS2 with biochemical recurrence among 60 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy using logistic regression and Kaplan Meier time to event analysis. Methylation of GSTP1 and RARβ2 was not associated with recurrence, however, CD44 and PTGS2 methylation were significant predictors. In multivariate models adjusting for Gleason grade, methylation profile of CD44 and PTGS2 combined was an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence (associated with 9-fold increased risk). In addition, Kaplan Meier analysis showed CD44 and PTGS2 methylation was associated with shorter time to recurrence. CD44 and PTGS2 methylation may predict biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and if validated in larger studies, may identify patients with aggressive cancer.     

Curated MicroRNAs in Urine and Blood Fail to Validate as Predictive Biomarkers for High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine if microRNA profiling of urine and plasma at radical prostatectomy can distinguish potentially lethal from indolent prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

A panel of microRNAs was profiled in the plasma of 70 patients and the urine of 33 patients collected prior to radical prostatectomy. Expression of microRNAs was correlated to the clinical endpoints at a follow-up time of 3.9 years to identify microRNAs that may predict clinical response after radical prostatectomy. A machine learning approach was applied to test the predictive ability of all microRNAs profiled in urine, plasma, and a combination of both, and global performance assessed using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Validation of urinary expression of miRNAs was performed on a further independent cohort of 36 patients.

Results

The best predictor in plasma using eight miRs yielded only moderate predictive performance (AUC = 0.62). The best predictor of high-risk disease was achieved using miR-16, miR-21 and miR-222 measured in urine (AUC = 0.75). This combination of three microRNAs in urine was a better predictor of high-risk disease than any individual microRNA. Using a different methodology we found that this set of miRNAs was unable to predict high-volume, high-grade disease.

Conclusions

Our initial findings suggested that plasma and urinary profiling of microRNAs at radical prostatectomy may allow prognostication of prostate cancer behaviour. However we found that the microRNA expression signature failed to validate in an independent cohort of patients using a different platform for PCR. This highlights the need for independent validation patient cohorts and suggests that urinary microRNA signatures at radical prostatectomy may not be a robust way to predict the course of clinical disease after definitive treatment for prostate cancer.     

Treatment- and disease-related complications of prostate cancer

One of the highlights of the 16th International Prostate Cancer Update was a session on treatment- and disease-related complications of prostate disease. It began with presentation of a challenging case of rising prostate-specific antigen levels after radical prostatectomy, followed by an overview of the use of zoledronic acid in prostate cancer, a review of side effects of complementary medicines, an overview of complications of cryotherapy, an assessment of complications of brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy, and a comparison of laparoscopy versus open prostatectomy.     

Sampling strategy for prostate tissue microarrays for Ki-67 and androgen receptor biomarkers

OBJECTIVE: To develop an optimal sampling strategy for tissue microarrays using automated digital analysis for androgen receptor (heterogeneous expression) and the cellular proliferation marker Ki-67 (homogeneous expression and evaluated by others using nonautomated methods). STUDY DESIGN: Tissue microarrays were constructed from 23 radical prostatectomy specimens and immunostained for androgen receptor expression and cellular proliferation. Automated digital image analysis was used, and the minimum number of cores necessary to capture variance change <3% was determined. Androgen receptor immunostaining was described by percent positive nuclei (PPN) and mean optical density (MOD). RESULTS: Androgen receptor PPN variance measurements showed that 5 cores should be obtained when a single block of a radical prostatectomy specimen contained cancer. If all of 15 blocks contained cancer, 2 cores should be obtained from each of 6 blocks. An optimal sampling strategy was developed for androgen receptor PPN, androgen receptor MOD and Ki-67 PPN. CONCLUSION: The selection of the number of cores to sample is a tradeoff between the number of cores available that contain cancer and the amount of work involved in the analysis. Sampling no fewer than 5 but no more than 12 cores per radical prostatectomy specimen can capture tissue heterogeneity.     

Sural Nerve Interposition Grafting during Radical Prostatectomy

In 1997, autologous sural nerve grafting to reconstruct bilaterally resected cavernosal nerves was successfully performed in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. After 12 months, one third of these patients had erections sufficient for intercourse. Since that time, patients who have had neurovascular bundle resection and sural nerve grafting have continued to show promising results. For example, within one large cohort of men who had unilateral, nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy, significantly more men who had sural nerve grafting regained potency, and did so in less time, than men who did not have grafting. More importantly, however, with better predictions of the presence of extracapsular disease, nerve-sparing surgery can be performed more selectively, reserving wide resection and sural nerve grafting for patients likely to have extracapsular extension. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial is needed to substantiate the positive outcomes observed with sural nerve grafting.     

Selecting treatment for high-risk, localized prostate cancer: the case for radical prostatectomy

The most common treatment options for men with clinically localized prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy. The choice between these options is often controversial, and selecting the optimal treatment poses a great challenge for patients and physicians. Factors important to the decision include age and life expectancy of the patient, the natural history of the prostate cancer, how curable the disease is, and the morbidity of treatment. Use of these criteria to select treatment for a healthy, 70-year-old man presenting with a nonpalpable tumor, stage T1c disease, serum prostate-specific antigen of 12 ng/mL, and an adenocarcinoma with a Gleason score of 8 that is present in 2 of 12 biopsy cores would lead to the choice of radical prostatectomy over radiation therapy. Data show that such a patient has a life expectancy of more than 12.3 years if the prostate cancer can be cured and a high probability of dying from the disease if it is not cured. Data further show that radical prostatectomy in such a patient would confer a survival advantage over radiation therapy without resulting in greater complications or reduction in quality of life.