Recovery of pad-free continence in elderly men does not differ from younger men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for aggressive prostate cancer

Is there any difference in urinary continence between bilateral and unilateral nerve sparing during radical prostatectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

In men with prostate cancer, urinary incontinence is one of the most common long-term side effects of radical prostatectomy (RP). The recovery of urinary continence in patients is positively influenced by preserving the integrity of the neurovascular bundles (NVBs). However, it is still unclear if bilateral nerve sparing (BNS) is superior to unilateral nerve sparing (UNS) in terms of post-RP urinary continence. The aim of this study is to systematically compare the differences in post-RP urinary continence outcomes between BNS and UNS.

METHODS

The electronic databases of PubMed and Web of Science were comprehensively searched. The search period was up to May 31, 2023. English language articles comparing urinary continence outcomes of patients undergoing BNS and UNS radical prostatectomy were included. Meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals for urinary continence in BNS and UNS groups at selected follow-up intervals using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed in prospective studies and robotic-assisted RP studies.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis was conducted using data from 26,961 participants in fifty-seven studies. A meta-analysis demonstrated that BNS improved the urinary continence rate compared to UNS at all selected follow-up points. RRs were 1.36 (1.14-1.63; p = 0.0007) at ≤ 1.5 months (mo), 1.28 (1.08-1.51; p = 0.005) at 3-4 mo, 1.12 (1.03-1.22; p = 0.01) at 6 mo, 1.08 (1.05-1.12; p < 0.00001) at 12 mo, and 1.07 (1.00-1.13; p = 0.03) at ≥ 24 mo, respectively. With the extension of the follow-up time, RRs decreased from 1.36 to 1.07, showing a gradual downward trend. Pooled estimates were largely heterogeneous. Similar findings were obtained through sensitivity analyses of prospective studies and robotic-assisted RP studies.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this meta-analysis demonstrate that BNS yields superior outcomes in terms of urinary continence compared to UNS, with these advantages being sustained for a minimum duration of 24 months. It may be due to the real effect of saving the nerves involved. Future high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

A retrospective study to evaluate the effect of preoperative hormonal therapy on continence recovery

Objective

To evaluate whether different preoperative hormonal therapy options affect postoperative continence and to identify risk/protective factors for continence recovery.

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of several clinical trials (NCT04356430, NCT04869371, NCT04992026 and NCT05406999). Data from patients treated with hormonal therapy followed by RARP were collected and analyzed. Continence was defined as 0 pad/day or one safety pad.

Results

The study included 230 patients with adequate information. The median time to continence recovery is 8 weeks. A total of 216 (93.9%) participants recovered to urinary continence within 12 months after surgery. 21 (9.1%) participants achieved immediate continence. 69, 85, 27 and 14 participants restored continence at 1 month, 1-3 month, 3-6 month, 6-12 month, accounting for 30.0%, 40.0%, 11.7% and 6.1% accordingly. No difference in continence recovery was found among different preoperative hormonal treatment options (p=0.821). Cox regression showed that membranous urethral length (MUL) was the only independent factor influencing urinary continence recovery either in the univariate analysis (OR=1.13, 95%CI: 1.04-1.22, p=0.002) or in the multivariate analysis (OR=1.12, 95%CI: 1.04-1.20, p=0.002). Different preoperative treatment options were not associated with urinary recovery. More advanced preoperative T stage (OR=0.46, 95%CI: 0.24-0.85, p=0.014) delayed the recovery of immediate continence. MUL was associated with continence restoring at 1 month (OR=1.20, 95%CI: 1.03-1.39, p=0.017), 3 month (OR=1.27, 95%CI: 1.07-1.51, p=0.006), 6 month (OR=1.34, 95%CI: 1.07-1.67, p=0.011) and 12 month (OR=1.36, 95%CI: 1.01-1.84, p=0.044).

Conclusion

There is no difference in postoperative continence recovery among ADT, ADT+Docetaxel and ADT+Abiraterone preoperative treatment options. More advanced T stage indicated poor immediate continence recovery. Longer membranous urethral length was a promotional factor for both short-time and long-time continence recovery.

Feasibility of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in men at senior age ≥75 years: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of a high-volume center

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess whether age ≥75 years impairs surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with prostate cancer (PCa) were stratified in ≥75(n = 669) vs. <70 years(n = 8,268). Multivariable cox regression analyses (MVA) tested for effect of senior age on erectile function-, urinary continence-recovery, biochemical recurrence (BCR), and metastatic progression (MP).

RESULTS

RARP duration, blood loss, and 30d complication rates were similar between groups. For patients ≥75 vs. <70 years, rates of erectile function after 36 and urinary continence after 12 months were 27 vs. 56% (p < 0.001) and 85 vs. 86% (p = 0.99), respectively. Mean quality of life (QoL) score after 12 months improved in both groups (p = 0.9). At 48 months, BCR- and MP-free rates were 77 vs. 85% (p < 0.001) and 97 vs. 98% (p = 0.3), respectively. MVA confirmed the negative effect of senior age on erectile function but no significant effect on urinary continence, BCR or MP, before and after propensity score matching.

CONCLUSION

Apart from erectile function, senior age has no significant effect on urinary continence recovery, BCR- or MP-free rates after RARP. Post-RARP QoL improved even in senior patients. Modern therapy of senior PCa patients should be based on individual counseling than just age.

Management of prostate cancer in older patients

The incidence of prostate cancer among older men has increased in many countries, including Asian countries. However, older patients are ineligible for inclusion in large randomized trials, and the existing guidelines for the management of patients with prostate cancer do not provide specific treatment recommendations for older men. Therefore, generation of evidence for older patients with prostate cancer is a key imperative. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology has produced and updated several guidelines for management of prostate cancer in older men since 2010. Regarding localized prostate cancer, both surgery and radiotherapy are considered as feasible treatment options for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer even in older men, whereas watchful waiting and active surveillance are useful options for a proportion of these patients. With regard to advanced disease, androgen-receptor axis targets and taxane chemotherapy are standard treatment modalities, although dose modification and prevention of adverse events need to be considered. Management strategy for older patients with prostate cancer should take cognizance of not only the chronological age but also psychological and physical condition, socio-economic status and patient preferences. Geriatric assessment and patient-reported health-related quality of life are important tools for assessing health status of older patients with prostate cancer; however, there is a paucity of evidence of the impact of these tools on the clinical outcomes. Personalized management according to the patient's health status and tumour characteristics as well as socio-economic condition may be necessary for treatment of older patients with prostate cancer.

A systematic review of nerve-sparing surgery for high-risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

We provide a systematic analysis of nerve-sparing surgery (NSS) to assess and summarize the risks and benefits of NSS in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We have undertaken a systematic search of original articles using 3 databases: Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Original articles in English containing outcomes of nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk PCa were included. The primary outcomes were oncological results: the rate of positive surgical margins and biochemical relapse. The secondary outcomes were functional results: erectile function (EF) and urinary continence.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The rate of positive surgical margins differed considerably, from zero to 47%. The majority of authors found no correlation between NSS and a positive surgical margin rate. The rate of biochemical relapse ranged from 9.3% to 61%. Most of the articles lacked data on odds ratio (OR) for positive margin and biochemical relapse. The presented results showed no effect of nerve sparing (NS) on positive margin (OR=0.81, 0.6-1.09) or biochemical relapse (hazard ratio [HR]=0.93, 0.52-1.64). A strong association between NSS and potency rate was observed. Without NSS, between 0% and 42% of patients were potent, with unilateral 79-80%, with bilateral - up to 90-100%. Urinary continence was not strongly associated with NSS and was relatively good in both patients with and without NSS.

CONCLUSIONS

NSS may provide benefits for patients with urinary continence and significantly improves EF in high-risk patients. Moreover, it is not associated with an increased risk of relapse in short- and middle-term follow-up. However, the advantages of using such a surgical technique are unclear.

The role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk organ-confined prostate cancer

The traditional open retropubic radical prostatectomy has an established role in the treatment of prostate cancer. However, it is well known to be morbid procedure with high complication rate. This bad reputation prevented utilizing it on a large scale for high risk prostate cancer. Utilizing the da Vinci^® to preform radical prostatectomy decreased the morbidity of the procedure. Since the introduction of robotic prostatectomy, there have been hot debates on its role in the treatment of high risk disease. In this article we reviewed the current evidence on utilizing the surgical system in treating high risk organ confined prostate cancer.