Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Patients

The role of localised prostate cancer treatment in renal transplant patients: A systematic review

Objective

To systematically review and critically appraise all treatment options for localised prostate cancer in renal transplant candidates and recipients.

Method

A systematic review was conducted adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed in the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, the Transplant Library and Trip database for studies published up to September 2022. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions for non-randomised studies tool.

Results

A total of 60 studies were identified describing 525 patients. The majority of studies were either retrospective non-randomised comparative or case series/reports of poor quality. The vast majority of studies were focussed on prostate cancer after renal transplantation. Overall, 410 (78%) patients underwent surgery, 93 (18%) patients underwent radiation therapy or brachytherapy, one patient underwent focal therapy (high-intensity frequency ultrasound) and 21 patients were placed on active surveillance. The mean age was 61 years old, the mean PSA level at diagnosis was 9.6 ng/mL and the mean follow-up time was 31 months. The majority of patients had low-risk disease with 261 patients having Gleason 6 prostate cancer (50%), followed by 220 Gleason 7 patients (42%). All prostate cancer mortality cases were in high-risk prostate cancer (≥Gleason 8). The cancer-specific survival results were similar between surgery and radiotherapy at 1 and 3 years.

Conclusion

Localised prostate cancer treatment in renal transplant patients should be risk stratified. Surgery and radiation treatment for localised prostate cancer in renal transplant patients appear equally efficacious. Given the limitations of this study, future research should concentrate on developing a multicentre RCT with long-term registry follow-up.

Urological Cancers and Kidney Transplantation: a Literature Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to provide an overview of epidemiology, risk factors, and treatment of urological malignancies in renal transplant recipients (RTR).

RECENT FINDINGS

Although optimal immunosuppressive therapy and cancer management in these patients remain controversial, adherence to general guidelines is recommended. Kidney transplantation is recognized as the standard of care for the treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) as it offers prolonged survival and better quality of life. In the last decades, survival of RTRs has increased as a result of improved immunosuppressive therapy; nonetheless, the risk of developing cancer is higher among RTRs compared to the general population. Urological malignancies are the second most common after hematological cancer and often have more aggressive behavior and poor prognosis.

Radical prostatectomy outcomes in renal transplant recipients: a retrospective case series of Thai patients

Background

The incidence of prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is similar to the general population. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the standard of care in the management of clinically localized cancer, but is considered complicated due to the presence of adhesions, and the location of transplanted ureter/kidney. To date, a few case series or studies on RP in RTR have been published, especially in Asian patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety and report the experience with RP on RTR.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data of 1270 patients who underwent RP from January 2008 to March 2020, of which 5 patients were RTR. All available baseline characteristics, perioperative and postoperative data (operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, length of hospital stay, complication), pathological stage, Gleason score, surgical margin status, and pre/postoperative creatinine were reviewed.

Results

Of the 5 RTR who underwent RPs (1 open radical prostatectomy (ORP), 1 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), 2 robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RALRP), and 1 Retzius-sparing RALRP (RS-RALRP)) prostatectomy, the mean age (± SD) was 70 (± 5.62) years. In LRP and RALRP cases, the standard ports were moved slightly medially to prevent graft injury. The mean operative time ranged from 190 to 365 min. The longest operative time and highest EBL (630 ml) was the ORP case due to severe adhesion in Retzius space. For LRP and RALRP cases, the operative times seemed comparable and had EBL of ≤ 300 ml. All RPs were successful without any major intra-operative complication. There was no significant change in graft function. The restorations of urinary continence were within 1 month in RS-RALRP, approximately 6 months in RALRP, and about 1 year in ORP and LRP. Three patients with positive surgical margins had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence at the first follow-up and 1 had later PSA recurrence. Two patients with negative margins were free from biochemical recurrence at 47 and 3 months after their RP.

Conclusions

Our series suggested that all RP techniques are safe and feasible mode of treatment for localized prostate cancer in RTR.

Prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients

As patients with end-stage renal disease are receiving renal allografts at older ages, the number of male renal transplant recipients (RTRs) being diagnosed with prostate cancer (CaP) is increasing. Historically, the literature regarding the management of CaP in RTR's is limited to case reports and small case series. To date, there are no standardized guidelines for screening or management of CaP in these complex patients. To better understand the unique characteristics of CaP in the renal transplant population, we performed a literature review of PubMed, without date limitations, using a combination of search terms including prostate cancer, end stage renal disease, renal transplantation, prostate cancer screening, prostate specific antigen kinetics, immuno-suppression, prostatectomy, and radiation therapy. Of special note, teams facilitating the care of these complex patients must carefully and meticulously consider the altered anatomy for surgical and radiotherapeutic planning. Active surveillance, though gaining popularity in the general low risk prostate cancer population, needs further study in this group, as does the management of advance disease. This review provides a comprehensive and contemporary understanding of the incidence, screening measures, risk stratification, and treatment options for CaP in RTRs.

Haematuria in postrenal transplant patients

Haematuria has a prevalence of 12% in the postrenal transplant patient population. It heralds potentially dangerous causes which could threaten graft loss. It is important to consider causes in light of the unique, urological, and immunological standpoints of these patients. We review the literature on common causes of haematuria in postrenal transplant patients and suggest the salient approach to the evaluation of this condition. A major cause of haematuria is urinary tract infections. There should be a higher index of suspicion for mycobacterial, fungal, and viral infection in this group of immunosuppressed patients. Measures recommended in the prevention of urinary tract infections include early removal of foreign bodies as well as prophylactic antibiotics during the early transplant phase. Another common cause of haematuria is that of malignancies, in particular, renal cell carcinomas. When surgically managing cancer in the setting of a renal transplant, one has to be mindful of the limited retropubic space and the need to protect the anastomoses. Other causes include graft rejections, recurrences of primary disease, and calculus formation. It is important to perform a comprehensive evaluation with the aid of an experienced multidisciplinary transplant team.

Radical retropubic and perineal prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients

Objective

To analyse the functional and oncological outcome of consecutive renal-transplant recipients (RTRs) with clinically localised prostate cancer who underwent radical retropubic (RRP) or perineal (RPP) prostatectomy.

Patients and methods

Between January 2000 and July 2011 16 patients underwent RRP (group 1) and seven RPP (group 2). In all, 200 consecutive non-RTRs served as the control group, of whom 100 each underwent RRP and RPP, respectively. The mean (range) interval between renal transplantation and RP was 95 (24–206) months, the PSA at the time of diagnosis was 4.5 (3.0–17.5) ng/mL, and the mean patient age was 64 (59–67) years.

Results

The mean follow-up was 39 (RRP) and 48 months (RPP). There was no deterioration in graft function. In group 1, 13 and three patients had pT2a-cpN0 and pT3a-bpN0 prostate cancer, respectively, with a Gleason score of 6, 7 and 8 in 11, three and one patients, respectively. In group 2, three and four patients had pT2a-c and pT3a-b disease, respectively, with a Gleason score of 6 and 7 in two and five, respectively. In both groups one patient had a positive surgical margin and was followed expectantly, and all patients have no evidence of disease. Wound infections developed more often in the RPP group (29% vs. 7%), but there were no Clavien grade III–V complications. All patients achieved good continence, and two need one pad/day.

Conclusions

RRP and RPP are suitable surgical treatments for prostate cancer in RTRs. RRP might be preferable, as it has the advantage of simultaneous pelvic lymphadenectomy and a lower risk of infectious complications.

Multicenter experience with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in renal transplant recipients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate our multi-institutional outcome with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in renal transplant recipients and describe technical modifications of the procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 1677 patients, 1422 from Mayo Clinic Arizona and 255 from Loyola University Medical Center, undergoing RARP from March 2004 to October 2010, of which 7 were renal transplant recipients. Baseline demographic features, perioperative data, and oncologic outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

At diagnosis, mean patient age was 63.3 years and serum prostate specific antigen was 6.17 ng/mL. The mean total operative time was 186 minutes (range, 80-210 minutes). No intraoperative complications were noted. The mean hospital length of stay was 1.8 days (range, 1-3 days). Clavien grade II postoperative complications occurred in 3 of the 7 patients (42.9%), consisting of urosepsis, atrial fibrillation, and gross hematuria, all resolving with appropriate medical management. No significant changes were observed in graft function. Two patients (28.6%) had positive surgical margins. During a mean follow-up of 16 months, 1 patient with pathologic T3a, Gleason 9 cancer experienced a biochemical recurrence, which was treated with salvage external-beam radiation and androgen-deprivation therapy.

CONCLUSION

Our series suggests that RARP is a safe and feasible form of therapy for localized prostate cancer in a select group of renal transplant recipients.