Comparison of efficacy and safety of conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by the transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal procedure

A peptide encoded by the circular form of the SHPRH gene induces apoptosis in neuroblastoma cells

Background

Circular RNAs (circRNAs) and their derived peptides represent largely unchartered areas in cellular biology, with many potential roles yet to be discovered. This study aimed to elucidate the role and molecular interactions of circSHPRH and its peptide derivative SHPRH-146aa in the pathogenesis of neuroblastoma (NB).

Methods

NB samples in the GSE102285 dataset were analyzed to measure circSHPRH expression, followed by in vitro experiments for validation. The role of SHPRH-146aa in NB cell proliferation, migration, and invasion was then examined, and luciferase activity assay was performed after SHPRH-146aa and RUNX1 transfection. Finally, the regulation of NB cell apoptosis by SHPRH-146aa combined with NFKBIA was tested.

Results

The GSE102285 dataset indicated overexpression of circSHPRH in NB samples, further supported by in vitro findings. Overexpression of circ-SHPRH and SHPRH-146aa inhibited proliferation, migration, and invasion of NB cells. A significant increase in apoptosis was observed, with upregulation of Caspase-3 and downregulation of Bcl-2. Furthermore, the peptide derivative SHPRH-146aa, derived from circSHPRH, suppressed NB cell malignancy traits, suggesting its role as a therapeutic target. A direct interaction between SHPRH-146aa and the transcription factor RUNX1 was identified, subsequently leading to increased NFKBIA expression. Notably, NFKBIA knockdown inhibited the pro-apoptotic effect of SHPRH-146aa on NB cells.

Conclusion

The study demonstrates that circ-SHPRH and SHPRH-146aa play significant roles in inhibiting the malignant progression of NB. They induce apoptosis primarily by modulating key apoptotic proteins Caspase-3 and Bcl-2, a process that appears to be regulated by NFKBIA. The SHPRH-146aa-RUNX1 interaction further elucidates a novel pathway in the regulation of apoptosis in NB. These findings indicate that circ-SHPRH and its derived peptide SHPRH-146aa could be potential therapeutic targets for NB treatment.

Clinical study of 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of the clinical effectiveness and safety of three-dimensional transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (3D TLRP) versus 3D extraperitoneal LRP (3D ELRP) for prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To retrospectively analyze the clinical and regular postoperative follow-up data of patients who underwent 3D LRP performed by the same attending surgeon at the Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College between 2017 and 2022. A total of 82 patients who met the criteria were included. They were divided into 3D TLRP (n = 39) and 3D ELRP groups (n = 43) according to the surgical approach. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were compared.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. There were also no statistically significant differences between the 3D TLRP and 3D ELRP groups in terms of intraoperative blood transfusion rate (12.82% vs. 2.33%), positive lymph node rate (11.11% vs. 2.38%), positive surgical margin rate (12.82% vs. 6.98%), pathological Gleason score, postoperative clinical stage, perioperative complication rate (10.26% vs. 4.65%), immediate urinary control rate (56.41% vs. 58.14%), 3-month postoperative urinary control rate (76.92% vs. 74.42%), 6-month postoperative urinary control rate (87.18% vs. 83.72%), 6-month postoperative biochemical recurrence rate (7.69% vs. 9.30%), or 6-month postoperative sexual function recovery rate (2.56% vs. 2.33%) (P > 0.05). Compared with the 3D ELRP group, the 3D TLRP group had a longer operative time (232.36 ± 48.52 min vs. 212.07 ± 41.76 min), more estimated blood loss (150.000 [100.0, 200.0] vs. 100.000 [100.0, 125.0]), longer recovery of gastrointestinal function (2.72 ± 0.89 vs. 2.26 ± 0.88), longer duration of drainage tube retention (5.69 ± 1.79 vs. 4.28 ± 2.68), and longer hospitalization time (12.54 ± 4.07 vs. 10.88 ± 2.97), with statistical significance (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

3D TLRP and 3D ELRP have similar oncologic and functional outcomes. Clinically, physicians can choose a reasonable procedure according to the patient's specific situation and their own surgical experience.

Comparison of Perioperative, Functional, and Oncological Outcomes of Transperitoneal and Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the oncological, functional, and perioperative outcomes of localized and locally advanced prostate cancer treated with intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

Methods

From April, 2008, through December, 2020, 266 patients underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, 168 cases with an extraperitoneal approach (E-LRP) and 98 cases using a transperitoneal approach (T-LRP). The clinical, perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes were collected and compared between these groups. At the 3-, 12- and 24-monthfollow-ups, the functional outcomes tested were urinary function (urinary domain of EPIC) and sexual function (sexual domain of EPIC). The oncological outcomes of biochemical recurrence, biochemical recurrence-free survival, and positive surgical margin status were evaluated. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify factors predictive for biochemical recurrence. All statistical analyses used the R program.

Results

The patient characteristics were similar between the E-LRP and T-LRP groups except for higher prostatic-specific antigen (PSA) in the T-LRP group. The T-LRP had lower overall operative time (222.5 min vs. 290 min, p 0.001), decreased blood loss (400 ml vs. 800 ml, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (4 days vs. 7 days, p < 0.001) compared to the E-LRP. Early sexual intercourse with penetration at 3 months was higher in the T-LRP group (36.7% vs. 15.5%, p 0.001). Urinary continence (no pads) was not different between the T-LRP and E-LRP groups at 3 and 24 months after surgery but higher in the E-LRP group at 12 months (1% vs. 3%; p=0.419, 85.1 vs. 83.7%; p=0.889, 47.4% vs. 34.6%; p=0.028, respectively). The EPIC questionnaire was used to assess functional outcomes at 3, 12, and 24 months after surgery and found that urinary function was significantly higher in the T-LRP group at 3 and 12 months (p < 0.001) but did not show a difference at 24 months (p=0.734), and sexual function scores were higher in the T-LRP group at 12 and 24 months (p=0.001). The positive surgical margin rate was higher in the E-LRP (38.7% vs. 21.4%; p=0.006). The BCR rate was not different between the groups (36.3% in the E-LRP group and 27.6% in the E-LRP group; p=0.184).

Conclusion

Transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (T-LRP) was found to be superior to extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (E-LRP) in perioperative outcomes such as decreased operative time, decreased blood loss, shorter hospital stay, lower positive surgical margin, and improved early sexual intercourse and sexual function. The urinary functional outcome was better in the T-LRP group at 3 and 12 months. These findings support the use of transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, as our study patients exhibited significant benefits from this procedure.

A comparison of perioperative outcome between robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single institution

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative and pathological results in different approaches of robotic or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 206 patients diagnosed with pros¬tate cancer (PC) from June 2016 to October 2017 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nan¬jing Medical University. A total of 132 cases underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RLRP) including 54 patients on transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Tp-RLRP) and 78 on extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Ep-RLRP). Meanwhile, 74 patients performed with extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Ep-LPR) were also included. Peri¬operative and pathological data were compared among these groups.

RESULTS

All operations were completed without conversion. There was no signifi¬cant difference in basic and pathological characteristics of patients between each two groups. In Tp-RLRP vs. Ep-RLRP: Significant differences were found in the comparison in to¬tal operation time [235.98 ± 59.16 vs. 180.45 ± 50.27 min, P = 0.00], estimated blood loss (EBL) [399.07 ± 519.57 vs. 254.49 ± 308.05 mL, P = 0.0473], postoperative pelvic drainage time [5.37 ± 2.33 vs. 4.24 ± 3.08 d, P = 0.0237] and postoperative length of stay [8.15 ± 3.30 vs. 6.49 ± 3.49 d, P = 0.0068] while no significant differences were detected in other variables. In Ep-RLRP vs. Ep-LPR: Longer total operation time was observed in Ep-RLRP when compared to Ep-LPR [180.45 ± 50.27 vs. 143.80 ± 33.13 min, P = 0.000]. No significant differences were observed in other variables.

CONCLUSION

In RLRP, Ep-RLRP was proved a safe and effective approach based on the perioperative results compared to Tp-RLRP. Ep-RLRP and Ep-LPR provides equivalent perioperative and pathological outcomes.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 2018: 20 years of worldwide experiences, experimentations, researches and refinements

INTRODUCTION

After the first feasibility report in 1997, a growing interest has risen in the urologic community for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and several authors have contributed to the evolution of the technique. We attempt a review of the available evidences and provide a broad framework of different technical refinements considering their impact on pentafecta.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The PubMed/Medline database was searched. Duplicates and "Expert opinion" papers were removed. Studies were included according to the aim of the present paper to present a selected review on LRP and report our personal experience.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

In 1999 Guillonneau et al. codified their transperitoneal-posterior-antegrade technique for LRP. Since then, several modifications of the transperitoneal approach were published and the extraperitoneal route was also proposed. Sparing the bladder neck and reconstructing the posterior muscolofascial plate were proven to improve continence rate. Nerve-sparing LRP were performed in order to maximize postoperative recovery of the sexual function. Novel techniques to ligate the Santorini plexus and sew the urethrovesical anastomosis provided improvement in operative time, intraoperative blood loss and reduced the incidence of postoperative urinary-leakages. In the recent years, the single-site approach as pushed the limits of LRP and three-dimensional (3D) systems for endoscopic surgery were developed.

CONCLUSIONS

Thanks to several technical improvements, LRP provides brilliant oncologic and functional outcomes and it is now considered the treatment of choice in many institutions worldwide. Although it is a technically demanding procedure, the recent introduction of 3D systems will reduce the steepness of its learning curve.

Intrafascial versus interfascial nerve sparing in radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The present study aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the intrafascial and interfascial nerve sparing (ITR-NS and ITE-NS) radical prostatectomy. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies. Meta-analysis with random-effects model was performed. Six comparative trials were selected and embraced in this research, including one randomized controlled trial, three prospective comparative trials, and two retrospective comparative trials. With regard to perioperative parameters, no significant association of operative time, blood loss, transfusion rates, duration of catheterization, and hospital stay existed between ITR-NS and ITE-NS. With respect to the functional results, ITR-NS had advantages in terms of both continence and potency recovery compared with ITE-NS. In reference to the oncologic results, the ITR-NS showed lower overall positive surgical margin (PSM) compared with ITE-NS but pT2 PSM and biochemical recurrence free rates were similar to the two surgical types. This study demonstrates that ITR-NS has better continence at 6 mo and 36 mo and better potency recovery at 6 mo and 12 mo postoperatively, regardless of the surgical technique. The cancer control of ITR-NS was also better than that of ITE-NS. This may be explained by the fact that patients in ITE-NS group present higher risk cancer than patients in ITR-NS group.

Shorter GGN Repeats in Androgen Receptor Gene Would Not Increase the Risk of Prostate Cancer

The association between the polymorphic GGN repeat in androgen receptor gene and prostate cancer susceptibility has been studied extensively. But the results of these polymorphisms with prostate cancer risk remain inconclusive. Previous meta-analysis showed short GGN repeats (≤16 repeats) had high risks for prostate cancer compared with longer GGN repeats (>16 repeats). Many studies have been published since the release of the previous meta-analysis. Here, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to demonstrate whether short repeats have higher risks for prostate cancer compared to long repeats. Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, The China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Web of Science) were last searched until January 1, 2016. Random- or fixed-effects model was performed based on the heterogeneity among studies. The potential publication bias was assessed via Begg funnel plot and Egger regression test. Twelve out of 157 studies were extracted. The result indicated that there was no significant difference between short repeat group and long repeat group in the overall analysis ( I² = 80.6%, P = .000, odds ratio = 1.31, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-1.83). There was no association between the length of GGN repeats and the occurrence of prostate cancer in both Caucasian and African American ( I² = 6.7%, P = .359, odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval: 0.94-1.32; and I² = 74.1%, P = .050, odds ratio = 0.963, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-2.58). Our result demonstrated that a shorter GGN repeat polymorphism cannot increase the risk of prostate cancer compared to the longer GGN repeats. That's different with previous meta-analysis.