Impact of Nerve-Sparing Status on Positive Surgical Margin Location and Biochemical Recurrence in Patients with Prostate Cancer Post Radical Prostatectomy

PURPOSE

This study was designed to assess the relationship between nerve-sparing (NS) status, positive surgical margin (PSM) location, and biochemical recurrence (BCR) based on a multicenter, radical prostatectomy (RP) database.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from 726 patients who underwent RP without any neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment between 2010 and 2014. We statistically assessed the impact of NS sides on PSM location and BCR.

RESULTS

PSM rates were 21.9% in the 726 patients studied, 13.2% in patients with ≤pT2, and 46.8% in patients with ≥pT3. Regarding PSM locations, the anterior-apex (AA) was the most common site for PSM (43.3%). After adjusting for confounding factors, bilateral nerve sparing (BNS) had a significantly higher odds ratio of PSM than the absence of NS did (odds ratio [OR] 3.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85-4.99). In the UNS RP in patients with ≤pT2, non-AA PSM on the non-NS side was significantly higher than that on the NS side (92.9% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.009). In all patients, 5.8% experienced BCR during a median follow-up of 43.5 months. PSM was significantly associated with BCR-free survival in patients with ≤pT2 (p = 0.013), but not in patients with ≥pT3 (p = 0.185). Non-AA PSM at the non-NS side was an independent risk factor for BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-5.85), whereas AA PSMs, including NS/non-NS sides and non-AA PSM at the NS side, were not associated with BCR-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Avoidance of non-AA PSM on the non-NS side may be rather important for maintaining BCR-free survival after RP.

Effect of general self-efficacy on promoting health-related quality of life during recovery from radical prostatectomy: a 1-year prospective study

BACKGROUND

The decline of health-related quality-of-life (QOL) during the year after radical prostatectomy is severe. General self-efficacy (GSE) is an effective psychological factor for long-term regulation of patient behavior and emotions. GSE is expected to facilitate enhanced health-related quality of life. We evaluated changes in GSE and analyzed the relationship between GSE and prostate cancer-specific and general health-related QOL.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal survey with 104 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy and administered the General Self-efficacy Scale (GSES), Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and SF8 Health Survey (SF-8). ANCOVA was performed to compare EPIC and SF-8 between GSES high and low-medium groups.

RESULTS

GSES scores increased significantly after 6 months. Regarding EPIC urinary summary scores, high GSES group was significantly higher than low-medium group at 1 month (mean score difference [MSD], 7.3; 95% CI 1.1-13.2, P = 0.016), 3 months (MSD, 6.8; 95% CI 0.7-12.8, P = 0.028), and 6 months (MSD, 6.3; 95% CI 0.9-11.7, P = 0.022). High GSES group had significantly higher SF-8 physical component summary score at 6 months (MSD, 3.2; 95% CI 1.4-5.0, P = 0.001), and significantly higher SF-8 mental component summary score at 1 month (MSD, 2.6; 95% CI 0.4-4.9, P = 0.022), 3 months (MSD, 2.7; 95% CI 0.8-4.6, P = 0.007), and 6 months (MSD, 2.8; 95% CI 1.0-4.6, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that high GSE was associated with better prostate cancer-specific and general health-related QOL after radical prostatectomy.

[12-year history of radical surgery indications for the treatment of prostate cancer]

AIM

To analyze the indications of radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection retained during the last 12 years in an academic surgical center in the Paris region in order to ensure their adequacy in relation to the current clinical guidelines.

METHOD

Monocentric retrospective study of prospectively collected data, between 2007 and 2019. Analysis of the clinical and pathological characteristics which were taken into account during multidisciplinary meeting discussion for the treatment decision, and comparison of their evolution over the four 3-year period corresponding to the clinical guideline updates.

RESULTS

Two thousand eighty-eight consecutive patients treated by radical prostatectomy between 16/03/2007 and 17/03/2019 were included. The proportion of patients classified as low, intermediate or high risk according to D'Amico system was 13.2%, 80.8% and 6.0% respectively. An increase in the frequency of surgical treatment of high-risk cancers has been observed. At the same time, there has been a decrease in the frequency of prostatectomies to treat low-risk cancers.

CONCLUSION

The indications for radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection have evolved in line with the current clinical guidelines which were taken into consideration in a onco-urological multidisciplinary meeting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Therapeutic results in elderly patients with prostate cancer: chronological comparison in a single community hospital

Objective: There are few reports of the long-term outcomes of elderly patients with prostate cancer. We analyzed data from our institution from the past 12 years, including the patient history, treatment methods, and prognosis of patients with prostate cancer aged 80 years or more.

Patients and Methods: A total of 179 cases of prostate cancer in patients aged 80 years or more were retrospectively evaluated. We divided them chronologically into groups A, B, C, and D: Group A included 40 cases from 2002–2004; Group B, 48 cases from 2005–2007; Group C, 46 cases from 2008–2010; and Group D, 45 cases from 2011–2013.

Results: Sixty-one (30%) patients changed treatment course. Interestingly, no cancer deaths occurred in the patients who changed treatment course. Although 14 (7.8%) cancer deaths occurred (A: B: C: D = 4: 4: 6: 0, respectively), all occurred in 2011 or later.

Conclusion: In our study, over 50 patients who underwent treatment survived for 5 years or more. By treating prostate cancer in elderly patients when appropriate, we can lower the mortality rate due to prostate cancer. Our results support the active treatment of prostate cancer in elderly patients.

Are pathological and oncological outcomes of elderly men treated with radical prostatectomy worse than those of younger men? Matched-pair analysis between patients aged <70 and ≥70 years

OBJECTIVE

To compare oncological outcomes of patients aged ≥70 years treated with radical prostatectomy with those of a clinically matched younger cohort.

METHODS

Data from 1268 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy between 2000 and 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified according to age (<70 or ≥70 years) at the time of prostatectomy. After matching pre-operative factors (i.e. prostate specific antigen, positive biopsy cores, Gleason score, clinical stage and D'Amico risk group), 333 patients were chosen from each group.

RESULTS

The percentage of pathological stage ≥T3 in those of age <70 and ≥70 years was 30.3 and 33.0%, respectively (P = 0.51). The percentage of pathological Gleason score ≤6, 7 and ≥8 was not significantly different between the two age groups (P = 0.08). The percentage of organ-confined disease in those of age <70 and ≥70 years was 69.4 and 67.0%, respectively (P = 0.56). With a median follow-up of 50 months, 5-year prostate specific antigen recurrence-free survival in those of age <70 and ≥70 years was 83.4 and 80.1%, respectively (log rank, P = 0.199). Five-year cancer-specific survival in those of age <70 and ≥70 years was 100 and 99.4%, respectively (log rank, P = 0.317). Five-year overall survival in those of age <70 and ≥70 years was 98.4 and 96.4%, respectively (log rank, P = 0.228).

CONCLUSIONS

Pathological and oncological outcomes in elderly patients (age ≥70 years) treated with radical prostatectomy were not significantly different from those of younger patients (age <70 years). This information will help refine the indications for definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer in elderly men.