How we manage prostate biopsy and prostate cancer therapy in men with haemophilia

Prostate biopsy and prostate cancer management in patients with haemophilia: The experience of French Haemophilia Treatment Centres

BACKGROUND

Data are limited on prostate cancer (PC) management in patients with haemophilia (PWH).

AIM

To describe PC screening and diagnosis, treatment modalities and bleeding complications in a group of unselected PWH followed at French Haemophilia Treatment Centres (HTCs) PATIENTS AND METHODS: PC screening, management and bleeding complications were retrospectively investigated at 14 French HTCs between 2003 and 2018.

RESULTS

Among> 1549 > 50-year-old PWHs, 73 (4.7%) underwent PC screening (median age 71.1 years; 67/6 HA/HB, 17/56 severe-moderate/mild). At diagnosis, haematuria was infrequent. Prophylaxis was administered during 76/86 (88%) prostate biopsies (PB) (n = 67 clotting factor concentrates, CFC; n = 9 desmopressin; n = 17 associated with tranexamic acid, TA). Bleeding (11/86, 12.8%) occurred mainly post-prophylaxis (median delay: 7 days): haematuria (9/11, 81.8%), and rectal bleeding (2/11, 18.2%) including one major (1.2%). PC was confirmed in 50/86 PB and in two prostatectomy specimens (total n = 50 patients, n = 6 with only active surveillance). Surgery (n = 28/44 patients) was managed with CFC. Fifteen patients had radiotherapy/brachytherapy, 10 had hormone therapy; CFC-based prophylaxis was only prescribed for brachytherapy (n = 2). Major bleedings occurred in 3/28 (10.7%) and 2/15 (13.3%) patients who underwent surgery and radio/brachytherapy, respectively. No bleeding risk factor was found.

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that PB requires prophylaxis for atleast 7 days, using CFC, desmopressin or TA in function of haemophilia severity. PC surgery should be considered at high bleeding risk. Long-term post-procedural CFC or oral TA could be discussed. Radiotherapy/brachytherapy also should be managed with prophylaxis (CFC or TA).

Prostate interventions in patients with mild haemophilia: Safe and feasible

INTRODUCTION

To date, there is no specific recommendation or evaluation of the morbidity of prostate surgery in patients with haemophilia (PWH) although this surgery is common and at high risk of bleeding.

AIM

To assess the post-operative morbidity of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) surgeries and of oncological prostate interventions in patients with mild haemophilia A or B.

METHODS

We performed a monocentre, epidemiological, in real life study. Data were collected between 1 January, 1997 and 1 September, 2020 and focused on prostate biopsy, radical prostatectomy, prostate radiotherapy, simple prostatectomy, transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and laser-vaporisation in patients with mild haemophilia A or B.

RESULTS

Between 1 January, 1997 and 1 September, 2020, 51 interventions were performed on 30 patients with mild haemophilia. Haemophilia A represented 93.33% of the population and haemophilia B 6.67%. For prostate biopsies (n = 24), median length of hospitalisation was 4 days and only one patient needed a blood transfusion. No patient needed re-admission. For prostatectomy (n = 10), one patient presented with intra-operative and post-operative bleeding. Two patients required re-admission. The other patients did not present any significant haemorrhagic symptoms. For radiotherapy (n = 4), two patients presented a grade II complication (radiocystitis and radiorectitis). For BPH surgeries, during hospitalisation, laser-vaporisation (n = 5) was less haemorrhagic than TURP (n = 5) but after hospital discharge, 60% of patients presented a haemorrhagic complication with two readmissions and one surgical re-explorations.

CONCLUSION

Performed in a specialised centre, prostate surgeries and interventions in patients with mild haemophilia is feasible with acceptable morbidity.