|
1
|
Celentano G, Creta M, Napolitano L, Abate M, La Rocca R, Capece M, Mirone C, Morra S, Di Bello F, Cirillo L, Mangiapia F, Califano G, Collà Ruvolo C, Sagnelli C, Sica A, Calogero A, Iacono F, Fusco F, Mirone V, Longo N. Prostate Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment and Outcomes in Patients with Previous or Synchronous Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Published Evidence. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12:diagnostics12061475. [PMID: 35741285 PMCID: PMC9221875 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12061475] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2022] [Revised: 06/11/2022] [Accepted: 06/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
The management of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) and previous or synchronous colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a challenging issue. A systematic review was performed in May 2022 to summarize available evidence about the diagnosis, management, and outcomes of these patients. Twenty-seven studies involving 252 patients were identified. Overall, 163 (64.7%) and 89 (35.3%) patients had synchronous and metachronous PCa and CRC, respectively. In patients with synchronous diseases, PCa treatment involved active surveillance in 1 patient, radical prostatectomy (RP) in 36 patients, radiotherapy (RT) in 60 patients, RP plus RT in 1 patient, proton beam therapy in 1 patient, and cryoablation in 1 patient. In patients with previous CRC treatment, prostate biopsy was mostly performed by transrectal approach (n = 24). The trans-perineal and suprapubic approaches were adopted in 12 and 6 cases, respectively. Surgical PCa treatment in these cases involved endoscopic extraperitoneal RP, robot-assisted RP, and not otherwise specified RP in 30, 15, and 2 cases, respectively. Biochemical recurrence rates ranged from 20% to 28%. Non-surgical PCa treatment options included brachytherapy, RT plus androgen deprivation therapy, and RT alone in 23, 2 and 4 patients, respectively. PCa specific survival was reported by one study and was 100%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giuseppe Celentano
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| | - Massimiliano Creta
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel./Fax: +39-081-7462-611
| | - Luigi Napolitano
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| | - Marco Abate
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| | - Roberto La Rocca
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| | - Marco Capece
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| | - Claudia Mirone
- Multidisciplinary Department of Medical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80123 Naples, Italy;
| | - Simone Morra
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| | - Francesco Di Bello
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| | - Luigi Cirillo
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| | - Francesco Mangiapia
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| | - Gianluigi Califano
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| | - Claudia Collà Ruvolo
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| | - Caterina Sagnelli
- Department of Mental Health and Public Medicine, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80131 Naples, Italy;
| | - Antonello Sica
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80123 Naples, Italy;
| | - Armando Calogero
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy;
| | - Fabrizio Iacono
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| | - Ferdinando Fusco
- Urology Unit, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80131 Naples, Italy;
| | - Vincenzo Mirone
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| | - Nicola Longo
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80130 Naples, Italy; (G.C.); (L.N.); (M.A.); (R.L.R.); (M.C.); (S.M.); (F.D.B.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (C.C.R.); (F.I.); (V.M.); (N.L.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Pathological analysis on transurethral enucleation resection of the prostate-related prostate surgical capsule. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2018; 14:255-261. [PMID: 31118992 PMCID: PMC6528117 DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2018.78830] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2018] [Accepted: 08/10/2018] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Transurethral enucleation resection of the prostate (TUERP) is one of the most important minimally invasive methods for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). There have been many reports on the therapeutic effects of TUERP. However, reports on prostate surgical capsule recognition and pathological analysis are rare. Aim To compare the pathological features of the prostate surgical capsule between TUERP and suprapubic open prostatectomy (SOP). Material and methods Eighty samples were collected; samples 1–3 were prostate gland tissue, tissue adjacent to the prostate surgical capsule, and prostate surgical capsule tissue, respectively. HE staining was used to analyze the pathological components; the enucleation rate was compared between both groups. Results The pathological features of the prostate surgical capsule for both groups were roughly the same: sample 1 was mostly gland, with lesser amounts of smooth muscle and fibrous tissue components; sample 2 was mostly fibrous tissue and a smooth muscle component and a small amount of glandular components, and, closer to the surgical capsule, more fibrous tissue, less glandular component; sample 3 was mainly fibrous tissue, and almost no glandular component; there were the same differences among samples 1–3 in both groups (p < 0.05). The enucleation rate for TUERP and SOP was roughly the same, about 58.2%, and there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). Conclusions The prostate surgical capsule in TUERP was similar to SOP, which consisted mainly of smooth muscle and fibrous tissue. Moreover, SOP combined with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) can treat BPH for a large volume of prostate (> 100 ml), but its effectiveness and safety need further large-scale clinical trials for confirmation.
Collapse
|