1
|
Deivasigamani S, Kotamarti S, Rastinehad AR, Salas RS, de la Rosette JJMCH, Lepor H, Pinto P, Ahmed HU, Gill I, Klotz L, Taneja SS, Emberton M, Lawrentschuk N, Wysock J, Feller JF, Crouzet S, Kumar M P, Seguier D, Adams ES, Michael Z, Abreu A, Jack Tay K, Ward JF, Shinohara K, Katz AE, Villers A, Chin JL, Stricker PD, Baco E, Macek P, Ahmad AE, Chiu PKF, Crawford ED, Rogers CG, Futterer JJ, Rais-Bahrami S, Robertson CN, Hadaschik B, Marra G, Valerio M, Chong KT, Kasivisvanathan V, Tan WP, Lomas D, Walz J, Guimaraes GC, Mertziotis NI, Becher E, Finelli A, Kasraeian A, Lebastchi AH, Vora A, Rosen MA, Bakir B, Arcot R, Yee S, Netsch C, Meng X, de Reijke TM, Tan YG, Regusci S, Benjamin TGR, Olivares R, Noureldin M, Bianco FJ, Sivaraman A, Kim FJ, Given RW, Dason S, Sheetz TJ, Shoji S, Schulman A, Royce P, Shah TT, Scionti S, Salomon G, Laguna P, Tourinho-Barbosa R, Aminsharifi A, Cathelineau X, Gontero P, Stabile A, Grummet J, Ledbetter L, Graton M, Stephen Jones J, Polascik TJ. Primary Whole-gland Ablation for the Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: A Focal Therapy Society Best Practice Statement. Eur Urol 2023; 84:547-560. [PMID: 37419773 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.06.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2023] [Revised: 05/25/2023] [Accepted: 06/19/2023] [Indexed: 07/09/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Whole-gland ablation is a feasible and effective minimally invasive treatment for localized prostate cancer (PCa). Previous systematic reviews supported evidence for favorable functional outcomes, but oncological outcomes were inconclusive owing to limited follow-up. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the real-world data on the mid- to long-term oncological and functional outcomes of whole-gland cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in patients with clinically localized PCa, and to provide expert recommendations and commentary on these findings. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library publications through February 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. As endpoints, baseline clinical characteristics, and oncological and functional outcomes were assessed. To estimate the pooled prevalence of oncological, functional, and toxicity outcomes, and to quantify and explain the heterogeneity, random-effect meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses were performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Twenty-nine studies were identified, including 14 on cryoablation and 15 on HIFU with a median follow-up of 72 mo. Most of the studies were retrospective (n = 23), with IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term study) stage 2b (n = 20) being most common. Biochemical recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival, overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and metastasis-free survival rates at 10 yr were 58%, 96%, 63%, 71-79%, and 84%, respectively. Erectile function was preserved in 37% of cases, and overall pad-free continence was achieved in 96% of cases, with a 1-yr rate of 97.4-98.8%. The rates of stricture, urinary retention, urinary tract infection, rectourethral fistula, and sepsis were observed to be 11%, 9.5%, 8%, 0.7%, and 0.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The mid- to long-term real-world data, and the safety profiles of cryoablation and HIFU are sound to support and be offered as primary treatment for appropriate patients with localized PCa. When compared with other existing treatment modalities for PCa, these ablative therapies provide nearly equivalent intermediate- to long-term oncological and toxicity outcomes, as well as excellent pad-free continence rates in the primary setting. This real-world clinical evidence provides long-term oncological and functional outcomes that enhance shared decision-making when balancing risks and expected outcomes that reflect patient preferences and values. PATIENT SUMMARY Cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound are minimally invasive treatments available to selectively treat localized prostate cancer, considering their nearly comparable intermediate- to long term cancer control and preservation of urinary continence to other radical treatments in the primary setting. However, a well-informed decision should be made based on one's values and preferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Srinath Kotamarti
- Duke Cancer Institute and Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | | | | | - Herbert Lepor
- Department of Urology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
| | - Peter Pinto
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Division of Urology, Imperial College London & Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Inderbir Gill
- Institute of Urology, Keck Medicine of USC, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Laurence Klotz
- Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Samir S Taneja
- Department of Urology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery, University College London, London, UK
| | - Nathan Lawrentschuk
- Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - James Wysock
- Department of Urology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
| | | | | | | | - Denis Seguier
- Duke Cancer Institute and Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Urology, University Lille Nord de France, Lille, France
| | - Eric S Adams
- Duke Cancer Institute and Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Zoe Michael
- Duke Cancer Institute and Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Andre Abreu
- Institute of Urology, Keck Medicine of USC, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Kae Jack Tay
- Department of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - John F Ward
- Department of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Katsuto Shinohara
- Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Aaron E Katz
- Department of Urology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
| | - Arnauld Villers
- Department of Urology, University Lille Nord de France, Lille, France
| | - Joseph L Chin
- Department of Urology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Eduard Baco
- Department of Urology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Petr Macek
- Department of Urology, Institute Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France
| | - Ardalan E Ahmad
- Department of Urology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Peter K F Chiu
- Department of Surgery, SH Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
| | - E David Crawford
- Department of Urology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Craig G Rogers
- Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - Jurgen J Futterer
- Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Cary N Robertson
- Duke Cancer Institute and Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Boris Hadaschik
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Giancarlo Marra
- Department of Urology, The University Hospital of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Massimo Valerio
- Service of Urology, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Wei Phin Tan
- Department of Urology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
| | - Derek Lomas
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Jochen Walz
- Department of Urology, Paoli-Calmettes Institute Cancer Center, Marseille, France
| | | | | | | | - Antonio Finelli
- Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Amir H Lebastchi
- Institute of Urology, Keck Medicine of USC, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Anup Vora
- Chesapeake Urology, Silver Spring, MD, USA
| | - Mark A Rosen
- Department of Urology, Sutter Health, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Baris Bakir
- Department of Radiology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Rohit Arcot
- Duke Cancer Institute and Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Urology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Samuel Yee
- Department of Surgery, SH Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
| | | | - Xiaosong Meng
- Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Theo M de Reijke
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Yu Guang Tan
- Department of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Stefano Regusci
- Department of Interventional Oncology, Swiss International Prostate Centelenor, Geneva, Switzerland
| | | | - Ruben Olivares
- Department of Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | | | - Fernando J Bianco
- Urological Research Network, Urologist Specialist Group, Miami Lakes, FL, USA
| | - Arjun Sivaraman
- Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Fernando J Kim
- Division of Urology, Denver Health Medical Center and University of Colorado Hospital, Denver, CO, USA
| | | | - Shawn Dason
- Department of Urology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Tyler J Sheetz
- Department of Urology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Sunao Shoji
- Department of Urology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Ariel Schulman
- Department of Urology, Maimonides Health Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Peter Royce
- Division of Urology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Taimur T Shah
- Division of Urology, Imperial College London & Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Georg Salomon
- Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Clinic Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Pilar Laguna
- Department of Urology, Istanbul Medipol Mega University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | | - Alireza Aminsharifi
- Department of Urology, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA
| | | | - Paolo Gontero
- Department of Urology, The University Hospital of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Armando Stabile
- Unit of Urology/Division of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Jeremy Grummet
- Division of Urology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Leila Ledbetter
- Duke Cancer Institute and Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Margaret Graton
- Duke Cancer Institute and Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | - Thomas J Polascik
- Duke Cancer Institute and Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, NC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Luna E, Garden B, Rodriguez D, Perez L, Barrios D, Bianco FJ, Gheiler E. AUTHOR REPLY. Urology 2022; 165:57-58. [PMID: 35843697 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.02.038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Bradley Garden
- Urological Research Network LLC, Hialeah, FL; Urologist Specialist Group, Hialeah, FL
| | - Dayron Rodriguez
- Urologist Specialist Group, Hialeah, FL; Nova Southeastern University, Hialeah, FL
| | - Luanda Perez
- Urological Research Network LLC, Hialeah, FL; Urologist Specialist Group, Hialeah, FL
| | | | - Fernando J Bianco
- Urological Research Network LLC, Hialeah, FL; Urologist Specialist Group, Hialeah, FL; Nova Southeastern University, Hialeah, FL
| | - Edward Gheiler
- Urological Research Network LLC, Hialeah, FL; Urologist Specialist Group, Hialeah, FL; Nova Southeastern University, Hialeah, FL.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fernández-Pascual E, Manfredi C, Martín C, Martínez-Ballesteros C, Balmori C, Lledó-García E, Quintana LM, Curvo R, Carballido-Rodríguez J, Bianco FJ, Martínez-Salamanca JI. mpMRI-US Fusion-Guided Targeted Cryotherapy in Patients with Primary Localized Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Analysis of Oncological and Functional Outcomes. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14122988. [PMID: 35740653 PMCID: PMC9221350 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14122988] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2022] [Revised: 06/11/2022] [Accepted: 06/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Targeted cryotherapy is an emerging treatment for prostate cancer (PCa). mpMRI is a powerful tool for image fusion techniques that deliver incremental precision in diagnostic and treatment of PCa. Fusion targeted cryotherapy (FTC) arises from the simultaneous application of both these procedures. Recurrence is a concern after any type of PCa treatment, especially after targeted treatments. In this article we investigate the recurrence rate after FTC and the role of Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) as a predictor of recurrences. Our research provides new evidence on the feasibility of FCT by providing new insights on patient management. Abstract Targeted therapy (TT) for prostate cancer (PCa) aims to ablate the malignant lesion with an adequate margin of safety in order to obtain similar oncological outcomes, but with less toxicity than radical treatments. The main aim of this study was to evaluate the recurrence rate (RR) in patients with primary localized PCa undergoing mpMRI/US fusion targeted cryotherapy (FTC). A secondary objective was to evaluate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a predictor of recurrences. We designed a prospective single-center single-cohort study. Patients with primary localized PCa, mono or multifocal lesions, PSA ≤ 15 ng/mL, and a Gleason score (GS) ≤ 4 + 3 undergoing FTC were enrolled. RR was chosen as the primary outcome. Recurrence was defined as the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer in the treated areas. PSA values measured at different times were tested as predictors of recurrence. Continuous variables were assessed with the Bayesian t-test and categorical assessments with the chix-squared test. Univariate and logistic regression assessment were used for predictions. A total of 75 cases were included in the study. Ten subjects developed a recurrence (RR: 15.2%), while fifty-six (84.8%) patients showed a recurrence-free status. A %PSA drop of 31.5% during the first 12 months after treatment predicted a recurrence with a sensitivity of 53.8% and a specificity of 79.2%. A PSA drop of 55.3% 12 months after treatment predicted a recurrence with a sensitivity of 91.7% and a specificity of 51.9%. FTC for primary localized PCa seems to be associated with a low but not negligible percentage of recurrences. Serum PSA levels may have a role indicating RR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esaú Fernández-Pascual
- LYX Institute of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, 28223 Madrid, Spain; (E.F.-P.); (C.M.); (C.M.-B.); (C.B.)
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, 28046 Madrid, Spain
| | - Celeste Manfredi
- Urology Unit, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80131 Naples, Italy;
| | - Cristina Martín
- LYX Institute of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, 28223 Madrid, Spain; (E.F.-P.); (C.M.); (C.M.-B.); (C.B.)
| | - Claudio Martínez-Ballesteros
- LYX Institute of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, 28223 Madrid, Spain; (E.F.-P.); (C.M.); (C.M.-B.); (C.B.)
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Puerta De Hierro-Majadahonda, 28222 Madrid, Spain; (R.C.); (J.C.-R.)
| | - Carlos Balmori
- LYX Institute of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, 28223 Madrid, Spain; (E.F.-P.); (C.M.); (C.M.-B.); (C.B.)
| | - Enrique Lledó-García
- Department of Urology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, 28007 Madrid, Spain;
| | - Luis Miguel Quintana
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz, 28040 Madrid, Spain;
| | - Raphael Curvo
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Puerta De Hierro-Majadahonda, 28222 Madrid, Spain; (R.C.); (J.C.-R.)
| | - Joaquín Carballido-Rodríguez
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Puerta De Hierro-Majadahonda, 28222 Madrid, Spain; (R.C.); (J.C.-R.)
| | | | - Juan Ignacio Martínez-Salamanca
- LYX Institute of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, 28223 Madrid, Spain; (E.F.-P.); (C.M.); (C.M.-B.); (C.B.)
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Puerta De Hierro-Majadahonda, 28222 Madrid, Spain; (R.C.); (J.C.-R.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +34-911-91-61-97
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Luna E, Garden B, Rodriguez D, Perez L, Barrios D, Bianco FJ, Gheiler E. Permanent deactivation of inflatable penile prosthesis via puncture. Urology 2022; 165:54-58. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.02.031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2021] [Revised: 02/09/2022] [Accepted: 02/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
5
|
Jiang Y, Meyers TJ, Emeka AA, Cooley LF, Cooper PR, Lancki N, Helenowski I, Kachuri L, Lin DW, Stanford JL, Newcomb LF, Kolb S, Finelli A, Fleshner NE, Komisarenko M, Eastham JA, Ehdaie B, Benfante N, Logothetis CJ, Gregg JR, Perez CA, Garza S, Kim J, Marks LS, Delfin M, Barsa D, Vesprini D, Klotz LH, Loblaw A, Mamedov A, Goldenberg SL, Higano CS, Spillane M, Wu E, Carter HB, Pavlovich CP, Mamawala M, Landis T, Carroll PR, Chan JM, Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Morgan TM, Siddiqui J, Martin R, Klein EA, Brittain K, Gotwald P, Barocas DA, Dallmer JR, Gordetsky JB, Steele P, Kundu SD, Stockdale J, Roobol MJ, Venderbos LD, Sanda MG, Arnold R, Patil D, Evans CP, Dall’Era MA, Vij A, Costello AJ, Chow K, Corcoran NM, Rais-Bahrami S, Phares C, Scherr DS, Flynn T, Karnes RJ, Koch M, Dhondt CR, Nelson JB, McBride D, Cookson MS, Stratton KL, Farriester S, Hemken E, Stadler WM, Pera T, Banionyte D, Bianco FJ, Lopez IH, Loeb S, Taneja SS, Byrne N, Amling CL, Martinez A, Boileau L, Gaylis FD, Petkewicz J, Kirwen N, Helfand BT, Xu J, Scholtens DM, Catalona WJ, Witte JS. Genetic Factors Associated with Prostate Cancer Conversion from Active Surveillance to Treatment. HGG Adv 2022; 3:100070. [PMID: 34993496 PMCID: PMC8725988 DOI: 10.1016/j.xhgg.2021.100070] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2021] [Accepted: 11/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PC) are increasingly electing active surveillance (AS) as their initial management strategy. While this may reduce the side effects of treatment for prostate cancer, many men on AS eventually convert to active treatment. PC is one of the most heritable cancers, and genetic factors that predispose to aggressive tumors may help distinguish men who are more likely to discontinue AS. To investigate this, we undertook a multi-institutional genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 5,222 PC patients and 1,139 other patients from replication cohorts, all of whom initially elected AS and were followed over time for the potential outcome of conversion from AS to active treatment. In the GWAS we detected 18 variants associated with conversion, 15 of which were not previously associated with PC risk. With a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS), we found two genes associated with conversion (MAST3, p = 6.9×10-7 and GAB2, p = 2.0×10-6). Moreover, increasing values of a previously validated 269-variant genetic risk score (GRS) for PC was positively associated with conversion (e.g., comparing the highest to the two middle deciles gave a hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]= 0.94-1.36); whereas, decreasing values of a 36-variant GRS for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were positively associated with conversion (e.g., comparing the lowest to the two middle deciles gave a HR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.50). These results suggest that germline genetics may help inform and individualize the decision of AS-or the intensity of monitoring on AS-versus treatment for the initial management of patients with low-risk PC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu Jiang
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
| | - Travis J. Meyers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
| | - Adaeze A. Emeka
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Lauren Folgosa Cooley
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Phillip R. Cooper
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Nicola Lancki
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Irene Helenowski
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Linda Kachuri
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
| | - Daniel W. Lin
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Seattle, WA 98109, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Janet L. Stanford
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Cancer Epidemiology Program, Public Health Sciences, Seattle, WA 98109, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, School of Public Health, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Lisa F. Newcomb
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Seattle, WA 98109, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Suzanne Kolb
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Cancer Epidemiology Program, Public Health Sciences, Seattle, WA 98109, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, School of Public Health, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Antonio Finelli
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Neil E. Fleshner
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Maria Komisarenko
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - James A. Eastham
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nicole Benfante
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Christopher J. Logothetis
- Departments of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Justin R. Gregg
- Departments of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Cherie A. Perez
- Departments of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sergio Garza
- Departments of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jeri Kim
- Departments of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Leonard S. Marks
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Merdie Delfin
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Danielle Barsa
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Danny Vesprini
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health and Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Laurence H. Klotz
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health and Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health and Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Alexandre Mamedov
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health and Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - S. Larry Goldenberg
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Celestia S. Higano
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Maria Spillane
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Eugenia Wu
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - H. Ballentine Carter
- Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Christian P. Pavlovich
- Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Mufaddal Mamawala
- Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Tricia Landis
- Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Peter R. Carroll
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - June M. Chan
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Matthew R. Cooperberg
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Janet E. Cowan
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Todd M. Morgan
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Javed Siddiqui
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Rabia Martin
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Eric A. Klein
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Karen Brittain
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Paige Gotwald
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Daniel A. Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Jeremiah R. Dallmer
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
- Department of Urology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Jennifer B. Gordetsky
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
- Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Pam Steele
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Shilajit D. Kundu
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Jazmine Stockdale
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Monique J. Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Lionne D.F. Venderbos
- Department of Urology, Erasmus Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Martin G. Sanda
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Rebecca Arnold
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Dattatraya Patil
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Christopher P. Evans
- Department of Urologic Surgery, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Marc A. Dall’Era
- Department of Urologic Surgery, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Anjali Vij
- Department of Urologic Surgery, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Anthony J. Costello
- Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ken Chow
- Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Niall M. Corcoran
- Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Soroush Rais-Bahrami
- Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
- Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Courtney Phares
- Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Douglas S. Scherr
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | - Thomas Flynn
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Michael Koch
- Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Courtney Rose Dhondt
- Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Joel B. Nelson
- Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Dawn McBride
- Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Michael S. Cookson
- Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | - Kelly L. Stratton
- Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | - Stephen Farriester
- Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | - Erin Hemken
- Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | | | - Tuula Pera
- University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | | | | | - Stacy Loeb
- Departments of Urology and Population Health, New York University Langone Health and Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Samir S. Taneja
- Departments of Urology and Population Health, New York University Langone Health and Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nataliya Byrne
- Departments of Urology and Population Health, New York University Langone Health and Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Ann Martinez
- Department of Urology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Luc Boileau
- Department of Urology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Franklin D. Gaylis
- Genesis Healthcare Partners, Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
| | | | - Nicholas Kirwen
- Division of Urology, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA
| | - Brian T. Helfand
- Division of Urology, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA
| | - Jianfeng Xu
- Division of Urology, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA
| | - Denise M. Scholtens
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - William J. Catalona
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - John S. Witte
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Departments of Epidemiology and Population Health, Biomedical Data Science, and Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Luna E, Lopez-Prieto A, Gheiler EL, Kaufman AM, Shafizadeh F, Zachareas MJ, Bianco FJ. MRI/US Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy under Local Anesthesia: Transperineal approach. Urology Video Journal 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urolvj.2020.100057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
|
7
|
Bianco FJ, Luna E, Lopez-Prieto A, Martinez-Salamanca JI, Gheiler EL, Kaufman AM, Shafizadeh F, Zachareas MJ, Perez LY, Egui-Benatuil G. MRI/US fusion guided prostate cryotherapy in the office setting under local anesthesia. Urology Video Journal 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urolvj.2020.100065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
|
8
|
Basourakos SP, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Bianco FJ, Patel NA, Laviana A, Margolis DJ, Mosquera JM, McClure TD, Yu M, Hu JC. Feasibility of in-office MRI-targeted partial gland cryoablation for prostate cancer: an IDEAL stage 2A study. BMJ Surg Interv Health Technologies 2020; 2:e000056. [PMID: 35047795 PMCID: PMC8749259 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsit-2020-000056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2020] [Revised: 09/16/2020] [Accepted: 10/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
ObjectivesCryoablation for prostate cancer is typically performed under general anaesthesia. We explore the safety, feasibility and costs of in-office MRI-targeted prostate partial gland cryoablation (PGC) under local anaesthesia. We hypothesise that an office-based procedure under local anaesthesia may yield greater patient convenience and lower health costs with similar outcomes to a general anaesthesia approach.Design/participants/setting/interventionsRetrospective study of men diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer (grade group (GG) ≥2) who elected to undergo in-office PGC under local anaesthesia.Main outcome measuresA total of 55 men with GG ≥2 prostate cancer underwent PGC under local anaesthesia, and 35 of 43 men (81.4%) who attained ≥6 months of follow-up post-treatment underwent MRI-targeted surveillance biopsy. We used MRI findings and targeted biopsy to characterise post-PGC oncological outcomes. Complications were categorised using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Expanded Prostate Cancer Index-Clinical Practice was used to characterise urinary and sexual function scores at baseline, 4 and 9 months post-PGC. Time-driven activity-based costing was used to determine healthcare costs of in-office PGC.ResultsFive (9.1%) men experienced CTCAE score 3 adverse events. Urinary and sexual function did not change significantly from baseline to 4 months (p=0.20 and p=0.08, respectively) and 9 months (p=0.23 and p=0.67, respectively). Twenty-two men (62.9%) had no cancer or GG1 and 13 (37.1%) men had GG≥2 on post-PGC biopsy. Moreover, the median cost of in-office PGC was US$4,463.05 (range US$4,087.19–US7,238.16) with disposables comprising 69% of the cost.ConclusionsIn-office PGC is feasible under local anaesthesia with favourable functional outcome preservation and adverse events profile at significantly lower costs compared with a general anaesthesia approach.
Collapse
|
9
|
Gore JL, du Plessis M, Zhang J, Dai D, Thompson DJ, Karsh L, Lane B, Franks M, Chen DY, Bianco FJ, Brown G, Clark W, Kibel AS, Kim H, Lowrance W, Manoharan M, Maroni P, Perrapato S, Sieber P, Trabulsi EJ, Waterhouse R, Spratt DE, Davicioni E, Lotan Y, Lin DW. Clinical Utility of a Genomic Classifier in Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy: The PRO-IMPACT Trial. Pract Radiat Oncol 2020; 10:e82-e90. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.09.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2019] [Revised: 09/18/2019] [Accepted: 09/24/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
10
|
Affiliation(s)
- Leonardo O Reis
- UroScience, Pontifícia Universidade de Campinas - PUC Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brasil.,Departamento de Urologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas - UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Brasil
| | - Danilo L Andrade
- UroScience, Pontifícia Universidade de Campinas - PUC Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brasil
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Kim SJ, Laviana AA, Halpern J, Patel N, Kasabwala K, Bianco FJ, Hu JC. MP46-18 COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF IMAGING-GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY TECHNIQUES USING TIME-DRIVEN ACTIVITY-BASED COSTING. J Urol 2018. [DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.1477] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
|
12
|
Bianco FJ, Grandez JA, Lozano-Kaplun S, Kaufman A, Nicholson M, Egui-Benatouil G. MP30-17 OFFICE-BASED MRI/US FUSION TARGET PROSTATE CANCER CRYOABLATION UNDER LOCAL ANESTHESIA: 348 PATIENTS. J Urol 2018. [DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.958] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
|
13
|
Xie D, Nicholas M, Gheiler V, Perito D, Siano L, Kislinger I, Nehrenz GM, Klopukh B, Bianco FJ, Perito P, Gheiler E. A prospective evaluation of penile measures and glans penis sensory changes after penile prosthetic surgery. Transl Androl Urol 2017; 6:529-533. [PMID: 28725595 PMCID: PMC5503964 DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.05.34] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
Background With better designed devices and lower infection rates, satisfaction with inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement is increasingly high. However, dissatisfaction is still present and there is disagreement regarding length and sensation changes after the IPP placement. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in penile length, girth and sensitivity after IPP placement. Methods From August 2012 to January 2013 all patients undergoing “de novo” IPP surgery were invited to participate in this study. Eighty six patients met inclusion criteria while 62 agreed to participate in this observational study. A week before surgery, penile length and circumference, and glans/elbow biothesiometer readings were recorded 15 minutes after Trimix induced erection. Same measures were taken at postoperative week 6 and month 6. Results Amperage from Glans biothesiometer readings showed statistically significant shorter readings than elbow biothesiometer preoperatively, 6 weeks and 6 months after surgery (P<0.001 each). No significant sensory difference in the glans penis after IPP was noted. However, compared to preoperative Trimix induced erections, penile length and circumference were greater after IPP placement (P=0.04 and P=0.001, respectively). Conclusions We observed statistically significant increase in penile length and girth after IPP placement without significant changes in sensory conduction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Donghua Xie
- Urological Research Network, Hialeah, FL, USA.,Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
| | - Marilin Nicholas
- Urological Research Network, Hialeah, FL, USA.,Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
| | - Victor Gheiler
- Urological Research Network, Hialeah, FL, USA.,Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
| | - Dylan Perito
- Urological Research Network, Hialeah, FL, USA.,Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
| | - Luanda Siano
- Urological Research Network, Hialeah, FL, USA.,Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
| | | | - Guy M Nehrenz
- Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
| | - Boris Klopukh
- Urological Research Network, Hialeah, FL, USA.,Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
| | - Fernando J Bianco
- Urological Research Network, Hialeah, FL, USA.,Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
| | - Paul Perito
- Urological Research Network, Hialeah, FL, USA.,Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
| | - Edward Gheiler
- Urological Research Network, Hialeah, FL, USA.,Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Gore JL, du Plessis M, Santiago-Jiménez M, Yousefi K, Thompson DJS, Karsh L, Lane BR, Franks M, Chen DYT, Bandyk M, Bianco FJ, Brown G, Clark W, Kibel AS, Kim HL, Lowrance W, Manoharan M, Maroni P, Perrapato S, Sieber P, Trabulsi EJ, Waterhouse R, Davicioni E, Lotan Y, Lin DW. Decipher test impacts decision making among patients considering adjuvant and salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy: Interim results from the Multicenter Prospective PRO-IMPACT study. Cancer 2017; 123:2850-2859. [PMID: 28422278 PMCID: PMC5573983 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30665] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2016] [Revised: 01/05/2017] [Accepted: 01/15/2017] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with prostate cancer and their providers face uncertainty as they consider adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) or salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after undergoing radical prostatectomy. The authors prospectively evaluated the impact of the Decipher test, which predicts metastasis risk after radical prostatectomy, on decision making for ART and SRT. METHODS A total of 150 patients who were considering ART and 115 who were considering SRT were enrolled. Providers submitted a management recommendation before processing the Decipher test and again at the time of receipt of the test results. Patients completed validated surveys on prostate cancer (PCa)‐specific decisional effectiveness and PCa‐related anxiety. RESULTS Before the Decipher test, observation was recommended for 89% of patients considering ART and 58% of patients considering SRT. After Decipher testing, 18% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 12%‐25%) of treatment recommendations changed in the ART arm, including 31% among high‐risk patients; and 32% (95% CI, 24%‐42%) of management recommendations changed in the salvage arm, including 56% among high‐risk patients. Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) scores were better after viewing Decipher test results (ART arm: median DCS before Decipher, 25 and after Decipher, 19 [P<.001]; SRT arm: median DCS before Decipher, 27 and after Decipher, 23 [P<.001]). PCa‐specific anxiety changed after Decipher testing; fear of PCa disease recurrence in the ART arm (P = .02) and PCa‐specific anxiety in the SRT arm (P = .05) decreased significantly among low‐risk patients. Decipher results reported per 5% increase in 5‐year metastasis probability were associated with the decision to pursue ART (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.19‐1.85) and SRT (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.09‐1.81) in multivariable logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS Knowledge of Decipher test results was associated with treatment decision making and improved decisional effectiveness among men with PCa who were considering ART and SRT. Cancer 2017;123:2850–59. © 2017 American Cancer Society. Use of the Decipher test appears to result in a change in treatment decision making in a substantial percentage of men with prostate cancer who are considering adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Decisional effectiveness improves for both patients and providers with use of the Decipher test.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John L Gore
- Department of Urology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | | | | | - Kasra Yousefi
- GenomeDx Biosciences Inc, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | | | | | - Brian R Lane
- Spectrum Health Medical Group, Grand Rapids, Michigan
| | | | - David Y T Chen
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Mark Bandyk
- Lakeland Regional Cancer Center, Lakeland, Florida
| | - Fernando J Bianco
- Urological Research Network, Nova Southeastern University, Miami, Florida
| | - Gordon Brown
- Delaware Valley Urology LLC, Voorhees, New Jersey
| | | | - Adam S Kibel
- Department of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Hyung L Kim
- Department of Urology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - William Lowrance
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Murugesan Manoharan
- Department of Urology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida
| | - Paul Maroni
- Division of Urology, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Scott Perrapato
- Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, Vermont
| | | | - Edouard J Trabulsi
- Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Elai Davicioni
- GenomeDx Biosciences Inc, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Yair Lotan
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Daniel W Lin
- Department of Urology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Bianco FJ, Martínez-Salamanca JI. Focalyx Dx, Bx, Tx et Apps: A novel contemporary fusion paradigm for the management of prostate cancer. ARCH ESP UROL 2016; 69:353-363. [PMID: 27416639] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
FocalyxTM conceived as a response to emerging evidence data across numerous cancer lesions that questions current standard treatment approaches that too often lead to detrimental quality of life yet delivering limited survival benefit, especially in-lieu of advances in imaging technology applicable to cancer patients. The Focalyx paradigm aims to control cancer with improvement in quality of life. We initially devised 5 milestones: 1- Consistently optimize Prostate MRI imaging using the novel published protocols adopted as guidelines by societies such as the European Society of Urology and Radiology; 2- Evaluate fusion platform software solutions that existed; 3- Determine best fusión platform for Focalyx on practicality, precision, and workflow premises; 4- Evaluate commercially available FDA approved ablative technologies to implement our treatment vision; 5- Design a treatment option that can be performed in the office setting under local anesthesia, which would not impact negatively QOL outcomes of Prostate Cancer patients and seamless constant nonintrusive practical patient-physician interaction by the Focalyx app that facilitates follow up and provides early warning signals shall any change in the disease dynamics emerge. Prostate cancer was identified as the pilot disease for Focalyx to deliver a "GPS" like solution for the prostate gland that destroys identifiable disease without adverse effects such as: cancer anxiety, urinary incontinence, loss of erections and ejaculation. Since September of 2013, over 300 men have been accrued in NCT02381990- clintrials.gov evaluating the feasibility of our solutions for imaging (FocalyxDx), Biopsy (FocalyxBx) and Treatment (FocalyxTx). In this review we detail the tools available to achieve the Focalyx paradigm for men with Prostate Cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F J Bianco
- Urological Research Network. Professor of Urology. Nova University. Miami. EE.UU
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Shore N, Boczko J, Kella N, Moran BJ, Bianco FJ, Crawford ED, Nelson J, Kaldate RR, Roundy KM, Brawer MK, Gonzalgo ML. Impact of CCP test on personalizing treatment decisions: Results from a prospective registry of newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2015. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.e16042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Neal Shore
- Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC
| | | | - Naveen Kella
- The Urology and Prostate Institute, San Antonio, TX
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Shore N, Boczko J, Kella N, Moran BJ, Bianco FJ, Crawford ED, Sibley A, Roundy KM, Kaldate R, Grier C, Brawer MK, Gonzalgo ML. PD32-11 SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THERAPEUTIC BURDEN FROM USE OF CCP TEST IN TREATMENT DECISIONS AMONG NEWLY DIAGNOSED PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS IN A LARGE PROSPECTIVE REGISTRY. J Urol 2015. [DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.2122] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|
18
|
Bianco FJ, Albala DM, Belkoff LH, Miles BJ, Peabody JO, He W, Bradt JS, Haas GP, Ahlering TE. A randomized, double-blind, solifenacin succinate versus placebo control, phase 4, multicenter study evaluating urinary continence after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2014; 193:1305-10. [PMID: 25281778 DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.106] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/24/2014] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Bladder dysfunction influences recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study evaluating solifenacin vs placebo on return to continence in patients who were still incontinent 7 to 21 days after catheter removal after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A wireless personal digital assistant was given to patients the day of catheter removal. Encrypted answers were transmitted daily to dedicated servers. After a 7 to 21-day treatment-free washout period, patients requiring 2 to 10 pads per day for 7 consecutive days were randomized (1:1) to 5 mg solifenacin daily or placebo. The primary end point was time from first dose to continence defined as 0 pads per day or a dry security pad for 3 consecutive days. Secondary end points included proportion of patients continent at end of study, average change in pads per day number and quality of life assessments. RESULTS A total of 1,086 screened patients recorded personal digital assistant information. Overall 640 patients were randomized to solifenacin vs placebo and 17 failed to take medication. There was no difference in time to continence (p=0.17). Continence was achieved by study end in 91 of 313 (29%) vs 66 of 309 (21%), respectively (p=0.04). Pads per day change from baseline was -3.2 and -2.9, respectively (p=0.03). Dry mouth was the only common adverse event seen in 6.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Constipation rates were similar. The overall rate of continence in the entire population from screening to end of study was 73%. CONCLUSIONS There was no effect on primary outcome but some secondary end points benefited the solifenacin arm. The study provides level 1B clinical evidence for continence outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Laurence H Belkoff
- Urologic Consultants of Southeastern Pennsylvania, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
| | - Brian J Miles
- Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Texas
| | - James O Peabody
- Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Abstract
Prostate cancer is a global public health problem, and it is the most common cancer in American men and the second cause for cancer-related death. Experimental evidence shows that prostate tissue possesses cannabinoid receptors and their stimulation results in anti-androgenic effects. To review currently relevant findings related to effects of cannabinoid receptors in prostate cancer. PubMed search utilizing the terms “cannabis,” “cannabinoids,” “prostate cancer,” and “cancer pain management,” giving preference to most recent publications was done. Articles identified were screened for their relevance to the field of prostate cancer and interest to both urologist and pain specialists. Prostate cancer cells possess increased expression of both cannabinoid 1 and 2 receptors, and stimulation of these results in decrease in cell viability, increased apoptosis, and decreased androgen receptor expression and prostate-specific antigen excretion. It would be of interest to conduct clinical studies utilizing cannabinoids for patients with metastatic prostate cancer, taking advantage not only of its beneficial effects on prostate cancer but also of their analgesic properties for bone metastatic cancer pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juan A Ramos
- Universidad de Carabobo, School of Health Sciences, Bárbula, Venezuela
| | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
M. Nieder A, Nebhnani J, J. Bianco F. The Optimal Diagnosis of Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder. CCTR 2011. [DOI: 10.2174/157339411797642641] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
21
|
Shariat SF, Scherr DS, Gupta A, Bianco FJ, Karakiewicz PI, Zeltser IS, Samadi DB, Akhavan A. Emerging biomarkers for prostate cancer diagnosis, staging, and prognosis. ARCH ESP UROL 2011; 64:681-694. [PMID: 22052751] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/31/2023]
Abstract
The introduction and widespread adoption of PSA has revolutionized the way prostate cancer is diagnosed and treated. However, the use of PSA has also led to over-diagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer resulting in controversy about its use for screening. PSA also has limited predictive accuracy for predicting outcomes after treatment and for making clinical decisions about adjuvant and salvage therapies. Hence, there is an urgent need for novel biomarkers to supplement PSA for detection and management of prostate cancer. Despite the progress in developing new biomarkers, several obstacles remain before such biomarkers can be clinically used. These challenges include analytical and regulatory barriers, issues with study design and data analysis that lead to lack of reproducibility of promising results, and the lack of large scale trials to adequately assess the utility of promising biomarkers. In this article we discuss the challenges in biomarker research and the statistical considerations for biomarker evaluation. There is a plethora of promising blood and urine based biomarkers. For the purpose of this review, we focus on PSA derived forms, human kallikrein 2, Early Prostate Cancer Antigen, Transforming Growth Factor-Beta 1 and Interleukin-6, Endoglin, PCA3, AMACR and ETS Gene Fusions. These biomarkers have shown promise in early studies and are at various stages of development. However, in the future it is very likely that a panel of biomarkers will be used to achieve sufficient degree of certainty in order to guide clinical decisions. To be able to be used commercially such a panel will have to answer clinically relevant questions in a simple and cost-effective way.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, NY 10021, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Bianco FJ. Robotic radical prostatectomy: present and future. ARCH ESP UROL 2011; 64:839-846. [PMID: 22052765] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/31/2023]
Abstract
The last 10 years have witnessed unprecedented evolution regarding de surgical removal of the prostate gland. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy broke the open paradigm and started to generate great excitement and expectations. Shortly however, robot-assisted, laparoscopic - Robotic Surgery - emerged to address a fundamental pitfall of prostate laparoscopic surgery: execution reproducibility. Today, robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy is the most used surgical approach to remove the prostate gland. Consistent advantages of this technique are: a shorter convalescent state, marked decrease in blood loss and in experienced hands, shorter average surgical times. Importantly it served to highlight the importance of outcomes as ultimate judge of a procedure success. The data suggest equivalency in long-term functional and oncological outcomes, while clear advantages in the short run: perioperative outcomes with patient rapid return to productive state. That said, the major challenge for robotic surgeons still remains: establish a paradigm that breaks with the tradition and prevents biased reporting due to technology and marketing enthusiasm, but rather takes a critical approach based in prospective, controlled, randomize clinical trials. If the latter objective is reached, urologic robotic surgeons will deliver counseling based on clinical evidence delivering major progress for our Urology field.
Collapse
|
23
|
Wu J, Durbin-Johnson B, Martínez-Salamanca JI, Bertini R, Bianco FJ, Carballido JA, Ciancio G, Hernandez C, Herranz F, Haferkamp A, Hohenfellner M, Martinez-Ballesteros C, Montorsi F, Briganti A, Capitanio U, Sorcini A, Palou J, Pontes JE, Russo P, Terrone C, Volpe A, Libertino JA, Evans CP, Huang WC, Koppie TM. 959 THE IMPACT OF LOCAL AND DISTANT METASTASIS ON SURVIVAL IN PATIENTS WITH RENAL CELL CARCINOMA UNDERGOING NEPHRECTOMY WITH TUMOR THROMBECTOMY. J Urol 2011. [DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.927] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
24
|
Gonzalez JL, Gheiler EL, Perito P, Pena-Lagrave G, Lopez IH, Bianco FJ. V1556 MANAGEMENT OF PENILE IMPLANT RESERVOIR AT TIME OF ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY. J Urol 2011. [DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.1579] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
25
|
Sutherland DE, Linder B, Guzman AM, Hong M, Frazier HA, Engel JD, Bianco FJ. Posterior Rhabdosphincter Reconstruction During Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Results From a Phase II Randomized Clinical Trial. J Urol 2011; 185:1262-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2010] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Brian Linder
- Department of Urology, George Washington University, Washington, D. C
| | - Anna M. Guzman
- Department of Urology, George Washington University, Washington, D. C
| | - Mark Hong
- Department of Urology, George Washington University, Washington, D. C
| | - Harold A. Frazier
- Department of Urology, George Washington University, Washington, D. C
| | - Jason D. Engel
- Department of Urology, George Washington University, Washington, D. C
| | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Martínez-Salamanca JI, Huang WC, Millán I, Bertini R, Bianco FJ, Carballido JA, Ciancio G, Hernández C, Herranz F, Haferkamp A, Hohenfellner M, Hu B, Koppie T, Martínez-Ballesteros C, Montorsi F, Palou J, Pontes JE, Russo P, Terrone C, Villavicencio H, Volpe A, Libertino JA. Prognostic impact of the 2009 UICC/AJCC TNM staging system for renal cell carcinoma with venous extension. Eur Urol 2010; 59:120-7. [PMID: 20980095 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 164] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2010] [Accepted: 10/05/2010] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prognostic significance of venous involvement and tumour thrombus level in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains highly controversial. In 2010, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and the Union International Centre le Cancer (UICC) revised the RCC staging system (7th edition) based on tumour thrombus level, differentiating the T stage of tumours limited to renal-vein-only involvement. OBJECTIVE We aimed to evaluate the impact of tumour thrombus extension in a multi-institutional cohort of patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS An international consortium of 11 institutions was established to retrospectively review a combined cohort of 1215 patients undergoing radical nephrectomy and tumour thrombectomy for RCC, including 585 patients with inferior vena cava (IVC) involvement or higher. MEASUREMENTS Predictive factors of survival, including histology, tumour thrombus level, nodal status, Fuhrman grade, and tumour size, were analysed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 1122 patients with complete data were reviewed. The median follow-up for all patients was 24.7 mo, with a median survival of 33.8 mo. The 5-yr survival was 43.2% (renal vein involvement), 37% (IVC below the diaphragm), and 22% with caval involvement above the diaphragm. On multivariate analysis, tumour size (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.64 [range: 1.03-2.59]; p=0.036), Fuhrman grade (HR: 2.26 [range: 1.65-3.1]; p=0.000), nodal metastasis (HR: 1.32 [range: 1.09-1.67]; p=0.005), and tumour thrombus level (HR: 2.10 [range: 1.53-3.0]; p=0.00) correlated independently with survival. CONCLUSIONS Based on analysis of the largest known cohort of patients with RCC along with IVC and atrial thrombus involvement, tumour thrombus level is an independent predictor of survival. Our findings support the changes to the latest AJCC/UICC staging system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juan I Martínez-Salamanca
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Bianco FJ, Klein EA, Kattan MW, Secin FP, Guilloneau BD, Scardino PT. Surgery confounds biology: the predictive value of stage-, grade- and prostate-specific antigen for recurrence after radical prostatectomy as a function of surgeon experience. Int J Cancer 2010; 128:1697-702. [PMID: 20533547 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.25502] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2010] [Accepted: 03/25/2010] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Statistical models predicting cancer recurrence after surgery are based on biologic variables. We have shown previously that prostate cancer recurrence is related to both tumor biology and to surgical technique. Here, we evaluate the association between several biological predictors and biochemical recurrence across varying surgical experience. The study included two separate cohorts: 6,091 patients treated by open radical prostatectomy and an independent replication set of 2,298 patients treated laparoscopically. We calculated the odds ratios for biological predictors of biochemical recurrence-stage, Gleason grade and prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-and also the predictive accuracy (area under the curve, AUC) of a multivariable model, for subgroups of patients defined by the experience of their surgeon. In the open cohort, the odds ratio for Gleason score 8+ and advanced pathologic stage, though not PSA or Gleason score 7, increased dramatically when patients treated by surgeons with lower levels of experience were excluded (Gleason 8+: odds ratios 5.6 overall vs. 13.0 for patients treated by surgeons with 1,000+ prior cases; locally advanced disease: odds ratios of 6.6 vs. 12.2, respectively). The AUC of the multivariable model was 0.750 for patients treated by surgeons with 50 or fewer cases compared to 0.849 for patients treated by surgeons with 500 or more. Although predictiveness was lower overall for the independent replication set cohort, the main findings were replicated. Surgery confounds biology. Although our findings have no direct clinical implications, studies investigating biological variables as predictors of outcome after curative resection of cancer should consider the impact of surgeon-specific factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
|
29
|
Secin FP, Bianco FJ. Surgical anatomy of radical prostatectomy: periprostatic fascial anatomy and overview of the urinary sphincters. ARCH ESP UROL 2010; 63:255-266. [PMID: 20508301] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/29/2023]
Abstract
Advances in the understanding of prostate and pelvic anatomy in recent years made a substantial contribution to improve the surgical technique for the treatment of prostate cancer (PC) with the potential preservation of anatomic structures responsible for erectile and urinary function postoperatively. Knowledge of these anatomic structures is key to achieve a complete removal of the prostate and seminal vesicles while preserving the best possible quality of life. The literature on prostate and pelvic anatomy has been reviewed and an updated notion of the surgical anatomy is herein provided.
Collapse
|
30
|
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the effects of fellowship training on a surgeon's learning curve for cancer control after open radical prostatectomy. METHOD The study cohort included 7,765 prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy performed by 1 of 72 surgeons at four major U.S. academic medical centers between 1987 and 2003. Multivariable models were used to determine the learning curves for biochemical recurrence and surgical margins, separately for surgeons with and without fellowship training, after adjustment for standard prognostic variables. RESULTS Initial results for fellowship- and non-fellowship-trained surgeons were similar (five-year probability of recurrence for first case: 19.4% and 18.3%, respectively; absolute difference: -1.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.5%, 3.0%; P = .7). However, the rate of learning was faster among fellowship-trained surgeons (P = .006), which resulted in their overall superior cancer control (P = .001; difference: 4.7%; 95% CI: 2.6%, 7.4%). With regard to positive surgical margin rates, fellowship-trained surgeons initially had superior results than did non-fellowship-trained surgeons (P = .005; 36% versus 42%; absolute difference: 6%; 95% CI: 1%, 10%), but the difference between the groups' subsequent learning curves was not significant (P = .9 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS The learning curve for biochemical recurrence depends on surgical training, whereas the learning curve for surgical margins does not. This difference suggests that improvements in margin rates result from reflection on specific aspects of surgical procedure, whereas improvements in biochemical recurrence occur by some general process of improvement in surgical technique. Further research into the mechanisms of surgical learning is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fernando J Bianco
- Columbia University Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, Florida, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Bianco FJ, Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Klein EA, Eastham JA, Pontes JE, Scardino PT. Variations among experienced surgeons in cancer control after open radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2010; 183:977-82. [PMID: 20083278 DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2009] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Complications and functional outcomes after prostate surgery vary among surgeons to a greater extent than may be accounted for by chance. This excessive variation is known as heterogeneity. We explored whether there is also heterogeneity among high volume surgeons with respect to cancer control after surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study cohort consisted of 7,725 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with open radical prostatectomy at 4 major American academic medical centers from 1987 to 2003 by 1 of 54 surgeons. We defined biochemical recurrence as serum prostate specific antigen 0.4 ng/ml or greater followed by a higher level. Multivariate random effects models were used to evaluate prostate cancer recurrence heterogeneity among surgeons after adjusting for case mix (prostate specific antigen, pathological stage and grade), surgery year and surgeon experience. RESULTS We found statistically significant heterogeneity in the prostate cancer recurrence rate independent of surgeon experience (p = 0.002). Seven experienced surgeons had an adjusted 5-year prostate cancer recurrence rate of less than 10% while another 5 had a rate that exceeded 25%. Significant heterogeneity remained on sensitivity analysis adjusting for possible differences in followup, patient selection and stage migration. CONCLUSIONS Patient risk of recurrence may differ depending on which of 2 surgeons is seen even if the surgeons have similar experience levels. Surgical randomized trials are imperative to determine and characterize the roots of these variations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fernando J Bianco
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Bianco FJ, Yossepowitch O, Vickers AJ, Klein EA, Wood DP, Scardino PT. Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:4300-5. [PMID: 19636023 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2008.18.2501] [Citation(s) in RCA: 333] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The long-term risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) after radical prostatectomy is poorly defined for patients treated in the era of widespread prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. Models that predict the risk of PCSM are needed for patient counseling and clinical trial design. METHODS A multi-institutional cohort of 12,677 patients treated with radical prostatectomy between 1987 and 2005 was analyzed for the risk of PCSM. Patient clinical information and treatment outcome was modeled using Fine and Gray competing risk regression analysis to predict PCSM. RESULTS Fifteen-year PCSM and all-cause mortality were 12% and 38%, respectively. The estimated PCSM ranged from 5% to 38% for patients in the lowest and highest quartiles of predicted risk of PSA-defined recurrence, based on a popular nomogram. Biopsy Gleason grade, PSA, and year of surgery were associated with PCSM. A nomogram predicting the 15-year risk of PCSM was developed, and the externally validated concordance index was 0.82. Neither preoperative PSA velocity nor body mass index improved the model's accuracy. Only 4% of contemporary patients had a predicted 15-year PCSM of greater than 5%. CONCLUSION Few patients will die from prostate cancer within 15 years of radical prostatectomy, despite the presence of adverse clinical features. This favorable prognosis may be related to the effectiveness of radical prostatectomy (with or without secondary therapy) or the low lethality of screen-detected cancers. Given the limited ability to identify contemporary patients at substantially elevated risk of PCSM on the basis of clinical features alone, the need for novel markers specifically associated with the biology of lethal prostate cancer is evident.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew J Stephenson
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute and Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Bianco FJ, McHone BR, Wagner K, King A, Burgess J, Patierno S, Jarrett TW. Prevalence of Erectile Dysfunction in Men Screened for Prostate Cancer. Urology 2009; 74:89-93. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.03.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2007] [Revised: 03/17/2008] [Accepted: 03/21/2008] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
34
|
Kattan MW, Vickers AJ, Yu C, Bianco FJ, Cronin AM, Eastham JA, Klein EA, Reuther AM, Edson Pontes J, Scardino PT. Preoperative and postoperative nomograms incorporating surgeon experience for clinically localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2009; 115:1005-10. [PMID: 19156928 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.24083] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accurate preoperative and postoperative risk assessment has been critical for counseling patients regarding radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. In addition to other treatment modalities, neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies have been considered. The growing literature suggested that the experience of the surgeon may affect the risk of prostate cancer recurrence. The purpose of this study was to develop and internally validate nomograms to predict the probability of recurrence, both preoperatively and postoperatively, with adjustment for standard parameters plus surgeon experience. METHODS The study cohort included 7,724 eligible prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy by 1 of 72 surgeons. For each patient, surgeon experience was coded as the total number of cases conducted by the surgeon before the patient's operation. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were developed to predict recurrence. Discrimination and calibration of the models was assessed following bootstrapping methods, and the models were presented as nomograms. RESULTS In this combined series, the 10-year probability of recurrence was 23.9%. The nomograms were quite discriminating (preoperative concordance index, 0.767; postoperative concordance index, 0.812). Calibration appeared to be very good for each. Surgeon experience seemed to have a quite modest effect, especially postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS Nomograms have been developed that consider the surgeon's experience as a predictor. The tools appeared to predict reasonably well but were somewhat little improved with the addition of surgeon experience as a predictor variable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael W Kattan
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Eggener SE, Vickers AJ, Serio AM, Donovan MJ, Khan FM, Bayer-Zubek V, Verbel D, Cordon-Cardo C, Reuter VE, Bianco FJ, Scardino PT. Comparison of models to predict clinical failure after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2009; 115:303-10. [PMID: 19025977 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.24016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Models are available to accurately predict biochemical disease recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Because not all patients experiencing BCR will progress to metastatic disease, it is appealing to determine postoperatively which patients are likely to manifest systemic disease. METHODS The study cohort consisted of 881 patients undergoing RP between 1985 and 2003. Clinical failure (CF) was defined as metastases, a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in a castrate state, or death from prostate cancer. The cohort was randomized into training and validation sets. The accuracy of 4 models to predict clinical outcome within 5 years of RP were compared: 'postoperative BCR nomogram' and 'Cox regression CF model' based on standard clinical and pathologic parameters, and 2 CF 'systems pathology' models that integrate clinical and pathologic parameters with quantitative histomorphometric and immunofluorescent biomarker features ('systems pathology Models 1 and 2'). RESULTS When applied to the validation set, the concordance index for the postoperative BCR nomogram was 0.85, for the Cox regression CF model 0.84, for systems pathology Model 1 0.81, and for systems pathology Model 2 0.85. CONCLUSIONS Models predicting either BCR or CF after RP exhibit similarly high levels of accuracy because standard clinical and pathologic variables appear to be the primary determinants of both outcomes. It is possible that introducing current or novel biomarkers found to be uniquely associated with disease progression may further enhance the accuracy of the systems pathology-based platform.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Scott E Eggener
- Section of Urology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Secin FP, Bianco FJ, Cronin A, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Guillonneau B, Vickers AJ. Is it necessary to remove the seminal vesicles completely at radical prostatectomy? decision curve analysis of European Society of Urologic Oncology criteria. J Urol 2008; 181:609-13; discussion 614. [PMID: 19084852 DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2008] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE A publication on behalf of the European Society of Urological Oncology questioned the need for removing the seminal vesicles during radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml except when biopsy Gleason score is greater than 6 or there are greater than 50% positive biopsy cores. We applied the European Society of Urological Oncology algorithm to an independent data set to determine its predictive value. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data on 1,406 men who underwent radical prostatectomy and seminal vesicle removal between 1998 and 2004 were analyzed. Patients with and without seminal vesicle invasion were classified as positive or negative according to the European Society of Urological Oncology algorithm. RESULTS Of 90 cases with seminal vesicle invasion 81 (6.4%) were positive for 90% sensitivity, while 656 of 1,316 without seminal vesicle invasion were negative for 50% specificity. The negative predictive value was 98.6%. In decision analytic terms if the loss in health when seminal vesicles are invaded and not completely removed is considered at least 75 times greater than when removing them unnecessarily, the algorithm proposed by the European Society of Urological Oncology should not be used. CONCLUSIONS Whether to use the European Society of Urological Oncology algorithm depends not only on its accuracy, but also on the relative clinical consequences of false-positive and false-negative results. Our threshold of 75 is an intermediate value that is difficult to interpret, given uncertainties about the benefit of seminal vesicle sparing and harm associated with untreated seminal vesicle invasion. We recommend more formal decision analysis to determine the clinical value of the European Society of Urological Oncology algorithm.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fernando P Secin
- Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (AC, AJV), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Wagner KR, Schoenberg MP, Bianco FJ, Jarrett TW. Prospective intermediate follow-up of carcinoma in situ involving the distal ureter at cystectomy: is there a role for ureteroscopy? J Endourol 2008; 22:1241-6. [PMID: 18578657 DOI: 10.1089/end.2008.0074] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The presence of urothelial carcinoma in situ (CIS) at the distal ureteral margin has been identified as a risk factor for upper tract recurrence after radical cystectomy. Management of this finding is controversial. The objective of this study was to determine if follow-up with ureteroscopy could aid in early detection of recurrences in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS We collected prospective clinical-pathologic data for all patients who underwent radical cystectomy between 1999 and 2004. Patients with CIS at the distal ureteral margin were followed with endoscopy of the urinary diversion and bilateral ureteroscopy in addition to standard imaging and cytologic evaluation every 6 months. Recurrence was defined as detection of any malignant urothelial cells. RESULTS In 250 consecutive cystectomies, eight patients were identified with CIS that involved a ureteral margin of 12 renal units. Ureteroscopy was successful in all cases, and there were no complications. Imaging was diagnostic in one patient, all cytologic examinations from the diversion were nondiagnostic, and ureteroscopy was positive in all recurrences. Six patients had recurrences at a median follow-up of 52.7 months; five needed laparoscopic nephroureterectomy, and one had disease controlled with percutaneous mitomycin C. Five patients were disease free at last follow-up, and one patient died with brain metastasis at 30 months. CONCLUSIONS Patients with CIS that involves the ureteral margin are at increased risk for upper tract recurrence and progression. Aggressive follow-up with scheduled ureteroscopy may identify recurrences at an earlier stage. Development of additional markers for risk stratification and protocols for adjuvant treatment are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristofer R Wagner
- Department of Urology, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Weissbart SJ, Bianco FJ, Sotelo T, Atalla MA, Sesterhenn IA, Jarrett TW. Glassy cell carcinoma of the urethra. Urology 2008; 73:60. [PMID: 18701143 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.06.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/10/2008] [Revised: 06/02/2008] [Accepted: 06/10/2008] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
Glassy cell carcinoma is a poorly differentiated form of adenosquamous carcinoma that has never been reported in the urinary tract. We present the first case of primary glassy cell carcinoma of the urethra in a 48-year-old woman. She presented with a newly developed bulky mass protruding from her urethra. A biopsy of this mass revealed sheets of large polygonal cells with a "ground-glass" cytoplasm among a heavy inflammatory infiltrate, establishing the diagnosis of glassy cell carcinoma of the urethra. Treatment of her tumor included a combined surgical and chemotherapeutic approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven J Weissbart
- Department of Urology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Yossepowitch O, Eggener SE, Serio AM, Carver BS, Bianco FJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Secondary therapy, metastatic progression, and cancer-specific mortality in men with clinically high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008; 53:950-9. [PMID: 17950521 PMCID: PMC2637146 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.10.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 140] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2007] [Accepted: 10/03/2007] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Commonly used definitions for high-risk prostate cancer identify men at increased risk of PSA relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP). We assessed how accurately these definitions identify patients likely to receive secondary cancer therapy, experience metastatic progression, or die of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Among 5960 men with clinically localized or locally advanced prostate cancer who underwent RP, we identified eight different high-risk subsets, each comprising 4-40% of the study population. Estimates of freedom from radiation therapy, hormonal therapy, and metastatic progression after surgery were generated for each high-risk cohort with the Kaplan-Meier method, and hazard ratios (HR) were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards regression. The cumulative incidence and HR for prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) were estimated with competing risk analysis. RESULTS Each of the studied high-risk criteria was associated with increased hazard of secondary cancer therapy (HR=1.3-5.2, p<0.05) and metastatic progression (HR=2.1-6.9, p<0.05). However, depending on the definition, the probability of freedom from additional therapy 10 yr after surgery ranged from 35% to 76%. The 10-yr cumulative incidence of PCSM in high-risk patients ranged from 3% to 11% (HR=3.2-10.4, p<0.0005). CONCLUSIONS Commonly used definitions for high-risk prostate cancer identify men at increased risk of secondary cancer therapy, metastatic progression, and PCSM following RP. However, a substantial proportion of high-risk patients remain free from additional therapy or metastatic disease many years after surgery. The risk of PCSM within 10 yr of treatment is remarkably low, even for patients at the highest risk of recurrent disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ofer Yossepowitch
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Scott E Eggener
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Angel M. Serio
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Brett S. Carver
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Fernando J. Bianco
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Peter T. Scardino
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - James A. Eastham
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Gonen M, Cronin AM, Eastham JA, Schrag D, Klein EA, Reuther AM, Kattan MW, Pontes JE, Scardino PT. Effects of pathologic stage on the learning curve for radical prostatectomy: evidence that recurrence in organ-confined cancer is largely related to inadequate surgical technique. Eur Urol 2008; 53:960-966. [PMID: 18207316 PMCID: PMC2637145 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2007] [Accepted: 01/04/2008] [Indexed: 05/29/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We previously demonstrated that there is a learning curve for open radical prostatectomy. We sought to determine whether the effects of the learning curve are modified by pathologic stage. METHODS The study included 7765 eligible prostate cancer patients treated with open radical prostatectomy by one of 72 surgeons. Surgeon experience was coded as the total number of radical prostatectomies conducted by the surgeon prior to a patient's surgery. Multivariable regression models of survival time were used to evaluate the association between surgeon experience and biochemical recurrence, with adjustment for PSA, stage, and grade. Analyses were conducted separately for patients with organ-confined and locally advanced disease. RESULTS Five-year recurrence-free probability for patients with organ-confined disease approached 100% for the most experienced surgeons. Conversely, the learning curve for patients with locally advanced disease reached a plateau at approximately 70%, suggesting that about a third of these patients cannot be cured by surgery alone. CONCLUSIONS Excellent rates of cancer control for patients with organ-confined disease treated by the most experienced surgeons suggest that the primary reason such patients recur is inadequate surgical technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Eggener SE, Stephenson AJ, Eastham JA, Klein EA, Yossepowitch O, Bianco FJ, Kattan MW, Scardino PT. PREDICTING RISK OF PROSTATE CANCER-SPECIFIC MORTALITY BASED ON CLINICOPATHOLOGIC FEATURES AT RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY. J Urol 2008. [DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(08)61628-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
|
42
|
|
43
|
Touijer K, Cronin AM, Vickers AJ, Secin FP, Bianco FJ, Guillonneau BD. ONCOLOGICAL OUTCOME AFTER LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: 10 YEARS EXPERIENCE. J Urol 2008. [DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(08)61641-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
44
|
Wagner KR, Schoenberg MP, Bianco FJ, Jarrett TW. PROSPECTIVE INTERMEDIATE FOLLOW-UP OF CARCINOMA IN SITU INVOLVING THE DISTAL URETER AT CYSTECTOMY: IS THERE A ROLE FOR URETEROSCOPY? J Urol 2008. [DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(08)60831-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
|
45
|
Richstone L, Bianco FJ, Shah HH, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Scherr DS. Radical prostatectomy in men aged ≥70 years: effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram. BJU Int 2008; 101:541-6. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2007.07410.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
46
|
Abstract
The management of low risk prostate cancer, defined as Gleason's sum <or=6, PSA <10 ng/ml, and clinical stage T1c to T2a, remains controversial. There is substantiating evidence to suggest that a subset of early stage, low risk cancers can cause significant patient morbidity and death in the long term. Studies have shown that the natural history of untreated prostate cancer is to progress, particularly after 15 years of followup. The majority of men seeking definitive surgical treatment in contemporary series fall within 55 to 65 years of age and are expected to enjoy an overall life expectancy ranging from about 15 to 30 years, placing these men at long-term risk for disease progression and prostate cancer-specific death if managed expectantly. During the past 2 decades, refinements in surgical technique and in the delivery of external beam radiation have resulted in excellent long-term cancer control and favorable quality of life outcomes following treatment. Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention assumes that an individual's cancer will not progress outside the window of curability during the surveillance period, that markers for disease progression are reliable, and that patients are compliant. Until we understand better the long-term natural history of untreated prostate cancer, have more reliable and accurate markers to detect disease progression with certainty, and can risk stratify more precisely the subgroup of men with low risk cancers who will eventually succumb to their disease, early definitive therapy seems prudent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas L Jang
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Gonen M, Cronin AM, Eastham JA, Schrag D, Klein EA, Reuther AM, Kattan MW, Pontes JE, Scardino PT. Effects of pathologic stage on the learning curve for radical prostatectomy: evidence that recurrence in organ-confined cancer is largely related to inadequate surgical technique. Eur Urol 2008; 53:960-6. [PMID: 18207316 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.01.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2007] [Accepted: 01/04/2008] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We previously demonstrated that there is a learning curve for open radical prostatectomy. We sought to determine whether the effects of the learning curve are modified by pathologic stage. METHODS The study included 7765 eligible prostate cancer patients treated with open radical prostatectomy by one of 72 surgeons. Surgeon experience was coded as the total number of radical prostatectomies conducted by the surgeon prior to a patient's surgery. Multivariable regression models of survival time were used to evaluate the association between surgeon experience and biochemical recurrence, with adjustment for PSA, stage, and grade. Analyses were conducted separately for patients with organ-confined and locally advanced disease. RESULTS Five-year recurrence-free probability for patients with organ-confined disease approached 100% for the most experienced surgeons. Conversely, the learning curve for patients with locally advanced disease reached a plateau at approximately 70%, suggesting that about a third of these patients cannot be cured by surgery alone. CONCLUSIONS Excellent rates of cancer control for patients with organ-confined disease treated by the most experienced surgeons suggest that the primary reason such patients recur is inadequate surgical technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Bianco FJ. Editorial Comment on: Laparoscopic Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer: Description of the Surgical Technique and Initial Results. Eur Urol 2007; 52:1356-7. [PMID: 17719718 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.04.101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
49
|
Cordon-Cardo C, Kotsianti A, Verbel DA, Teverovskiy M, Capodieci P, Hamann S, Jeffers Y, Clayton M, Elkhettabi F, Khan FM, Sapir M, Bayer-Zubek V, Vengrenyuk Y, Fogarsi S, Saidi O, Reuter VE, Scher HI, Kattan MW, Bianco FJ, Wheeler TM, Ayala GE, Scardino PT, Donovan MJ. Improved prediction of prostate cancer recurrence through systems pathology. J Clin Invest 2007; 117:1876-83. [PMID: 17557117 PMCID: PMC1884691 DOI: 10.1172/jci31399] [Citation(s) in RCA: 92] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2007] [Accepted: 04/09/2007] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
We have developed an integrated, multidisciplinary methodology, termed systems pathology, to generate highly accurate predictive tools for complex diseases, using prostate cancer for the prototype. To predict the recurrence of prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy, defined by rising serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), we used machine learning to develop a model based on clinicopathologic variables, histologic tumor characteristics, and cell type-specific quantification of biomarkers. The initial study was based on a cohort of 323 patients and identified that high levels of the androgen receptor, as detected by immunohistochemistry, were associated with a reduced time to PSA recurrence. The model predicted recurrence with high accuracy, as indicated by a concordance index in the validation set of 0.82, sensitivity of 96%, and specificity of 72%. We extended this approach, employing quantitative multiplex immunofluorescence, on an expanded cohort of 682 patients. The model again predicted PSA recurrence with high accuracy, concordance index being 0.77, sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 72%. The androgen receptor was selected, along with 5 clinicopathologic features (seminal vesicle invasion, biopsy Gleason score, extracapsular extension, preoperative PSA, and dominant prostatectomy Gleason grade) as well as 2 histologic features (texture of epithelial nuclei and cytoplasm in tumor only regions). This robust platform has broad applications in patient diagnosis, treatment management, and prognostication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlos Cordon-Cardo
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Angeliki Kotsianti
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David A. Verbel
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Mikhail Teverovskiy
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Paola Capodieci
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Stefan Hamann
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Yusuf Jeffers
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Mark Clayton
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Faysal Elkhettabi
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Faisal M. Khan
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Marina Sapir
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Valentina Bayer-Zubek
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Yevgen Vengrenyuk
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Stephen Fogarsi
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Olivier Saidi
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Victor E. Reuter
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Howard I. Scher
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Michael W. Kattan
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Fernando J. Bianco
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Thomas M. Wheeler
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Gustavo E. Ayala
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Peter T. Scardino
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Michael J. Donovan
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aureon Laboratories Inc., Yonkers, New York, USA.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Yossepowitch O, Eggener SE, Bianco FJ, Carver BS, Serio A, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized, High Risk Prostate Cancer: Critical Analysis of Risk Assessment Methods. J Urol 2007; 178:493-9; discussion 499. [PMID: 17561152 DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 164] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2006] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Standardized criteria are lacking to define high risk, clinically localized prostate cancer before definitive treatment. Reliance on simple risk stratification schemes to define high risk cancers has led many physicians and patients toward therapeutic nihilism, inappropriately selecting androgen deprivation instead of definitive local therapy. Of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy we identified those at high risk based on 8 previously described definitions. We examined pathological characteristics and prostate specific antigen outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study population included 4,708 men treated with radical prostatectomy alone between 1985 and 2004. Estimates of prostate specific antigen relapse for patients at high risk were generated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the HR for recurrence in high risk vs nonhigh risk cohorts. RESULTS Depending on the definition used patients at high risk composed 3% to 38% of the study population. The proportion of patients with extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node metastasis among men with high risk cancer was 35% to 71%, 10% to 33% and 7% to 23%, respectively. Of the high risk tumors 22% to 63% proved to be confined to the prostate pathologically. While patients at high risk had a 1.8 to 4.8-fold increased hazard of prostate specific antigen relapse, their 5-year relapse-free probability after radical prostatectomy alone was 49% (95% CI 39 to 58) to 80% (95% CI 77 to 83). Of patients at high risk who had relapse 25% across all definitions experienced relapse more than 2 years after surgery and in 26% to 39% prostate specific antigen doubling time at recurrence was 10 months or greater. CONCLUSIONS Patients diagnosed with high risk cancer by currently available definitions do not have a uniformly poor prognosis after radical prostatectomy. Many cancers classified clinically as high risk are actually confined to the prostate pathologically. The risk of extraprostatic disease and prostate specific antigen relapse varies greatly depending on the definition used.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ofer Yossepowitch
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10021, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|