Prostate cancer upgrading or downgrading of biopsy Gleason scores at radical prostatectomy: prediction of "regression to the mean" using routine clinical features with correlating biochemical relapse rates / 亚洲男科学杂志(英文版)

Recommendations for managing clinically localized prostate cancer are structured around clinical risk criteria, with prostate biopsy (PB) Gleason score (GS) being the most important factor. Biopsy to radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen upgrading/downgrading is well described, and is often the rationale for costly imaging or genomic studies. We present simple, no-cost analyses of clinical parameters to predict which GS 6 and GS 8 patients will change to GS 7 at prostatectomy. From May 2006 to December 2012, 1590 patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). After exclusions, we identified a GS 6 cohort of 374 patients and a GS 8 cohort of 91 patients. During this era, >1000 additional patients were enrolled in an active surveillance (AS) program. For GS 6, 265 (70.9%) of 374 patients were upgraded, and the cohort included 183 (48.9%) patients eligible for AS by the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance Study (PRIAS) standards, of which 57.9% were upgraded. PB features that predicted a >90% chance of upgrading included ≥ 7 cores positive, maximum foci length ≥ 8 mm in any core, and total tumor involvement ≥ 30%. For GS 8, downgrading occurred in 46 (50.5%), which was significantly higher for single core versus multiple cores (80.4% vs 19.6%, P = 0.011). Biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurred in 3.4% of GS 6 upgraded versus 0% nonupgraded, and in GS 8, 19.6% downgraded versus 42.2% nondowngraded. In counseling men with clinically localized prostate cancer, the odds of GS change should be presented, and certain men with high-volume GS 6 or low-volume GS 8 can be counseled with GS 7-based recommendations.

Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: is there a "middle ground" between active surveillance and definitive treatment? / 亚洲男科学杂志(英文版)

In recent years, it has come a long way in the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of prostate cancer. Beside this, it was argued that definitive treatments could cause overtreatment, particularly in the very low, low, and favorable risk group. When alternative treatment and follow-up methods are being considered for this group of patients, active surveillance is seen as a good alternative for patients with very low and low-risk groups in this era. However, it has become necessary to find other alternatives for patients in the favorable risk group or patients who cannot adopt active follow-up. In the light of technological developments, the concept of focal therapy was introduced with the intensification of research to treat only the lesioned area instead of treating the entire organ for prostate lesions though there are not many publications about many of them yet. According to the initial results, it was understood that the results could be good if the appropriate focal therapy technique was applied to the appropriate patient. Thus, focal therapies have begun to find their "middle ground" place between definitive therapies and active follow-up.

Robotic or open radical prostatectomy after previous open surgery in the pelvic region

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the feasibility and safety of open or robotic radical prostatectomy (RP) after rectum, sigmoid, or colon surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients with a median age of 65 years (range, 46-73 years) who underwent RP after previous pelvic surgery were included. Twenty-four patients (38%) underwent robotic RP and 40 patients (62%) underwent open RP. Bilateral lymph node dissection and nerve preservation were performed in 50 patients (78%) and 35 patients (55%), respectively. Variables evaluated included demographic characteristics, perioperative complications, and functional and oncological outcomes. The median hospitalization and follow-up periods were 2 days (range, 1-12 days) and 21 months (range, 1-108 months), respectively. RESULTS: No conversions from robotic to open surgery were performed and there were no intraoperative complications. Surgical margins were positive in 13 patients (20%), seminal vesicle involvement was detected in 6 patients (9%), and lymph node involvement was found in 2 patients (3%). Postoperative complications included lymphocele in 1 patient, urethral stricture in 1 patient, and bowel obstruction and persistent bladder leakage in 2 patients. Eighty-eight percent of the patients were continent at 7 months and 80% of patients were able to achieve erection with or without medical aid. CONCLUSIONS: Open or robotic RP can be done safely and effectively in patients who have previously undergone pelvic surgery. Although prior pelvic surgery of the large intestine was associated with increased morbidity, it should not be considered a contraindication for robotic or open RP.