Measuring cancer burden in prostatic needle core biopsies: simplified assessments outperform complex measurements in assessing outcome: evidence to assist pathologist efficiency and minimize datasets.

AIMS: The optimal method of measuring cancer extent in prostate cancer (PCa) biopsies is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nine hundred eighty-one men with clinically localised PCa managed conservatively were reviewed with follow up. The number of positive cores (NPC), the Maximum Cancer Length in a core (MCL), Total Cancer Length (TCL), and percentage of positive cores (%+cores) was calculated and univariate and multivariate analysis performed using prostate-specific antigen (PSA), T-stage, and Gleason score. The presence of stromal gaps (SG) was recorded. Univariate models were run where SG made a difference to the MCL. All variables showed significant association with PCa death in univariate models. In multivariate models, incorporating PSA, T-stage, and Gleason score, only %+cores was a significant predictor of outcome, with a 10% increase in %+cores resulting in a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.07 (likelihood-ratio test P > Χ2  = 0.01). There were 120 patients where SG made a difference to the MCL and a total of 20 events in this group. Including SG, on univariate analysis the median MCL was 10 mm and HR was 1.16 (P = 0.007), not including SG, the median MCL was 6 mm and HR was 1.23 (P = 6.3 × 10-4 ). Inclusion or exclusion of SG made no significant difference to TCL as a predictor of outcome. CONCLUSION: Cancer extent is a strong predictor of PCa death but only %+cores added to the multivariate model. Expressed as a fraction of NPC/total number of cores, this is the simplest method of assessment, which we favour over more complicated methods in nontargeted biopsies.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on prostate cancer outcomes at an uro-oncology referral center.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the possible effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the oncologic results of patients with prostate cancer regarding clinical staging, presence of adverse pathological outcomes, and perioperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. The time between biopsy and surgery, staging tests, final histopathological evaluation after surgery, lymphadenectomy rate, postoperative complications, and prostatic specific antigen (PSA) levels (initial and 30 days after surgery) were analyzed and compared in a group of patients before and during the pandemic period. RESULTS: We included 226 patients: 88 in the pre-pandemic period and 138 during the pandemic period. There was no statistically significant difference in mean age, body mass index, ASA, pathological locally advanced disease, the proportion of patients who underwent lymphadenectomy, and ISUP grade in the biopsy between the groups. Positive surgical margins, prostatic extracapsular extension, and PSA levels at 30 days were also similar between the groups. The mean time between medical consultation and surgery was longer in the pandemic period than in the pre-pandemic (124 vs. 107 days, p<0.001), and the mean time between biopsy and medical consultation (69.5 days vs. 114 days, p<0.001) and between biopsy and surgery (198.5 days vs. 228 days, p=0.013) was shorter during the pandemic. The incidence of severe early and late perioperative complications was similar between the periods. CONCLUSIONS: There was no delay between diagnosis and treatment at our institution during the COVID-19 pandemic period. No worsening of the prostate cancer features was observed.

Same day discharge for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective cohort study documenting an Australian approach.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of robotic surgical systems has significantly impacted urological surgery, arguably more so than other surgical disciplines. The focus of our study was length of hospital stay - patients have traditionally been discharged day 1 post-robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), however, during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and consequential resource limitations, our centre has facilitated a cohort of same-day discharges with initial success. METHODS: We conducted a prospective tertiary single-centre cohort study of a series of all patients (n = 28) - undergoing RARP between January and April 2021. All patients were considered for a day zero discharge pathway which consisted of strict inclusion criteria. At follow-up, each patient's perspective on their experience was assessed using a validated post-operative satisfaction questionnaire. Data were reviewed retrospectively for all those undergoing RARP over the study period, with day zero patients compared to overnight patients. RESULTS: Overall, 28 patients 20 (71%) fulfilled the objective criteria for day zero discharge. Eleven patients (55%) agreed pre-operatively to day zero discharge and all were successfully discharged on the same day as their procedure. There was no statistically significant difference in age, BMI, ASA, Charlson score or disease volume. All patients indicated a high level of satisfaction with their procedure. Median time from completion of surgery to discharge was 426 min (7.1 h) in the day zero discharge cohort. CONCLUSION: Day zero discharge for RARP appears to deliver high satisfaction, oncological and safety outcomes. Therefore, our study demonstrates early success with unsupported same-day discharge in carefully selected and pre-counselled patients.

Linear Low-Intensity Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy as a Method for Penile Rehabilitation in Erectile Dysfunction Patients after Radical Prostatectomy: A Randomized, Single-Blinded, Sham-Controlled Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to investigate the effect and feasibility of linear low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LI-LiESWT) as a penile rehabilitation method for erectile dysfunction (ED) after bilateral nerve-sparing (NS) radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: Patients who had undergone bilateral NS RP (either radical retropubic prostatectomy or robot-assisted laparoscopic RP), 3 or more months prior to the study, and who had no ED preoperatively and were suffering from mild to severe postoperative ED were included in the study. Four treatments were given over a 4-week period, using the PiezoWave2 device with a linear shockwave applicator and the linear shockwave tissue coverage (LSTC-ED®) technique. If the improvement in erectile function was still considered insufficient (less than an IIEF-5 score of 22-25) at 2 months after the start of LI-LiESWT, penile rehabilitation was supplemented by pharmacological penile rehabilitation. The final effect of treatment was evaluated after 12 months. The main outcome measure was changes in the five-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score. RESULTS: Between September 2019 and September 2020, a total of 40 patients were included in the study and randomly divided into 2 groups: treatment group and sham group. Eight patients were excluded from the study and were not evaluated due to other conditions which required additional treatment (COVID-19 disease, postoperative incontinence, urethral stricture, and ischemic stroke). Thirty-two patients were included in the final analysis: 16 in the control group and 16 in the intervention group. At 6 months from the end of treatment, patients in both the treatment and the sham group achieved physiological IIEF-5 values, and the beneficial effect persisted for 12 months after the end of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: LI-LiESWT using the LSTC-ED® technique is a suitable and safe method for penile rehabilitation in patients with ED after bilateral NS RP, not only because of the vasculogenic effect of LI-LiESWT but also because of its neuroprotective and/or regenerative effects.

Same-Day Discharge Protocol for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Experience of a High-Volume Referral Center.

Objective: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic continues, there is increased value in performing same-day discharge (SDD) protocols to minimize viral exposure and maintain the appropriate surgical treatment for oncologic patients. In this scenario, we performed a prospective analysis of outcomes of our patients undergoing SDD protocol after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Materials and Methods: The SDD criteria included patients with no intraoperative complications, stable postoperative hemoglobin levels (compared with preoperative values), stable vital signs, normal urine output, ambulation with assistance and independently without dizziness, tolerance of clear liquids without nausea or vomiting, pain control with oral medication, and patient/family confidence with SDD. Patients older than 70 years, concomitant general surgery operations, multiple comorbidities, and complex procedures such as salvage surgery were excluded from our protocol. Results: Of the 101 patients who met the criteria for SDD, 73 (72%) had an effective SDD. All SDF (same day discharge failure) patients were discharged one day after surgery. Intraoperative characteristics were not statistically different with a median operative time of 92 (81-107) vs 103 (91-111) minutes for SDD and SDF, respectively. Of the 28 SDF patients, the most common reasons for staying were anesthesia-related factors of nausea (35%), drowsiness (7%), patient/caregiver preference (25%), pain (14%), labile blood pressure (7%), arrhythmia (7%), and dizziness (7%). There was no significant difference in readmission rates, complication rates, or postoperative pain scores between SDD and SDF patients. Conclusions: In our experience, SDD for patients undergoing RARP can be safely and feasibly incorporated into a clinical care pathway without increasing readmission rates. We were effective in 72% of cases because of coordinated care between anesthetics, nursing staff, and appropriate patient selection. We also believe that incorporating pre- and postoperative patient education and assurance is crucial to minimize their exposure to COVID-19 during the surgical treatment for prostate cancer.

The impact of COVID-19 on surgical volume and surgical training at a high-volume pelvic oncology centre.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed most health services. As a result, many surgeries have been deferred and diagnoses delayed. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic at a high-volume pelvic oncology centre. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of clinical activity from 2017 to 2020. We compared caseload for index procedures 2017-2019 (period 1) versus 2020 (period 2) to see the effect of the COVID pandemic. We then compared the activity during the first lockdown (March 23rd) to the rest of the year when we increased our theatre access by utilising a 'clean' site. RESULTS: The average annual number of robotic assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed during period 1 was 82 and 352 respectively. This reduced to 68 (17.1% reduction) and 262 (25.6% reduction) during period 2. The number of patients who underwent prostate brachytherapy decreased from 308 to 243 (21% reduction). The number of prostate biopsies decreased from 420 to 234 (44.3% reduction). The number of radical orchidectomies decreased from 18 to 11 (39% reduction). The mean number of RARC and RARP per month during period 2 was 5.5 and 22. This decreased to 4 and 9 per month during the first national lockdown but was maintained thereafter despite two further lockdowns. CONCLUSION: There has been a substantial decrease in urological oncology caseload during the COVID pandemic. The use of alternate pathways such as 'clean' sites can ensure continuity of care for cancer surgery and training needs.

HoloMentor: A Novel Mixed Reality Surgical Anatomy Curriculum for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: The disruption to surgical training and medical education caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for realistic, reliable, and engaging educational opportunities available outside of the operating theatre and accessible for trainees of all levels. This article presents the design and development of a virtual reality curriculum which simulates the surgical mentorship experience outside of the operating theatre, with a focus on surgical anatomy and surgical decision-making. METHOD: This was a multi-institutional study between London's King's College and Imperial College. The index procedure selected for the module was robotic radical prostatectomy. For each stage of the surgical procedure, subject-matter experts (N = 3) at King's College London, identified (1) the critical surgical-decision making points, (2) critical anatomical landmarks, and (3) tips and techniques for overcoming intraoperative challenges. Content validity was determined by an independent panel of subject-matter experts (N = 8) at Imperial College, London, using Fleiss' kappa statistic. The experts' teaching points were combined with operative footage and illustrative animations, and projected onto a virtual reality headset. The module was piloted to surgical science students (N = 15). Quantitative analysis compared participants' confidence regarding their anatomical knowledge before and after taking the module. Qualitative data were gathered from students regarding their views on using the virtual reality model. RESULTS: Multi-rater agreement between experts was above the 70.0% threshold for all steps of the procedure. Seventy-three percentage of pilot study participants "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that they achieved a better understanding of surgical anatomy and the rationale behind each procedural step. This was reflected in an increase in the median knowledge score after trialing the curriculum (p < 0.001). 100% of subject-matter experts and 93.3% of participants "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that virtual mentorship would be useful for future surgical training. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that virtual surgical mentorship could be a feasible and cost-effective alternative to traditional training methods with the potential to improve technical skills, such as operative proficiency and nontechnical skills such as decision-making and situational judgement.

Extraperitoneal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial experience and description of technique.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our technique of extraperitoneal single-port (SP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and present our clinical experience with the first 10 cases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 10 consecutive patients diagnosed with localised prostate cancer underwent extraperitoneal SP-RARP using the da Vinci SP® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Exclusion criteria included previous surgery through an infra-umbilical midline incision, prostate size >100 g, or preoperative evidence of extraprostatic disease. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon with previous experience of >3000 cases in robotic surgery. Demographics and perioperative information were collected including: operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, length of stay, and days with Foley catheter. The extraperitoneal SP-RARP is performed as follows. Firstly, a 3-cm incision ~2 cm below the umbilicus is made. Dissection of the extraperitoneal space is achieved using a kidney shaped Spacemaker™ balloon (Covidien, Dublin, Ireland), placed through the infra-umbilical incision caudally reaching the retropubic space. Thereafter, the balloon is deployed; the space is created and verified under direct vision with a laparoscopic endoscope. A GelPOINT® mini advanced access platform (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, USA) is inserted and a dedicated 25-mm multichannel port is placed with a 12-mm accessory laparoscopic port through the gel-seal cap into the same incision. The da Vinci SP surgical platform robot is docked with the patient in a supine position. RARP is performed replicating the technique previously described for multi-arm platforms or transperitoneal SP-RARP. No drain and no additional assistant ports were utilised. RESULTS: The patient's ages ranged between 48 and 70 years, and the mean preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 9 ng/mL. No conversions or intraoperative complications were recorded. The median (interquartile range) operative time was 197.5 (185.5-229.7) min. EBL ranged between 50 and 400 mL, six patients were discharged on the same day as the surgery and the median time with a Foley catheter after surgery was 8 days. CONCLUSIONS: Extraperitoneal SP-RARP is a feasible and safe surgical option to treat localised prostate cancer. In our early experience, promising results and possible advantages were found such as: a small single incision, no additional ports, no Trendelenburg positioning, minimal postoperative pain and use of opioids, and same day discharge. Further investigations need to be done to validate these advantages.

Management of prostate cancer radiotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: A necessary paradigm change.

PURPOSE: To adapt the management of prostate malignancy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In according to the recommendations of the European Association of Urology, we have developed practical additional document on the treatment of prostate cancer. RESULTS: Low-Risk Group Watchful Waiting should be offered to patients >75 years old, with a limited life expectancy and unfit for local treatment. In Active Surveillance (AS) patients re-biopsy, PSA evaluation and visits should be deferred for up to 6 months, preferring non-invasive multiparametric-MRI. The active treatment should be delayed for 6-12 months. Intermediate-Risk Group AS should be offered in favorable-risk patients. Short-course neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with ultra-hypo-fractionation radiotherapy should be used in unfavorable-risk patients. High-Risk Group Neoadjuvant ADT combined with moderate hypofractionation should be preferred. Whole-pelvis irradiation should be offered to patients with positive lymph nodes in locally advanced setting. ADT should be initiated if PSA doubling time is < 12 months in radio-recurrent patients, as well as in low priority/low volume of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer. If radiotherapy cannot be delayed, hypo-fractionated regimens should be preferred. In high priority class metastatic disease, treatment with androgen receptor-targeted agents should be offered. When palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastasis is required, single fraction of 8 Gy should be offered. CONCLUSIONS: In Covid-19 Era, the challenge should concern a correct management of the oncologic patient, reducing the risk of spreading the virus without worsening tumor prognosis.

Surgical Delay and Pathological Outcomes for Clinically Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Importance: There is a lack of data evaluating the association of surgical delay time (SDT) with outcomes in patients with localized, high-risk prostate cancer. Objective: To investigate the association of SDT of radical prostatectomy and final pathological and survival outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the US National Cancer Database (NCDB) and identified all patients with clinically localized (cT1-2cN0cM0) high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 who underwent radical prostatectomy. Data analyses were performed from April 1 to April 12, 2020. Exposures: SDT was defined as the number of days between the initial cancer diagnosis and radical prostatectomy. SDT was categorized into 5 groups: 31 to 60, 61 to 90, 91 to 120, 121 to 150, and 151 to 180 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were predetermined as adverse pathological outcomes after radical prostatectomy, including pT3-T4 disease, pN-positive disease, and positive surgical margin. The adverse pathological score (APS) was defined as an accumulated score of the 3 outcomes (0-3). An APS of 2 or higher was considered a separate outcome to capture cases with more aggressive pathological features. The secondary outcome was overall survival. Results: Of the 32 184 patients included in the study, the median (interquartile range) age was 64 (59-68) years, and 25 548 (79.4%) were non-Hispanic White. Compared with an SDT of 31 to 60 days, longer SDTs were not associated with higher risks of having any adverse pathological outcomes (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80-1.12; P = .53), pT3-T4 disease (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.17; P = .87), pN-positive disease (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.59-1.06; P = .12), positive surgical margin (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05; P = .17), or APS greater than or equal to 2 (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05; P = .17). Longer SDT was also not associated with worse overall survival (for SDT of 151-180 days, hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.59, P = .53). Subgroup analyses performed for patients with very high-risk disease (primary Gleason score 5) and sensitivity analyses with SDT considered as a continuous variable yielded similar results. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy within 180 days of diagnosis for high-risk prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer could be safely delayed up to 6 months after diagnosis.

Rethinking the need for overnight admission after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is the gold standard for the surgical management of localized prostate cancer (PCa). Multi-institutional series have demonstrated complications and readmissions in less than 5% of patients and most are now discharged within 24 h of surgery. Recently, several high-volume surgeons demonstrated the safety of same-day discharge (SDD) after RALP. The main benefits include lower costs and reduced exposure to nosocomial infections and hospital errors. The leading arguments for criticism include potential suboptimal postoperative care and the risk of missing a catastrophic event. In recent years, important advances have further strengthened the argument for SDD including more structured perioperative care, integration of single-port robotic systems, and new challenges presented by the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Here, we provide further evidence demonstrating the safety of SDD in a multi-institutional cohort of patients and review the main arguments supporting the expanded use of this approach.

Timing and delay of radical prostatectomy do not lead to adverse oncologic outcomes: results from a large European cohort at the times of COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The current COVID-19 pandemic is transforming our urologic practice and most urologic societies recommend to defer any surgical treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) patients. It is unclear whether a delay between diagnosis and surgical management (i.e., surgical delay) may have a detrimental effect on oncologic outcomes of PCa patients. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of surgical delay on oncologic outcomes. METHODS: Data of 926 men undergoing radical prostatectomy across Europe for intermediate and high-risk PCa according to EAU classification were identified. Multivariable analysis using binary logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard model tested association between surgical delay and upgrading on final pathology, lymph-node invasion (LNI), pathological locally advanced disease (pT3-4 and/or pN1), need for adjuvant therapy, and biochemical recurrence. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate BCR-free survival after surgery as a function of surgical delay using a 3 month cut-off. RESULTS: Median follow-up and surgical delay were 26 months (IQR 10-40) and 3 months (IQR 2-5), respectively. We did not find any significant association between surgical delay and oncologic outcomes when adjusted to pre- and post-operative variables. The lack of such association was observed across EAU risk categories. CONCLUSION: Delay of several months did not appear to adversely impact oncologic results for intermediate and high-risk PCa, and support an attitude of deferring surgery in line with the current recommendation of urologic societies.