[Prostate cancer diagnostic by saturation randomized biopsy versus rigid targeted biopsy]. / Détection du cancer de prostate par biopsies de saturation versus biopsies ciblées fusion d'image rigide.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal diagram teaming up randomized biopsy (BR) to targeted biopsy (BC) is still missing for the diagnostic of prostate cancer (CP). This study compares diagram of 6, 12 or 18 BR with or without BC rigid. METHODS: Between January 2014 and May 2016, 120 patients had prostate biopsy BR and BC. Each patient had 18 BR and BC. Results compared sextant (6 BR), standard (12 BR) and saturation (18 BR) protocol with or without the adding of BC for the detection of CP. RESULTS: Rectal examination was normal, mean PSA at 8.99ng/mL and mean volume at 54cm3. It was first round for 48% of patients. Forty-four cancers were found by the group 18 BR+BC (control). The detection rate was respectively, for 6, 12 and 18 BR of 61%, 82% and 91%. The add of BC increased this detection of +27% for 6 BR+BC, +13% for 12 BR+BC and +9% for 18 BR+BC. BC found 70% of all CP. Nine percent of CP were missed by BR only. Significant CP (Gleason≥7) diagnostic was the same for 12 BR+BC and 18 BR+BC. CONCLUSION: The add of BC to BR increase the detection of CP by 10%. Twelve BR+BC is the optimal diagram for the diagnostic of CP finding 95% of CP and 97% of significant CP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

[Intra-prostatic UroLift(®) implants for benign prostatic hyperplasia: preliminary results of the four first cases performed in France]. / Pose d'implants UroLift(®) intra-prostatiques pour hyperplasie bénigne de la prostate : résultats préliminaires des quatre premiers cas réalisés en France.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility, tolerance and short-term efficacy of intra-prostatic UroLift(®) implants in four patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Four patients with symptomatic BPH, already treated with alpha-blockers, were consecutively treated with intra-prostatic UroLift(®) implants under general anaesthesia. A bladder catheter was placed postoperatively. Alpha-blocker therapy was withdrawn 7 days postoperatively. The clinical and morphological characteristics of the patients were noted. Low urinary tract (IPSS) and sexual symptoms (IIEF5, MSHQ-EjD), maximum urinary flow rate and post voiding residual volume were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 month. RESULTS: Median age was of 69 [52-74] years old and median prostatic volume of 50 cm(3) [40-80]. Median procedure time was of 11 minutes [6-15]. Intra- and postoperative outcomes were uneventful. At 1 month, the mean IPSS and IPSS-QOL improvement were of 46 % and 58 %, respectively. One patient reported no improvement in his urinary and sexual symptoms. In the other three patients, the maximum urinary flow rate was improved, the post voiding residual improved in two patients and similar in one. No alteration in erection or ejaculation functions was reported. CONCLUSIONS: In our initial experience, intra-prostatic UroLift(®) implant procedure seemed feasible, efficacious for LUTS and well tolerated, especially concerning sexual outcomes. Further study of the UroLift(®) implant in France is currently being planned.