Open simple prostatectomy and robotic simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: Comparison of safety and efficacy.

BACKGROUND: To compare the safety and efficacy of open simple prostatectomy (OSP) and robotic simple prostatectomy (RSP) for the treatment of large benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 52 patients who underwent OSP (n = 23) and RSP (n = 29) between January 2005 and March 2019 at a single institution. The preoperative status of the patients, complications related to surgery, and the functional outcomes of the surgery were analyzed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the preoperative total prostate volume, transitional volume, prostate-specific antigen value, and age between the two groups. Postoperative improvements in the International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urinary flow rate, and postvoid residual were significant and similar for both groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding surgery duration and resected prostate volume. The majority of patients in both groups had the urethral Foley catheter removed within the planned 10 day postoperative period, with the exception of two patients in the OSP group who had prolonged indwelling Foley catheter placement because of persistent hematuria. Postoperative hematocrit changes were significantly lower in the RSP group (RSP: 7.8 ± 4.1%, OSP: 14.2 ± 4.9%, P < 0.001). Seven patients (30.4%) who underwent OSP and two patients (6.9%) who underwent RSP were transfused because of significant intraoperative bleeding. Two patients from the RSP group who received transfusion comprised the first two cases that underwent RSP treatment. During the follow-up period, two patients (one patient in the OSP group and one patient in the RSP group) underwent transurethral incision of the bladder neck for bladder neck contracture. CONCLUSION: Both OSP and RSP can produce excellent outcomes after surgery. However, complications of bleeding are significantly less prevalent in RSP, suggesting that RSP can replace conventional OSP.

Robotic Simple Prostatectomy: Why and How?

Increasingly many studies have presented robotic simple prostatectomy (RSP) as a surgical treatment option for large benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) weighing 80-100 g or more. In this review, some frequently used RSP techniques are described, along with an analysis of the literature on the efficacy and complications of RSP and differences in treatment results compared with other surgical methods. RSP has the advantage of a short learning curve for surgeons with experience in robotic surgery. Severe complications are rare in patients who undergo RSP, and RSP facilitates the simultaneous treatment of important comorbid diseases such as bladder stones and bladder diverticula. In conclusion, RSP can be recommended as a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for large BPH.

Nucleobindin 2 expression is an independent prognostic factor for bladder cancer.

Nucleobindin 2 (NUCB2) has been reported to play an important role in both tumorigenesis and cancer progression. This study aimed to examine the clinical significance of NUCB2 expression urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB).The expression level of NUCB2 and its correlation with clinicopathological parameters was analyzed in 225 UCB tissues by immunohistochemistry. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to investigate the correlation between NUCB2 expression and the prognosis of UCB patients. High NUCB2 expression of UCB patients significantly correlated with aggressive clinicopathological features. Patients with high NUCB2 had shorter overall survival and recurrence-free survival in Kaplan-Meier survival curve (P = .018 and P = .001, respectively).Our results show that high expression of NUCB2 associated with aggressive clinicopathological feature and predicted unfavorable prognosis in patients with UCB might serve as feasible biomarker for clinical outcome of UCB patients after surgery and potential therapeutic target in the future.

A Comparative Study of Percutaneous Aspiration with Sclerotherapy and Laparoscopic Marsupialization for Symptomatic Simple Renal Cysts.

Background: Percutaneous aspiration with sclerotherapy (PAS) and laparoscopic marsupialization (LM) are minimally invasive treatment modalities for renal cysts. We aimed to compare the efficacy and cost/effectiveness of LM and PAS for the treatment of simple symptomatic renal cysts. Methods: Data were prospectively collected from three health care institutions in which 80 patients with symptomatic simple renal cysts underwent a single session of PAS with 95% ethanol (PAS group, n = 40) or underwent LM under general anesthesia (LM group, n = 40) between March 2012 and May 2016. We compared the patient profile, duration of procedure, duration of hospital stay, radiological and symptomatic success rates, treatment costs, and incidence of complications between the two groups. Results: At the 6-month follow-up, the radiological success rate in the LM group was significantly greater than that in the PAS group (97.5% versus 60%; P < .001). The symptomatic success rate was comparable in the two groups (95% versus 90%; P = .675). The treatment failure rate did not significantly differ between the two groups (5.0% versus 17.5%, P = .154). The mean total cost in the PAS and LM groups was 1256 USD and 2343 USD, respectively (P = .001). No significant between-group difference was noted regarding the overall complication rate (P = .615). Conclusions: Both LM and PAS are effective and safe procedures for the treatment of symptomatic simple renal cysts. A single session of PAS seems to be a cost-effective method for the management of symptomatic simple renal cysts.

Laparoscopic Repair of a Ureterosciatic Hernia with Urosepsis.

Hernias of pelvic floor are very rare condition, and herniations of ureter into sciatic foramen are extremely rare condition which is globally reported only by 32 cases. Clinical aspects of ureterosciatic hernias appeared variously according to the degree of hydronephrosis, inflammation and infection of kidney due to ureter obstruction. Herein, we report our experience of laparoscopic repair in a patient with ureterosciatic hernia combined urosepsis.

A randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre, Phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of GV1001 in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of three dosing schemes of GV1001 in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were men aged ≥50 years, with an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of ≥13, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax ) of 5-15 mL/s, post-void residual urine volume (PVR) of ≤200 mL, and prostate volume of ≥30 mL. After a 4 week run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment schedules: Group 1, GV1001 0.4 mg, 2-week interval; Group 2, GV1001 0.56 mg, 2-week interval; Group 3, GV1001 0.56 mg, 4-week interval) or placebo (Group 4). The eligible patients were administered GV1001 or placebo, for a total of seven intradermal injections that were administered at 2-week intervals at weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Treatment continued for 12 weeks, and efficacy was evaluated at weeks 4, 8, 12, 13, and 16. Safety was evaluated throughout the 16-week period. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline (CFB) in total IPSS. Secondary endpoints were CFB in Qmax , PVR, prostate volume, International Index of Erectile Function score, plasma testosterone level, dihydrotestosterone level, and prostate-specific antigen level. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients were included (Group 1, n = 41; Groups 2-4, n = 40). Most patients (88.8%) received all planned doses of the study treatment. At week 13, a statistically significant difference in the mean CFB in IPSS was seen in GV1001 treatment Groups 1 and 2 vs the control group for the full analysis population (-3.5 [control] vs -7.2 and -6.8 in Groups 1 and 2, respectively; both P < 0.05). There were also statistically significant differences in CFB at weeks 8, 12, 13, and 16 in treatment Groups 1 and 2 vs control in the per-protocol population. There was a statistically significant reduction in prostate gland volume at week 16 vs control in all treatment groups (0.8 [control] vs -4.6, -2.5, and -4.2 mL in Groups 1-3, respectively; all P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences found in other secondary outcome measures. Adverse event (AE) reporting was similar across all four groups. No treatment-emergent AEs were considered to be related to the study drug. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that GV1001 was effective and well tolerated, and may provide potential beneficial effects in patients with BPH. Compared with medical therapies that require daily dosing, the convenient dosing regimen of GV1001 may provide greater patient adherence. Further investigation of these observations will require large-scale clinical evaluation.

Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer in patients aged 75 years or older: comparison with primary androgen deprivation therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether radical prostatetomy (RP) is suitable for prostate cancer patients with age ≥75 years in comparison to primary androgen deprivation therapy (PADT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cohort study was conducted in clinically localized prostate cancer patients with ≥75 years of age who underwent RP or PADT at six institutions from 2005 to 2013. Patients who had less than 12 months of follow-up, or received neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy were excluded. We compared clinical characteristics, cancer-specific and overall survivals, and post-treatment complication rates between two groups. RESULTS: We included 92 and 99 patients in the RP and PADT groups, respectively. In survival analyses, there were no significant differences in cancer-specific and overall survivals (p = .302 and .995, respectively). The incidence of serious adverse events (cardio- or cerebrovascular event, or bone fracture) was higher in the PADT group (p = .001). Multivariable analysis showed that PADT had a worse effect on the serious adverse events (OR 10.12, p = .038). CONCLUSIONS: In selected elderly patients, RP was safe and effective for treatment of localized prostate cancer, as compared to PADT. Surgical treatment options should be considered in elderly patients with respect to life expectancy, rather than chronological age.

Identification of Transcription Factor YY1 as a Regulator of a Prostate Cancer-Specific Pathway Using Proteomic Analysis.

Prostate-specific antigen, a biomarker used to diagnose prostate cancer, exhibits poor sensitivity. Although previous studies have focused on identifying a new diagnostic biomarker, the molecules or networks identified in these studies are also present in other cancers, making it difficult to detect prostate cancer specifically. A unique characteristic of the prostate gland is the increased mitochondrial energy metabolism when normal prostate cells progress to cancer cells. Thus, we attempted to find a prostate cancer-specific signature present in this unique environment. Proteins that were differentially expressed between a prostate cell line and three prostate cancer cell lines were identified using proteomic analysis. Not surprisingly, the most prevalent proteins detected by network analysis of proteins that were up-regulated at least 1.2-fold in cancer cells, compared to that in normal prostate cells, were those involved in mitochondrial energy metabolism. In addition, we showed that Yin Yang 1 (YY1) was a major transcription factor involved in regulating energy metabolism. To determine whether YY1 regulates genes associated with mitochondrial energy metabolism in prostate cells, cells were subjected to quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis in the presence or absence of the YY1 inhibitor NP-001. Notably, inhibition of YY1 resulted in reduced expression of genes related to the Krebs cycle and electron transport chain in prostate cancer cell lines. Based on this finding, we suggest that there is a tumor-specific signature that regulates mitochondrial energy metabolism in prostate cancer cells. This work provides a foundation for further work on identifying a means for the specific diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Comparison of an Indwelling Period Following Ureteroscopic Removal of Stones between Double-J Stents and Open-Ended Catheters: A Prospective, Pilot, Randomized, Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether long-term, postoperative ureteral stenting is necessary after ureteroscopic removal of stones (URS) during an uncomplicated surgical procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively examined 54 patients who underwent URS for lower ureteral stones from February 2010 to October 2010. Inclusion criteria were a stone less than 10 mm in diameter, absence of ureteral stricture, and absence of ureteral injury during surgery. We randomly placed 5 Fr. open-tip ureteral catheters in 26 patients and removed the Foley catheter at postoperative day 1. The remaining 28 patients received double-J stents that were removed at postoperative day 14 by cystoscopy under local anesthesia. All patients provided visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores at postoperative days 1, 7, and 14 and completed the storage categories of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at postoperative day 7. RESULTS: The VAS scores were not significantly different on postoperative day 1 but were significantly smaller in the 1-day ureteral catheter group at postoperative days 7 and 14 (p<0.01). All of the storage categories of the IPSS were significantly lower in the 1-day ureteral stent group (p<0.01). The ratio of patients who needed intravenous analgesics because of severe postoperative flank pain was not significantly different between the two groups (p=0.81). No patients experienced severe flank pain after postoperative day 2, and no patients in either group had any other complications. CONCLUSIONS: One-day ureteral catheter placement after URS can reduce postoperative pain and did not cause specific complications compared with conventional double-J stent placement.