Thulium fiber laser vs. holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: results of a prospective randomized non-inferiority trial.

PURPOSE: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) represents the current standard procedure for size-independent surgical therapy of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). With advent of the novel laser technology thulium fiber laser (TFL), we hypothesized that the functional outcome of TFL enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) is non-inferior compared to HoLEP. METHODS: From October 2021 to October 2022, 150 patients with BPO were recruited for the prospective randomized trial in accordance with CONSORT. Stratified randomization into the arms ThuFLEP (n = 74) or HoLEP (n = 76) was carried out. The primary endpoint was non-inferior international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) at three months after treatment. Secondary endpoints were rates of complications, peak flow, residual urine and operation times. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics showed no significant differences. Overall IPSS and QoL improved from 21 to 8 and 4 to 1.5, respectively, after three months of follow-up. No statistically significant differences between ThuFLEP and HoLEP were observed regarding median postoperative IPSS (8.5 vs. 7, p > 0.9), QoL (1 vs. 2, p = 0.6), residual urine (48 vs. 30ml, p = 0.065) and peak flow (19 vs. 17ml/s, p > 0.9). Similarly, safety profile was comparable with no statistically significant differences regarding rate of major complications (5.3 vs. 5.4%, p = 0.5), laser hemostasis time (3 vs. 2min, p = 0.2), use of additive electric coagulation (74 vs. 87%, p = 0.06) or electric coagulation time (8 vs. 8min, p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, randomized trial ThuFLEP showed non-inferior results compared to HoLEP in terms of functional outcomes measured by IPSS and QoL as primary endpoint. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00032699 (18.09.2023, retrospectively registered).

Concordance between Preoperative mpMRI and Pathological Stage and Its Influence on Nerve-Sparing Surgery in Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the concordance between the radiologic stage (rT), using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), and pathologic stage (pT) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer and its influence on nerve-sparing surgery compared to the use of the intraoperative frozen section technique (IFST). METHODS: The concordance between rT and pT and the rates of nerve-sparing surgery and positive surgical margin were assessed for patients with high-risk prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: The concordance between the rT and pT stages was shown in 66.4% (n = 77) of patients with clinical high-risk prostate cancer. The detection of patients with extraprostatic disease (≥pT3) by preoperative mpMRI showed a sensitivity, negative predictive value and accuracy of 65.1%, 51.7% and 67.5%. In addition to the suspicion of extraprostatic disease in mpMRI (≥rT3), 84.5% (n = 56) of patients with ≥rT3 underwent primary nerve-sparing surgery with IFST, resulting in 94.7% (n = 54) of men with at least unilateral nerve-sparing surgery after secondary resection with a positive surgical margin rate related to an IFST of 1.8% (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Patients with rT3 should not be immediately excluded from nerve-sparing surgery, as by using IFST some of these patients can safely undergo nerve-sparing surgery.

Influence of Biopsy Gleason Score on the Risk of Lymph Node Invasion in Patients With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy.

Objective: To analyze the influence of biopsy Gleason score on the risk for lymph node invasion (LNI) during pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 684 patients, who underwent RP between 2014 and June 2020 due to PCa. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression, as well as binary regression tree models were used to assess the risk of positive LNI and evaluate the need of PLND in men with intermediate-risk PCa. Results: Of the 672 eligible patients with RP, 80 (11.9%) men harbored low-risk, 32 (4.8%) intermediate-risk with international society of urologic pathologists grade (ISUP) 1 (IR-ISUP1), 215 (32.0%) intermediate-risk with ISUP 2 (IR-ISUP2), 99 (14.7%) intermediate-risk with ISUP 3 (IR-ISUP3), and 246 (36.6%) high-risk PCa. Proportions of LNI were 0, 3.1, 3.7, 5.1, and 24.0% for low-risk, IR-ISUP1, IR-ISUP 2, IR-ISUP-3, and high-risk PCa, respectively (p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, after adjustment for patient and surgical characteristics, IR-ISUP1 [hazard ratio (HR) 0.10, p = 0.03], IR-ISUP2 (HR 0.09, p < 0.001), and IR-ISUP3 (HR 0.18, p < 0.001) were independent predictors for lower risk of LNI, compared with men with high-risk PCa disease. Conclusions: The international society of urologic pathologists grade significantly influence the risk of LNI in patients with intermediate- risk PCa. The risk of LNI only exceeds 5% in men with IR-ISUP3 PCa. In consequence, the need for PLND in selected patients with IR-ISUP 1 or IR-ISUP2 PCa should be critically discussed.

Immunohistochemistry for Prostate Biopsy-Impact on Histological Prostate Cancer Diagnoses and Clinical Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: To test the value of immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining in prostate biopsies for changes in biopsy results and its impact on treatment decision-making. METHODS: Between January 2017-June 2020, all patients undergoing prostate biopsies were identified and evaluated regarding additional IHC staining for diagnostic purpose. Final pathologic results after radical prostatectomy (RP) were analyzed regarding the effect of IHC at biopsy. RESULTS: Of 606 biopsies, 350 (58.7%) received additional IHC staining. Of those, prostate cancer (PCa) was found in 208 patients (59.4%); while in 142 patients (40.6%), PCa could be ruled out through IHC. IHC patients harbored significantly more often Gleason 6 in biopsy (p < 0.01) and less suspicious baseline characteristics than patients without IHC. Of 185 patients with positive IHC and PCa detection, IHC led to a change in biopsy results in 81 (43.8%) patients. Of these patients with changes in biopsy results due to IHC, 42 (51.9%) underwent RP with 59.5% harboring ≥pT3 and/or Gleason 7-10. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IHC stains had less suspicious characteristics than patients without IHC. Moreover, in patients with positive IHC and PCa detection, a change in biopsy results was observed in >40%. Patients with changes in biopsy results partly underwent RP, in which 60% harbored significant PCa.

Monoprophylaxis With Cephalosporins for Transrectal Prostate Biopsy After the Fluoroquinolone-Era: A Multi-Institutional Comparison of Severe Infectious Complications.

BACKGROUND: To compare severe infectious complication rates after transrectal prostate biopsies between cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones for antibiotic monoprophylaxis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the multi-institutional cohort, between November 2014 and July 2020 patients received either cefotaxime (single dose intravenously), cefpodoxime (multiple doses orally) or fluoroquinolones (multiple-doses orally or single dose intravenously) for transrectal prostate biopsy prophylaxis. Data were prospectively acquired and retrospectively analyzed. Severe infectious complications were evaluated within 30 days after biopsy. Logistic regression models predicted biopsy-related infectious complications according to antibiotic prophylaxis, application type and patient- and procedure-related risk factors. RESULTS: Of 793 patients, 132 (16.6%) received a single dose of intravenous cefotaxime and were compared to 119 (15%) who received multiple doses of oral cefpodoxime and 542 (68.3%) who received fluoroquinolones as monoprophylaxis. The overall incidence of severe infectious complications was 1.0% (n=8). No significant differences were observed between the three compared groups (0.8% vs. 0.8% vs. 1.1%, p=0.9). The overall rate of urosepsis was 0.3% and did not significantly differ between the three compared groups as well. CONCLUSION: Monoprophylaxis with third generation cephalosporins was efficient in preventing severe infectious complications after prostate biopsy. Single intravenous dose of cefotaxime and multiday regimen of oral cefpodoxime showed a low incidence of infectious complications <1%. No differences were observed in comparison to fluoroquinolones.

Multiparametric MRI may Help to Identify Patients With Prostate Cancer in a Contemporary Cohort of Patients With Clinical Bladder Outlet Obstruction Scheduled for Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP).

Objective: To investigate the value of standard [digital rectal examination (DRE), PSA] and advanced (mpMRI, prostate biopsy) clinical evaluation for prostate cancer (PCa) detection in contemporary patients with clinical bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) scheduled for Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). Material and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 397 patients, who were referred to our tertiary care laser center for HoLEP due to BOO between 11/2017 and 07/2020. Of those, 83 (20.7%) underwent further advanced clinical PCa evaluation with mpMRI and/or prostate biopsy due to elevated PSA and/or lowered PSA ratio and/or suspicious DRE. Logistic regression and binary regression tree models were applied to identify PCa in BOO patients. Results: An mpMRI was conducted in 56 (66%) of 83 patients and revealed PIRADS 4/5 lesions in 14 (25%) patients. Subsequently, a combined systematic randomized and MRI-fusion biopsy was performed in 19 (23%) patients and revealed in PCa detection in four patients (5%). A randomized prostate biopsy was performed in 31 (37%) patients and revealed in PCa detection in three patients (4%). All seven patients (9%) with PCa detection underwent radical prostatectomy with 29% exhibiting non-organ confined disease. Incidental PCa after HoLEP (n = 76) was found in nine patients (12%) with advanced clinical PCa evaluation preoperatively. In univariable logistic regression analyses, PSA, fPSA ratio, and PSA density failed to identify patients with PCa detection. Conversely, patients with a lower International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and PIRADs 4/5 lesion in mpMRI were at higher risk for PCa detection. In multivariable adjusted analyses, PIRADS 4/5 lesions were confirmed as an independent risk factor (OR 9.91, p = 0.04), while IPSS did not reach significance (p = 0.052). Conclusion: In advanced clinical PCa evaluation mpMRI should be considered in patients with elevated total PSA or low fPSA ratio scheduled for BOO treatment with HoLEP. Patients with low IPSS or PIRADS 4/5 lesions in mpMRI are at highest risk for PCa detection. In patients with a history of two or more sets of negative prostate biopsies, advanced clinical PCa evaluation might be omitted.

Effect of prostatic apex shape (Lee types) and urethral sphincter length in preoperative MRI on very early continence rates after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To test the effect of anatomic variants of the prostatic apex overlapping the membranous urethra (Lee type classification), as well as median urethral sphincter length (USL) in preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) on the very early continence in open (ORP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) patients. METHODS: In 128 consecutive patients (01/2018-12/2019), USL and the prostatic apex classified according to Lee types A-D in mpMRI prior to ORP or RARP were retrospectively analyzed. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify anatomic characteristics for very early continence rates, defined as urine loss of ≤ 1 g in the PAD-test. RESULTS: Of 128 patients with mpMRI prior to surgery, 76 (59.4%) underwent RARP vs. 52 (40.6%) ORP. In total, median USL was 15, 15 and 10 mm in the sagittal, coronal and axial dimensions. After stratification according to very early continence in the PAD-test (≤ 1 g vs. > 1 g), continent patients had significantly more frequently Lee type D (71.4 vs. 54.4%) and C (14.3 vs. 7.6%, p = 0.03). In multivariable logistic regression models, the sagittal median USL (odds ratio [OR] 1.03) and Lee type C (OR: 7.0) and D (OR: 4.9) were independent predictors for achieving very early continence in the PAD-test. CONCLUSION: Patients' individual anatomical characteristics in mpMRI prior to radical prostatectomy can be used to predict very early continence. Lee type C and D suggest being the most favorable anatomical characteristics. Moreover, longer sagittal median USL in mpMRI seems to improve very early continence rates.

Comparison of Complication Rates with Antibiotic Prophylaxis with Cefpodoxime Versus Fluoroquinolones After Transrectal Prostate Biopsy.

BACKGROUND: After recommended restriction of the use of fluoroquinolones, the optimal antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy is still under debate. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of cefpodoxime as oral antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsies and the complication rates relative to fluoroquinolones. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsies at the Department of Urology at University Hospital Frankfurt was fluoroquinolones for 342 consecutive patients in January 2018 and December 2019 and cefpodoxime for 100 patients from January 2020 to July 2020. Data were prospectively evaluated and retrospectively analyzed. Patients were followed up according to clinical routine at 6 wk after biopsy at the earliest. Patients without follow-up (n = 98) and those receiving antibiotic prophylaxis other than cefpodoxime or fluoroquinolones (n = 15) were excluded. INTERVENTION: Use of cefpodoxime or fluoroquinolones as antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsies. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Logistic regression models were used to predict biopsy-related complications according to antibiotic prophylaxis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 442 patients, 100 (22.6%) received cefpodoxime as antibiotic prophylaxis. Patient baseline and biopsy characteristics were comparable between the cefpodoxime and fluoroquinolone groups. Moreover, there were no differences in the number of prior prostate biopsies or the proportions of systematic vs. fusion biopsies (p > 0.05). There were no differences between the groups in infectious complications such as epididymitis and prostatitis after biopsy. Infectious complication rates were very low, at 2.0% in the cefpodoxime and0.9%fluoroquinolone group. Moreover, there were no differences between the groups in patient-reported complications, such as gross hematuria occurring at more than 5 d after biopsy, hematospermia, or rectal bleeding. In multivariable analyses, after adjustment for patient and prostate biopsy characteristics, cefpodoxime was not associated with higher complication rates than fluoroquinolones (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Complications after transrectal prostate biopsies are rare and cefpodoxime might be a sufficient choice as oral antibiotic prophylaxis and noninferior compared to fluoroquinolones. PATIENT SUMMARY: Cefpodoxime might be a sufficient choice as an easily applicable oral antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. The safety profile of cefpodoxime is comparable to the safety profile of fluoroquinolones.

Acceptance, Indications and Chances of Focal Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Real-World Perspective of Urologists in Germany.

Purpose: Focal therapy (FT) became a frequently discussed treatment strategy of localized prostate cancer (PCa), but the acceptance and evaluation of FT by practicing urologists are still unclear. Methods: A 25-item anonymized online questionnaire (SurveyMonkey®) was compiled by the German Society of Residents in Urology Academics Prostate Cancer Working Group and sent to the members of the German association of Urology. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine parameters for suggestion FT. Results: Two hundred ten urologists (median age 49 years) participated, from which 72% stated PCa as their main treatment focus. Ninety-nine percent of urologists were aware of and 54% wanted to improve their knowledge about FT. Sixty-five percent do not treat PCa with FT. FT is seen as an alternative to active surveillance and radiotherapy/radical prostatectomy by 66% and 37%, respectively. Regarding FT treatment strategies, 35% and 45% would treat all or all significant PCa foci, respectively, whereas 19% would treat mainly the index foci. Currently, 27% believe that FT will be an option as standard treatment in future, but 48% would not suggest FT to their patients, owing to an absence of evidence and insufficient diagnostic tools for proper patient selection today. Suggesting FT to patients is associated with self-performing FT (odds ratio [OR] 2.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-6.31) and believing in FT as a standard treatment in future (OR 9.05, 95% CI 6.68-22.30) (both p < 0.01). Conclusion: FT has currently no wide acceptance in German practicing urologists, mainly attributable to an absence of evidence for FT superiority compared to standard treatments.

Catheter Management and Risk Stratification of Patients With in Inpatient Treatment Due to Acute Epididymitis.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate catheter management in acute epididymitis (AE) patients requiring inpatient treatment and risk factors predicting severity of disease. Material and Methods: Patients with diagnosed AE and inpatient treatment between 2004 and 2019 at the University Hospital Frankfurt were analyzed. A risk score, rating severity of AE, including residual urine > 100 ml, fever > 38.0°C, C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/dl, and white blood count (WBC) > 10/nl was introduced. Results: Of 334 patients, 107 (32%) received a catheter (transurethral (TC): n = 53, 16%, suprapubic (SPC): n = 54, 16%). Catheter patients were older, exhibited more comorbidities, and had higher CRP and WBC compared with the non-catheter group (NC). Median length of stay (LOS) was longer in the catheter group (7 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001), whereas necessity of abscess surgery and recurrent epididymitis did not differ. No differences in those parameters were recorded between TC and SPC. According to our established risk score, 147 (44%) patients exhibited 0-1 (low-risk) and 187 (56%) 2-4 risk factors (high-risk). In the high-risk group, patients received a catheter significantly more often than with low-risk (TC: 22 vs. 9%; SPC: 19 vs. 12%, both p ≤ 0.01). Catheter or high-risk patients exhibited positive urine cultures more frequently than NC or low-risk patients. LOS was comparable between high-risk patients with catheter and low-risk NC patients. Conclusion: Patients with AE who received a catheter at admission were older, multimorbid, and exhibited more severe symptoms of disease compared with the NC patients. A protective effect of catheters might be attributable to patients with adverse risk constellations or high burden of comorbidities. The introduced risk score indicates a possibility for risk stratification.

The Effect of Adverse Patient Characteristics on Perioperative Outcomes in Open and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Objective: To analyze the effect of adverse preoperative patient and tumor characteristics on perioperative outcomes of open (ORP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Material and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 656 patients who underwent ORP or RARP according to intraoperative blood loss (BL), operation time (OR time), neurovascular bundle preservation (NVBP) and positive surgical margins (PSM). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors for impaired perioperative outcomes. Results: Of all included 619 patients, median age was 66 years. BMI (<25 vs. 25-30 vs. ≥30) had no influence on blood loss. Prostate size >40cc recorded increased BL compared to prostate size ≤ 40cc in patients undergoing ORP (800 vs. 1200 ml, p < 0.001), but not in patients undergoing RARP (300 vs. 300 ml, p = 0.2). Similarly, longer OR time was observed for ORP in prostates >40cc, but not for RARP. Overweight (BMI 25-30) and obese ORP patients (BMI ≥30) showed longer OR time compared to normal weight (BMI <25). Only obese patients, who underwent RARP showed longer OR time compared to normal weight. NVBP was less frequent in obese patients, who underwent ORP, relative to normal weight (25.8% vs. 14.0%, p < 0.01). BMI did not affect NVPB at RARP. No differences in PSM were recorded according to prostate volume or BMI in ORP or RARP. In multivariable analyses, patient characteristics such as prostate volume and BMI was an independent predictor for prolonged OR time. Moreover, tumor characteristics (stage and grade) predicted worse perioperative outcome. Conclusion: Patients with larger prostates and obese patients undergoing ORP are at risk of higher BL, OR time or non-nervesparing procedure. Conversely, in patients undergoing RARP only obesity is associated with increased OR time. Patients with larger prostates or increased BMI might benefit most from RARP compared to ORP.