Urinary Symptoms Change and Quality of Life After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To present the patient-reported quality of life (QoL) outcomes from a prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing the use of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and duloxetine after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: We identified 213 men with organ-confined disease having post-RARP urinary incontinence who were randomly assigned to received PFMT, duloxetine, combined PFMT-duloxetine and pelvic floor muscle home exercises. Urinary symptoms burden was measured by marked clinical important difference improvement (MCID) defined by using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) difference of - 8 points (ΔIPSS ≤-8). QoL was assessed according to Visual Analog Scale (VAS), King's Health Questionnaire (KQH), and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5). Multivariable regression analyses aimed to predict MCID, burden of urinary symptoms (IPSS ≥8), and patients reporting to be satisfied (IPSS QoL ≤2) or comfortable (VAS ≤1) post-RARP. RESULTS: Moderate to severe urinary symptoms decreased from 48% preoperatively to 40%, 34%, and 23% at 3, 6, and 12months post-RARP. After surgery, MCID improvement was observed in 19% of patients, and deterioration in 3.3%. Large prostate was the only factor associated to MCID (OR 1.03 [95%CI 1.01-1.05], P = .005). At 6months, patients reached the same degree of preoperative satisfaction. Neurovascular bundle preservation was the only predictor of being comfortable regarding urinary symptoms postoperatively (OR 12.8 [CI95% 1.47-111.7], P = .02 at 3months) and was also associated to higher median postoperative IIEF-5. CONCLUSION: Despite urinary incontinence following RARP, patients with larger prostates experience a reduction of lower urinary tract symptoms within a year, which subsequently elevates QoL. Furthermore, nerve-sparing surgery augments erectile function and urinary outcomes, shaping postoperative QoL.

Does mpMRI guidance improve HIFU partial gland ablation compared to conventional ultrasound guidance? Early functional outcomes and complications from a single center

ABSTRACT Background Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is raising interest. New technological mpMRI-US guided FT devices have never been compared with the previous generation of ultrasound-only guided devices. Materials and Methods We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data of men undergoing FT for localized low- or intermediate-risk PCa with US- (Ablatherm®-2009 to 2014) or mpMRI-US (Focal One®-from 2014) guided HIFU. Follow-up visits and data were collected using internationally validated questionnaires at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months. Results We included n=88 US-guided FT HIFU and n=52 mpMRI-US guided FT HIFU respectively. No major baseline differences were present except higher rates of Gleason 3+4 for the mpMRI-US group. No major differences were present in hospital stay (p=0.1), catheterization time (p=0.5) and complications (p=0.2) although these tended to be lower in the mpMRI-US group (6.8% versus 13.2% US FT group). At 3 months mpMRI-US guided HIFU had significantly lower urine leak (5.1% vs. 15.9%, p=0.04) and a lower drop in IIEF scores (2 vs. 4.2, p=0.07). Of those undergoing 12-months control biopsy in the mpMRI-US-guided HIFU group, 26% had residual cancer in the treated lobe. Conclusion HIFU FT guided by MRI-US fusion may allow improved functional outcomes and fewer complications compared to US- guided HIFU FT alone. Further analysis is needed to confirm benefits of mpMRI implementation at a longer follow-up and on a larger cohort of patients.

Does mpMRI guidance improve HIFU partial gland ablation compared to conventional ultrasound guidance? Early functional outcomes and complications from a single center.

BACKGROUND: Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is raising interest. New technological mpMRI-US guided FT devices have never been compared with the previous generation of ultrasound-only guided devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data of men undergoing FT for localized low- or intermediate-risk PCa with US- (Ablatherm®-2009 to 2014) or mpMRI-US (Focal One®-from 2014) guided HIFU. Follow-up visits and data were collected using internationally validated questionnaires at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: We included n=88 US-guided FT HIFU and n=52 mpMRI-US guided FT HIFU respectively. No major baseline differences were present except higher rates of Gleason 3+4 for the mpMRI-US group. No major differences were present in hospital stay (p=0.1), catheterization time (p=0.5) and complications (p=0.2) although these tended to be lower in the mpMRI-US group (6.8% versus 13.2% US FT group). At 3 months mpMRI-US guided HIFU had significantly lower urine leak (5.1% vs. 15.9%, p=0.04) and a lower drop in IIEF scores (2 vs. 4.2, p=0.07). Of those undergoing 12-months control biopsy in the mpMRI-US-guided HIFU group, 26% had residual cancer in the treated lobe. CONCLUSION: HIFU FT guided by MRI-US fusion may allow improved functional outcomes and fewer complications compared to US- guided HIFU FT alone. Further analysis is needed to confirm benefits of mpMRI implementation at a longer follow-up and on a larger cohort of patients.