[Musculoskeletal disorders among urologists-is there an association with open pelvic surgery? : Results of a national survey]. / Muskuloskelettale Erkrankungen bei Operateuren in der Urologie ­ besteht ein Zusammenhang mit der offenen Beckenchirurgie? : Ergebnisse einer nationalen Erhebung.

BACKGROUND: In urology, the health implications of open pelvic surgery (OPS) on the patient have been the subject of numerous studies. However, health effects on the surgeon have not yet been sufficiently considered. The present study investigates the relationship between musculoskeletal disorders in urological surgeons and their activity in OPS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the point of view of occupational physiology, exemplary operations in OPS were examined using the key indicator method (KIM). In addition, a web-based survey among German clinicians was carried out. From the collected variables, models for the prediction of the endpoints pain and disc herniation (DH) were generated by multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Risk assessment of the operations with KIM could show that OPS presents a significantly increased physical workload and thus potential physical overstraining. Of the 605 participants in the survey, 35.4% were urologists performing OPS, 32.0% were urologists not performing OPS and 32.6% were gastroenterologists (control groups). Activity in OPS had an odds ratio (OR) of 1.09 (confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-1.66, p = 0.69) for predicting pain, and an OR of 1.14 for prediction of DH CI: 0.66-1.94; p = 0.64). Statistically significant factors influencing the perception of pain were BMI, gender and work ability index (WAI), whereas age and WAI were significant for the occurrence of DH. CONCLUSION: Our survey could not show that surgeons practicing OPS have a significantly increased rate of musculoskeletal disorders or, in particular, an increased rate of DH in comparison to the control groups. Nevertheless, the rate of reported complaints among all clinicians surveyed is high, and the random risk assessment of the examplary OPS operations could also demonstrate the risk of physical overstraining. Further considerations should therefore be made as to how reduce the strain on the musculoskeletal system.

68Ga-PSMA PET/CT based primary staging and histological correlation after extended pelvic lymph node dissection at radical prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PSMA PET/CT) represents the upcoming standard for the staging of prostate cancer (PCa). However, there is still an unmet need for the validation of PSMA PET/CT at primary staging and consecutive histological correlation. Consequently, we decided to analyze the prediction parameter of PSMA PET/CT at primary staging. METHODS: We relied on 90 ≥ intermediate-risk PCa patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. All patients were administered to 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT prior to surgery. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT data were retrospectively reevaluated by a single radiologist and consequently compared to histological results from RP. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for the detection of lymph node metastases were analyzed per-patient (n = 90), per-pelvic side (n = 180), and per-anatomic-region (external iliac artery and vein left/right vs. obturator fossa left/right vs. internal iliac artery left/right) (n = 458), respectively. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV per-patient were: 43.8, 96.0, 70.0, and 88.8%, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV per-pelvic-side were: 42.9, 95.6, 56.3, and 92.7%, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV per-anatomic-region were: 47.6, 98.9, 66.7, and 97.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Negative 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT results were highly reliable in our study. Positive 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT results, however, revealed less reliable results. Larger and ideally prospective trials are justified to clarify the potential role of PSMA PET/CT based primary staging.

[Docetaxel or abiraterone in combination with androgen deprivation therapy for metastatic prostate cancer]. / Einsatz von Docetaxel oder Abirateron in Kombination mit einer Androgendeprivationstherapie beim metastasierten hormonnaiven Prostatakarzinom.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone has long been the standard of care in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (mCSPC). A paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with mCSPC has now been initiated by the results of three major phase 3 clinical trials (CHAARTED, STAMPEDE, LATITUDE): They demonstrated a significant advantage of ADT in combination with docetaxel or abiraterone/prednisone over ADT alone. OBJECTIVES: This review presents the current evidence for the use of docetaxel or abiraterone/prednisone in combination with ADT and discusses-in the absence of directly comparing studies-which patients may have an advantage of ADT plus abiraterone/prednisone over ADT plus docetaxel or vice versa. METHODS: A systematic review based on bibliographic literature search was conducted. RESULTS: Both the combinations of ADT with docetaxel and with abiraterone/prednisone represent a major advance in the treatment of patients with mCSPC, in particular of patients with multiple metastases. Compared to chemotherapy, the use of abiraterone in addition to ADT avoids (rare) neutropenic complications and treatment-associated deaths. Long-term oral treatment with abiraterone/prednisone as a complementary therapy to ADT replaces short-term intravenous treatment (docetaxel). CONCLUSION: In patients with mCSPC, ADT plus docetaxel or ADT plus abiraterone/prednisone is recommended. In particular in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, ADT should be considered with a GnRH (gonadotropin-releasing hormone) antagonist to reduce the risk of cardiotoxic side effects.

Obesity paradox in prostate cancer: increased body mass index was associated with decreased risk of metastases after surgery in 13,667 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity might negatively affect prostate cancer (PCa) outcomes. However, evidence according to the associations between obesity and metastases-free survival after radical prostatectomy (RP) is still inconsistent. METHODS: We relied on PCa patients treated with RP at the Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center between 2004 and 2015. First, multivariable Cox regression analyses examined the impact of obesity on metastases after RP. Last, in a propensity score matched cohort, Kaplan-Meier analyses assessed metastases-free survival according to body mass index (kg/m2) (BMI) strata (≥ 30 vs. < 25). RESULTS: Of 13,667 individuals, 1990 (14.6%) men were obese (BMI ≥ 30). Median follow-up was 36.4 month (IQR 13.3-60.8). Obese patients were less likely to exhibit metastases after RP (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.97, p = 0.03). Similarly, after propensity score adjustment, obesity was associated with increased metastases-free survival (log rank p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: We recorded the obesity paradox phenomenon in PCa patients. In particular, high BMI (≥ 30) was associated with decreased risk of metastases after RP, despite an increased risk being anticipated. Whether statin use might have affected the results was not assessed. Further research is needed to unravel the controversially debated association between obesity and PCa.