Predictors of short-term recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate treatment variables for early urinary continence status 6 weeks following radical prostatectomy. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, 4,028 consecutive patients underwent open radical retropubic (RRP) or robot-assisted transperitoneal prostatectomy (RARP) at a single academic institution (07/2003-07/2013). After discharge, patients were offered 3-week treatment in a rehabilitation facility. Patients who opted for rehabilitation (n = 2,998, 74.4%) represent our study cohort. Exclusion criteria were acute urinary retention after catheter removal (n = 55, 1.4%), incomplete datasets (n = 50, 1.2%) or refusal of rehabilitation (n = 925, 23.0%). Results of urinary continence were evaluated from final rehabilitation reports. Twenty-two clinical and oncological variables were statistically analysed in uni- and multivariable analyses to determine whether they were associated with early urinary continence status six weeks after radical prostatectomy. Odds ratios and 95% CI as well as p values were calculated. A p level of 0.05 was considered as significant. RESULTS: Six weeks after surgery, 1,962 (65.4%) patients were continent (≤1 pad/day) and 1,036 (34.6%) patients were considered incontinent. Age, clinical stage, PSA, ASA score, prior TURP, seminal vesicle invasion, Gleason score, nerve-sparing status, intraoperative blood loss, catheterisation time, OR time, surgical caseload >1,000 and the surgeon were associated with continence status on univariable analysis (p < 0.05). On multivariable analysis, nerve-sparing procedure (NS), clinical stage, individual surgeon, patient age, surgical procedure (RARP vs. RRP) and duration of catheterisation were independent predictors (p < 0.05) of incontinence status. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies that can ensure NS procedures and early catheter removal should be applied to enable early recovery of urinary continence.

Comprehensive report on prostate cancer misclassification by 16 currently used low-risk and active surveillance criteria.

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Prostate cancer characterisation, based on laboratory findings, clinical examination and histopathological cancer features that are used to define selection criteria for AS, is not ideal. Consequently, a panel of strict or more lenient criteria to select patients for AS have been published. Studies investigating the relationship between pretreatment variables and final pathology have been done in the past showing the risk of cancer misclassification for some criteria. No study has presented an overview of cancer selection using a panel of 16 currently used AS criteria that is presented in the present study. In an exactly defined cohort after radical prostatectomy, each set of criteria was used as a diagnostic test to separate between patients with more favourable (pT2, no Gleason upgrade between biopsy grading and final pathology) and unfavourable cancer features (pT3, pN+, Gleason upgrade). To the best of our knowledge a comparison of test quality criteria for AS criteria given by sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and likelihood ratio has not yet been reported. Moreover, we showed that tumour characterisation, by a formally sufficient 12-core biopsy, in the present dataset harboured a risk of ≈20% that unfavourable cancer features were missed regardless of whether strict or more lenient selection criteria for AS were chosen. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate final histopathological features among men diagnosed with prostate cancer eligible for low-risk (LR) or active surveillance (AS) criteria. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective application of 16 definitions for AS or LR prostate cancer to a contemporary (January 2008 to March 2011) open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) series of 1745 patients. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: neoadjuvant hormones, radiotherapy, inadequate histopathological reports, <10 biopsy cores. Report on the number of men with insignificant tumours (defined as: ≤pT2, Gleason score ≤6, tumour volume <0.5 mL) and men who had unfavourable tumour characteristics on final pathology (defined as: extracapsular extension or seminal vesicle invasion or lymph node metastasis or Gleason upgrading). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated. RESULTS: Eligibility of patients in the final study cohort (n = 1070) varied from 5.1% to 92.7% depending on the AS or LR criteria used. Final pathology revealed 77 insignificant cancers and 578 patients who had unfavourable histopathological criteria. The detection rate for insignificant cancers on final pathology was variable ranging from 7.8% to 28.3% depending on the AS- or LR-prediction tool used; unfavourable tumour characteristics were found in up to 33.5% on final pathology. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 8.5-97.9%, 24.7-97.8%, 67.7-89.1% and 45.3-78.2%, respectively. The likelihood ratio to correctly identify a patient with LR disease on final pathology ranged from 1.3 to 8. CONCLUSIONS: AS or LR criteria have a significant risk of cancer misclassification. Better prediction tools are needed to improve these criteria. Re-biopsy might improve safety and should be considered more frequently in patients who opt for AS.

Open radical retropubic prostatectomy gives favourable surgical and functional outcomes after transurethral resection of the prostate.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the peri- and postoperative outcome of patients treated with open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) for prostate cancer and who had previously undergone transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively collected data from a consecutive series of 1760 patients who had RRP between July 2003 and June 2007 at our institution were used to retrospectively match 62 cases (with previous TURP) with the same number of controls (without previous TURP). Matching variables were patient age, body mass index, prostate volume, preoperative total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, pathological stage, and intraoperative nerve-sparing procedure. Complete 1-year follow-up data were available for all patients. All collected data on surgery and perioperative complications were analysed. Functional outcome data at the 1-year follow-up were evaluated by applying an institutional questionnaire. Sexual function was assessed using the abbreviated International Index of Erectile Function-5 questionnaire, and urinary control was evaluated by defining complete urinary control as no pad usage. RESULTS: The rate of complete urinary control rate in cases and controls was similar (81% vs 82%). When nerves were spared, 60% (15/25) of patients in either group were capable of sexual intercourse. The overall positive surgical margin rate was insignificantly higher in cases (19% vs 13, P>0.05). After 1 year of follow-up the biochemical recurrence rate (PSA>0.04 ng/mL) did not differ significantly in patients who had RRP after TURP vs RRP alone (six of 62, 10%, vs five of 62, 8%; P=0.77). CONCLUSIONS: RRP for prostate cancer in patients who have had previous TURP does not result in a higher perioperative complication rate, or a worse functional outcome.