Low-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common malignancy among men and one of the most common neoplasms affecting renal transplant recipients (RTRs). The available treatments for localized PCa among the general population (GP), surgery and external beam radiotherapy, carry a risk of damage to the transplanted kidney, the ureters, and the bladder and therefore tend to be avoided by most groups. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and feasibility of low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) for PCa in RTRs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We carried out a retrospective review on all RTRs diagnosed of PCa who had undergone LDR-BT at our institution between 2000 and 2015. Nine patients met these criteria, but 1 did not fulfill the followup. Hence, we analyzed 8 patients. We reviewed all clinical data for PCa and graft function in these patients and compared the results with the GP. RESULTS: Mean baseline prostate-specific antigen was 6.8 ± 1.9 ng/mL. All PCa had a Gleason score of 6 and were classified as low risk according the Europe Association of Urology guidelines. Mean followup after seed implantation was 48 ± 12.8 months. All 8 patients remain free of prostate-specific antigen failure. Five-year progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival rates were 100%, 100%, and 62.5%. There was no specific toxicity associated with LDR-BT, and there were no acute adverse events affecting the graft. CONCLUSIONS: LDR-BT is a feasible and acceptable treatment for localized PCa in RTRs. Oncological outcomes are similar to the GP, and there is minimal toxicity to the renal graft.

Is the interval from surgery to ileostomy closure a risk factor for low anterior resection syndrome?

AIM: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) comprises a collection of symptoms affecting patients after restorative surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to analyse the incidence of LARS in patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery with and without subsequent ileostomy and to determine whether the interval to ileostomy closure is a factor associated with its occurrence. METHOD: All patients undergoing curative anterior resection for rectal cancer from 2008 to 2012 in our institution were included in the study. They were divided into two groups according to whether or not a defunctioning ileostomy had been performed. Patients were assessed for LARS at a median interval of 23.60 ± 16.73 (12-48) months from anterior resection in those who did not have an ileostomy and at an interval of 11.31 ± 14.24 (12-60) months from closure of the ileostomy in those who did. They underwent a structured telephone interview based on a validated LARS score questionnaire. Univariate and multivariate analysis was carried out to assess possible associations between LARS and the variables studied. RESULTS: There were 150 patients (93 men) of whom 54.7% had no evidence of LARS, 17.3% had minor symptoms and 28% major symptoms of LARS. Univariate analysis showed that male gender, the presence of a temporary ileostomy and neoadjuvant therapy were predisposing factors for LARS. The interval from construction of the ileostomy to its closure did not appear to be a factor associated with LARS. In multivariate analysis, male gender and preoperative neoadjuvant therapy were significant predisposing factors for LARS. CONCLUSION: Male gender and preoperative neoadjuvant therapy are risk factors for LARS. The presence of ileostomy or time to ileostomy closure is not associated with the development of this syndrome.