RESUMO
BACKGROUND: It is known that organ transplant recipients have a significantly higher risk for developing cancers, but the association between immunosuppression in organ transplantation and the risk for prostate cancer (PCa) remains unclear. We aimed to assess the evidence regarding the association of solid organ transplantation with PCa risk. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases was performed up to March 2019. Combined relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using a fixed-effect or random-effect model. RESULTS: In total, 26 articles including 33 independent population-based cohort studies with 556,812 recipients and 2,438 PCa cases were identified and included in this meta-analysis. PCa risk in the solid organ transplant recipients did not increase compared with the general population (RR=1.04; 95% CI: 0.90-1.18). Independent analysis of different kinds of organ replacements further indicated immune inhibition in the transplantation of kidney, liver, heart, and lung, and was not associated with elevated PCa risk (RR=0.89; 95% CI: 0.83-0.95; RR=0.61, 95% CI: 0.21-1.02; RR=1.70, 95% CI: 0.88-2.52; RR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.57-1.16, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that immunosuppression in solid organ transplant recipients was not associated with higher PCa risk.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative, functional and oncologic outcomes of patients with prostate cancer receiving laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) using three-dimensional (3D) versus two-dimensional (2D) imaging systems. METHODS: From February, 2014 to January 2016, 72 consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent LRP with 2D or 3D imaging systems performed by a single experienced surgeon. The baseline characteristics, perioperative data, and functional and oncologic outcomes of the patients were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients underwent 3D LRP and the other 36 patients underwent 2D LRP. Compared with 2D LRP group, 3D LRP group had a significantly shorter operative time (167 vs 218 min, P<0.001), a smaller volume of intraoperative blood loss (86.11 vs 177.78 mL, P<0.001) and a better early urinary continence outcome (88.89% vs 63.89%, P=0.026). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of complications, potency outcome or biochemical recurrence-free rate. CONCLUSION: Compared with 2D LRP, 3D LRP shortens the operative time, reduces intraoperative blood loss and is associated with a better early urinary continence outcome in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.
