Search

Objective: To access the feasibility of palliative cystoprostatectomy/pelvic exenteration in patients with bladder/rectal invasion due to prostate cancer (PC). Patients and methods: Twenty-five men with cT4 PC were retrospectively identified in the institutional databases of six tertiary referral centers in the last decade. Local invasion was documented by CT or MRI scans and was confirmed by urethrocystoscopy. Oncological therapies, local symptoms, previous local treatments, time from diagnosis to intervention and type of surgical procedure were recorded. Patients were divided into groups: ADT group (12 pts) and 13 pts without any history of previous local/systemic treatments for PCa (nonADT groups). Perioperative complications were classified using the Clavien–Dindo system. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from surgery to death from any cause. A Cox regression analysis, stratified for ISUP score and previous hormonal treatment (ADT) was also performed for survival analysis. Results: Ileal conduit was the main urinary diversion in both cohorts. For the entire cohort, complication rate was 44%. No significant differences regarding perioperative complications and complication severity between both subgroups were observed (p = 0.2). Median follow-up was 15 months (range 3–41) for the entire cohort with a median survival of 15 months (95% CI 10.1–19.9). In Cox regression analysis stratified for ISUP score, no statistically significant differences in OS in patients with and without previous ADT before cystectomy or exenteration were observed (HR 3.26, 95% CI 0.62–17.23, p = 0.164). Conclusion: Palliative cystoprostatectomy and pelvic exenteration represent viable treatment options associated with acceptable morbidity and good short-term survival outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Open ureteral reimplantation is considered the standard surgical approach to treat distal ureteral strictures or injuries. These procedures are increasingly performed in a minimally invasive and robotic-assisted manner. Notably, no series comparing perioperative outcomes and safety of the open vs. robotic approach are available so far., Methods: In this retrospective multi-center study, we compared data from 51 robotic ureteral reimplantations (RUR) with 79 open ureteral reimplantations (OUR). Both cohorts were comparatively assessed using different baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes. Moreover, a multivariate logistic regression for independent predictors was performed., Results: Surgery time, length of hospital stay and dwell time of bladder catheter were shorter in the robotic cohort, whereas estimated blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion rate and postoperative complications were lower than in the open cohort. In the multivariate linear regression analysis, robotic approach was an independent predictor for a shorter operation time (coefficient - 0.254, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.342 to - 0.166; p < 0.001), a lower estimated blood loss (coefficient - 0.390, 95% CI - 0.549 to - 0.231, p < 0.001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (coefficient - 0.455, 95% CI - 0.552 to - 0.358, p < 0.001). Moreover, robotic surgery was an independent predictor for a shorter dwell time of bladder catheter (coefficient - 0.210, 95% CI - 0.278 to - 0.142, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: RUR represents a safe alternative to OUR, with a shorter operative time, decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay. Prospective research are needed to further define the extent of the advantages of the robotic approach over open surgery., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Focal therapy (FT) is gaining increasing acceptance in the management of localized prostate cancer particularly due to its favorable safety. Preliminary evidence suggests advantageous utilization of local treatment in the field of oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC). Since data on the utilization of FT in OMPC are scarce, we sought to summarize available evidence., Methods: For this narrative comprehensive review, we employed PubMed ® , Web of Science™, Embase ® , Scopus ® , and clinicaltrial.gov databases and Google web search engine to seek peer-reviewed articles, published abstracts from international congresses, and ongoing trials in the English language using the terms "prostate cancer", "oligometastatic", "hormone-sensitive", "focal therapy", "focal treatment", "cryotherapy", "ablation", "cancer" as well as "metastasis-directed therapy. We focused on relevant publications on FT utilized in OMPC targeting the primary or metastatic sites as well as completed and ongoing clinical trials., Results: Growing evidence points to distinct differences in the biologic behavior and molecular signaling processes of OMPC as compared to polymetastatic disease (PMPC). No established biomarkers are available to accurately identify OMPC yet, while several candidates are currently under investigation. The evolution of molecular imaging is set to aid in selecting patients benefitting most from local management. Differences between OMPC and PMPC should be considered when designing the optimal therapeutic strategy. While efficacy data for FT in comparison to standard care in OMPC are scarce, longer progression-free survival and time to castration resistance have been demonstrated for bone metastatic prostate cancer with the primary tumor treated by cryosurgery followed by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared to ADT alone., Conclusion: Ongoing research efforts are eagerly awaited to better characterize OMPC and establish customized strategies for patients with this condition., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)