Search

Purpose: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common oncologic disease among men. Radical treatment with curative intent provides good oncological results for PCa survivors, although definitive therapy is associated with significant number of serious side-effects. In modern-era of medicine tissue-sparing techniques, such as focal HIFU, have been proposed for PCa patients in order to provide cancer control equivalent to the standard-of-care procedures while reducing morbidities and complications. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the available evidence about focal HIFU therapy as a primary treatment for localized PCa. Material and methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of focal HIFU therapy in the MEDLINE database (PROSPERO: CRD42021235581). Articles published in the English language between 2010 and 2020 with more than 50 patients were included. Results: Clinically significant in-field recurrence and out-of-field progression were detected to 22% and 29% PCa patients, respectively. Higher ISUP grade group, more positive cores at biopsy and bilateral disease were identified as the main risk factors for disease recurrence. The most common strategy for recurrence management was definitive therapy. Six months after focal HIFU therapy 98% of patients were totally continent and 80% of patients retained sufficient erections for sexual intercourse. The majority of complications presented in the early postoperative period and were classified as low-grade. Conclusions: This review highlights that focal HIFU therapy appears to be a safe procedure, while short-term cancer control rate is encouraging. Though, second-line treatment or active surveillance seems to be necessary in a significant number of patients.

Background: Non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC) has seen important developments in drugs and diagnostic tools in the last two years. New hormonal agents have demonstrated improvement in metastasis free survival in M0 CRPC patients and have been approved by regulatory agencies in Brazil. Additionally, newer and more sensitive imaging tools are able to detect metastasis earlier than before, which will impact the percentage of patients staged as M0 CRPC. Based on the available international guidelines, a group of Brazilian urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on the diagnosis and treatment of M0 CRPC in Brazil. These results are reviewed and summarized and associated recommendations are provided. Objective: To present survey results on management of M0 CRPC in Brazil. Design, setting, and participants: A panel of six Brazilian prostate cancer experts determined 64 questions concerning the main areas of interest: 1) staging tools, 2) treatments, 3) side effects of systemic treatment/s, and 4) osteoclast-targeted therapy. A larger panel of 28 Brazilian prostate cancer experts answered these questions in order to create country-specific recommendations discussed in this manuscript. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. These answers are the panelists' opinions, not a literature review or meta-analysis. Therapies not yet approved in Brazil were excluded from answer options. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two non-answers. Results were tabulated in real time. Conclusions: The results and recommendations presented can be used by Brazilian physicians to support the management of M0 CRPC patients. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data, however, for Brazil, guidelines for diagnosis and management of M0 CRPC patients have not been developed. This document will serve as a point of reference when confronting this disease stage.

Background: The diagnostic value and suitability of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) have been inconsistent in previous studies. Thus, the aim of the present meta-analysis was performed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of PCA3 for PCa. Materials and Methods: A meta-analysis was performed to search relevant studies using online databases EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science published until February 1st, 2019. Ultimately, 65 studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis with 8.139 cases and 14.116 controls. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (LR+), negative likelihood ratios (LR−), and other measures of PCA3 were pooled and determined to evaluate the diagnostic rate of PCa by the random-effect model. Results: With PCA3, the pooled overall diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR−, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for predicting significant PCa were 0.68 (0.64-0.72), 0.72 (0.68-0.75), 2.41 (2.16-2.69), 0.44 (0.40-0.49), respectively. Besides, the summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and 95% CIs for PCA3 was 5.44 (4.53-6.53). In addition, the area under summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves and 95% CIs was 0.76 (0.72-0.79). The major design deficiencies of included studies were differential verification bias, and a lack of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis suggested that PCA3 was a non-invasive method with the acceptable sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of PCa, to distinguish between patients and healthy individuals. To validate the potential applicability of PCA3 in the diagnosis of PCa, more rigorous studies were needed to confirm these conclusions.

Purpose: Propose an approach of prostate cancer (PCa) patients during COVID-19 pandemic. Material and Methods: We conducted a review of current literature related to surgical and clinical management of patients during COVID-19 crisis paying special attention to oncological ones and especially those suffering from PCa. Based on these publications and current urological guidelines, a manual to manage PCa patients is suggested. Results: Patients suffering from cancer are likely to develop serious complications from COVID-19 disease together with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Therefore, the management of oncological patients should be taken into special consideration and most of the treatments postponed. In case the procedure is not deferrable, it should be adapted to the current situation. While the shortest radiotherapy (RT) regimens should be applied, surgical procedures must undergo the following recommendations proposed by main surgical associations. PCa prognosis is generally favourable and therefore one can safely delay most of the biopsies up to 6 months without interfering with survival outcomes in the vast majority of cases. In the same way, most of the localised PCa patients are suitable for active surveillance (AS) or hormonal therapy until local definitive treatment could be reconsidered. In metastatic as well as castration resistant PCa stages, adding androgen receptor targeted agents (abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide or enzalutamide) to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) could be considered in high risk patients. On the contrary, chemotherapy, immunotherapy and Radium-223 must be avoided with regard to the consequence of hematologic toxicity and risk of COVID-19 infection because of immunodepression. Conclusions: Most of the biopsies should be delayed while AS is advised in those patients with low risk PCa. ADT allows us to defer definitive local treatment in many cases of intermediate and high risk PCa. In regard to metastatic and castration resistant PCa, combination therapies with abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide or enzalutamide could be considered. Chemotherapy, Radium-223 and immunotherapy are discouraged.

Background Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is raising interest. New technological mpMRI-US guided FT devices have never been compared with the previous generation of ultrasound-only guided devices. Materials and Methods We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data of men undergoing FT for localized low- or intermediate-risk PCa with US- (Ablatherm®-2009 to 2014) or mpMRI-US (Focal One®-from 2014) guided HIFU. Follow-up visits and data were collected using internationally validated questionnaires at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months. Results We included n=88 US-guided FT HIFU and n=52 mpMRI-US guided FT HIFU respectively. No major baseline differences were present except higher rates of Gleason 3+4 for the mpMRI-US group. No major differences were present in hospital stay (p=0.1), catheterization time (p=0.5) and complications (p=0.2) although these tended to be lower in the mpMRI-US group (6.8% versus 13.2% US FT group). At 3 months mpMRI-US guided HIFU had significantly lower urine leak (5.1% vs. 15.9%, p=0.04) and a lower drop in IIEF scores (2 vs. 4.2, p=0.07). Of those undergoing 12-months control biopsy in the mpMRI-US-guided HIFU group, 26% had residual cancer in the treated lobe. Conclusion HIFU FT guided by MRI-US fusion may allow improved functional outcomes and fewer complications compared to US- guided HIFU FT alone. Further analysis is needed to confirm benefits of mpMRI implementation at a longer follow-up and on a larger cohort of patients.

As patients with end-stage renal disease are receiving renal allografts at older ages, the number of male renal transplant recipients (RTRs) being diagnosed with prostate cancer (CaP) is increasing. Historically, the literature regarding the management of CaP in RTR's is limited to case reports and small case series. To date, there are no standardized guidelines for screening or management of CaP in these complex patients. To better understand the unique characteristics of CaP in the renal transplant population, we performed a literature review of PubMed, without date limitations, using a combination of search terms including prostate cancer, end stage renal disease, renal transplantation, prostate cancer screening, prostate specific antigen kinetics, immuno-suppression, prostatectomy, and radiation therapy. Of special note, teams facilitating the care of these complex patients must carefully and meticulously consider the altered anatomy for surgical and radiotherapeutic planning. Active surveillance, though gaining popularity in the general low risk prostate cancer population, needs further study in this group, as does the management of advance disease. This review provides a comprehensive and contemporary understanding of the incidence, screening measures, risk stratification, and treatment options for CaP in RTRs.

Objective We compared positive surgical margin (PSM) rates for patients with high risk prostate cancer (HRCaP) who underwent open radical retropubic (RRP), robotic (RALP), and laparoscopic (LRP) prostatectomy at a single institution. Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective review of our prospectively maintained IRB approved database identifying prostate cancer patients who underwent RRP, RALP, or LRP between January 2000 and March 2010. Patients were considered to have HRCaP if they had biopsy or final pathologic Gleason score ≥ 8, or preoperative PSA ≥ 20, or pathologic stage ≥ T3a. A positive surgical margin (PSM) was defined by the presence of tumor at the inked surface of the specimen. Patients who received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and those who underwent a perineal prostatectomy were excluded from the study. Results Of the 445 patients in this study, surgical technique for prostatectomy included RRP (n = 153), RALP (n = 152), and LRP (n = 140). PSM rate for the three groups were not different: 52.9% RRP, 50% RALP, and 41.4% LRP, (p = 0.13). The PSM rate did not differ when comparing RRP to a combined group of RALP and LRP (p = 0.16). Among patients with a PSM, there was no statistical difference between the three groups in terms of the number of patients with a pathologic stage of T3 or higher (p = 0.83). On univariate analysis, a higher preoperative PSA value was associated with a positive margin (p = 0.04). Conclusion In this HRCaP series, the PSM rate did not differ based on the surgical approach. On univariate analysis, patients with a higher preoperative PSA value were more likely to have a PSM.