Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the natural history of prostate cancer (PCa) in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) and to clarify the controversy over whether RTRs have a higher risk of PCa and poorer outcomes than non-RTRs, due to factors such as immunosuppression. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective multicenter study of RTRs diagnosed with cM0 PCa between 2001 and 2019. Primary outcomes were overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Secondary outcomes included biochemical recurrence and/or progression after active surveillance (AS) and evaluation of variables possibly influencing PCa aggressiveness and outcomes. Management modalities included surgery, radiation, cryotherapy, HIFU, AS, and watchful waiting. Results: We included 166 men from nine institutions. Median age and eGFR at diagnosis were 67 (IQR 60–73) and 45.9 mL/min (IQR 31.5–63.4). ASA score was >2 in 58.4% of cases. Median time from transplant to PCa diagnosis was 117 months (IQR 48–191.5), and median PSA at diagnosis was 6.5 ng/mL (IQR 5.02–10). The biopsy Gleason score was ≥8 in 12.8%; 11.6% and 6.1% patients had suspicion of ≥cT3 > cT2 and cN+ disease. The most frequent management method was radical prostatectomy (65.6%), followed by radiation therapy (16.9%) and AS (10.2%). At a median follow-up of 60.5 months (IQR 31–106) 22.9% of men (n = 38) died, with only n = 4 (2.4%) deaths due to PCa. Local and systemic progression rates were 4.2% and 3.0%. On univariable analysis, no major influence of immunosuppression type was noted, with the exception of a protective effect of antiproliferative agents (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16–0.97, p = 0.04) associated with a decreased risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) or progression after AS. Conclusion: PCa diagnosed in RTRs is mainly of low to intermediate risk and organ-confined at diagnosis, with good cancer control and low PCa death at intermediate follow-up. RTRs have a non-negligible risk of death from causes other than PCa. Aggressive upfront management of the majority of RTRs with PCa may, therefore, be avoided.

Despite an expected increase in prostate cancer (PCa) incidence in the renal transplant recipient (RTR) population in the near future, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in these patients has been poorly detailed. It is not well understood whether results are comparable to RARP in the non-RTR setting.To describe the surgical technique for RARP in RTR and report results from our multi-institutional experience.This was a retrospective review of the experience of four referral centers.Transperitoneal RARP with pelvic lymph node dissection in selected patients.We measured patient, PCa, and graft baseline features; intraoperative and postoperative parameters; complications, (Clavien classification); and oncological and functional outcomes.We included 41 men. The median age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, preoperative renal function, and prostate-specific antigen were 60 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 57-64), 2 points (IQR 2-3), 45 ml/min (IQR 30-62), and 6.5 ng/ml (IQR 5.2-10.2), respectively. Four men (9.8%) had a biopsy Gleason score7. The majority of the patients (70.7%) did not undergo lymphadenectomy. The median operating time, hospital stay, and catheterization time were 201 min (IQR 170-250), 4 d (IQR 2-6), and 10 d (IQR 7-13), respectively. At final pathology, 11 men had extraprostatic extension and seven had positive surgical margins. At median follow-up of 42 mo (IQR 24-65), four men had biochemical recurrence, including one case of local PCa persistence and one local recurrence. No metastases were recorded while two patients died from non-PCa-related causes. Continence was preserved in 86.1% (p not applicable) and erections in 64.7% (p = 0.0633) of those who were continent/potent before the procedure. Renal function remained unchanged (p = 0.08). No intraoperative complications and one major (Clavien 3a) complication were recorded.RARP in RTR is safe and feasible. Overall, operative, oncological, and functional outcomes are comparable to those described for the non-RTR setting, with graft injury remaining undescribed. Further research is needed to confirm our findings.Robot-assisted removal of the prostate is safe and feasible in patients who have a kidney transplant. Cancer control, urinary and sexual function results, and surgical complications seem to be similar to those for patients without a transplant, but further research is needed.