Transperineal laser ablation of the prostate as a treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer: The results of a Delphi consensus project.

Objective: To evaluate transperineal laser ablation (TPLA) with Echolaser® (Echolaser® TPLA, Elesta S.p.A., Calenzano, Italy) as a treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer (PCa) using the Delphi consensus method. Methods: Italian and international experts on BPH and PCa participated in a collaborative consensus project. During two rounds, they expressed their opinions on Echolaser® TPLA for the treatment of BPH and PCa answering online questionnaires on indications, methodology, and potential complications of this technology. Level of agreement or disagreement to reach consensus was set at 75%. If the consensus was not achieved, questions were modified after each round. A final round was performed during an online meeting, in which results were discussed and finalized. Results: Thirty-two out of forty invited experts participated and consensus was reached on all topics. Agreement was achieved on recommending Echolaser® TPLA as a treatment of BPH in patients with ample range of prostate volume, from <40 mL (80%) to >80 mL (80%), comorbidities (100%), antiplatelet or anticoagulant treatment (96%), indwelling catheter (77%), and strong will of preserving ejaculatory function (100%). Majority of respondents agreed that Echolaser® TPLA is a potential option for the treatment of localized PCa (78%) and recommended it for low-risk PCa (90%). During the final round, experts concluded that it can be used for intermediate-risk PCa and it should be proposed as an effective alternative to radical prostatectomy for patients with strong will of avoiding urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction. Almost all participants agreed that the transperineal approach of this organ-sparing technique is safer than transrectal and transurethral approaches typical of other techniques (97% of agreement among experts). Pre-procedural assessment, technical aspects, post-procedural catheterization, pharmacological therapy, and expected outcomes were discussed, leading to statements and recommendations. Conclusion: Echolaser® TPLA is a safe and effective procedure that treats BPH and localized PCa with satisfactory functional and sexual outcomes.

The intra-meatal application of alprostadil cream (Vitaros®) improves drug efficacy and patient's satisfaction: results from a randomized, two-administration route, cross-over clinical trial.

To investigate the efficacy, tolerability, and patient's preference of alprostadil cream for topical use administered within the urethral meatus versus the standard administration route, in erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment. Seventy-one patients (mean age 59.7 ± 9.0 years) affected by ED were analyzed in this multicenter, randomized, two-administration routes, cross-over trial. All patients received a single dose of alprostadil cream applying the dispenser to the tip of the penis (without contacting the urethral meatus) (Standard administration route or ST.AR) alternating with a single dose of alprostadil cream applying the dispenser within the urethral meatus (New administration route or NEW.AR) separated by a one-week washout period, according to randomization. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the change in International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) total score from baseline to the control visit by comparing the ST.AR and NEW.AR. Secondary objectives of the study were to compare the different methods of administration by evaluating the change in the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP-2 and SEP-3) questionnaire score and the Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) by scoring the Patient Self-Assessment of Erection (PSAE) questionnaire. The treatment safety profile was assessed by analysis of adverse events (AEs). Based on the study findings it is evident that the NEW.AR is more efficacious than the ST.AR in improving IIEF-5 and SEP scores from baseline to control visit (IIEF-5: +3.8 vs +6.3; p < 0.001; positive response to SEP-2: 10 vs 27; p = 0.002) and in terms of PSAE (a significant improvement from the baseline in 31% of patients; p < 0.001). As regards the safety profile, no difference in terms of local and systemic side effects was found.

MMP-2, MMP-9 and activin A blood levels in patients with breast cancer or prostate cancer metastatic to the bone.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of the circulating levels of activin A and matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) and -9 (MMP-9) was investigated in patients with breast cancer (BC) or prostate cancer (PC) with (M1) or without (M0) bone metastasis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MMP-2, MMP-9 and activin A blood concentrations were measured by enzyme immunoassays in 79 cancer patients and in 57 healthy blood donors (HS) who served as a control group. The diagnostic accuracy of these molecules to discriminate between M0 and M1 patients was evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and compared to that of tumor markers CA15.3 or prostate-specific antigen (PSA). RESULTS: Activin A and MMP-2 were significantly increased in BC and PC patients as compared to sex-matched HS while MMP-9 levels were more elevated only in the PC patients. Interestingly, in the PC patients, activin A levels were significantly higher than those measured in the BC patients. In this latter group, activin A and CA15.3 but not MMP-2 or MMP-9 were increased in the M1 patients as compared to M0 patients. Furthermore, a significant relationship was also highlighted between activin A concentration and the number of bone metastases and tumor grade, between MMP-9 and tumor grade, and between MMP-2 and CA15.3. ROC curve analysis showed a good diagnostic accuracy for activin A and CA15.3 but a poor accuracy for MMP-2 and MMP-9 in discriminating between M0 and M1 patients. However, CA15.3 retained the best diagnostic accuracy in this respect. In the PC group, only activin A and PSA levels were significantly increased in the M1 patients as compared to the M0 patients. A similar although not statistically significant trend was noted for MMP-9. Interestingly, a significant correlation was observed between PSA and activin A and MMP-9, and between Activin A and Gleason score and the number of skeletal metastases. ROC curve analysis showed a good diagnostic accuracy for activin A, MMP-9 and PSA and a poor diagnostic accuracy for MMP-2 in detecting M1 patients. However, PSA showed the highest diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: Activin A, MMP-2 and MMP-9 may be regarded as possible therapeutic targets in the treatment of metastatic bone disease. However, their usefulness as additional markers of bone metastasis remains to be better defined.