Influence of pathological factors on oncological outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: Results of a prospective study.

PURPOSE: To assess the prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion (LVI), maximum tumor diameter (MTD), high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, perineural invasion, and length of positive surgical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: A single-institution prospective analysis of all patients who underwent RARP for localized prostate cancer was performed between January 2005 and June 2013. The primary end point was biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS). BRFS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared to that from the log-rank test. Cox׳s proportional hazards regression univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to define the prognostic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 742 men were included. After a median follow-up of 31.4 months, biochemical recurrence occurred in 80 patients (10.8%). BRFS was 93%, 87%, and 80.7% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Progression to local recurrence occurred in 49 patients (6.6%). During the follow-up period, 3 patients experienced progression to metastatic disease and were treated with hormonotherapy. No patient died of disease during the study period. In multivariate analyses, Gleason score was the strongest predictor of BRFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.4; P<0.001). There were 3 other predictive factors of BRFS were LVI (HR = 7.64; P = 0.005), MTD (HR = 4.04; P =0.009), and margin length ≥ 3 mm (HR = 1.25; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In the era of serum prostate-specific antigen testing maturity in conjunction with a single approach to extirpation of the prostate gland by RARP, LVI, MTD, and positive surgical margins ≥ 3 mm are prognostic factors associated with BRFS after RARP. Consideration could be given to incorporate them in the pathology report of the radical prostatectomy specimens and they could assist physicians in clinical decision making.

Prostate cancer: what about reproducibility of decision made at multidisciplinary team management?

PURPOSE: The prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is multimodal. Thus multidisciplinary team management (MDTM) decision-making process appears as a tool to answer all aspects of PCa treatment. Our aim was to evaluate the reproducibility of therapeutic decisions made at MDTM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared therapeutic decisions of PCa by presenting the same file of patient under a fake identity after 6 to 12 months from the first presentation. Forty-nine files of radical prostatectomy (RP) (28 pT2, 21 pT3) performed for clinical localized PCa were represented at MDTM which included urologist, oncologist, pathologist and radiologist. Analysis of therapeutic decisions comprised criteria such as: TNM stage, Gleason score, margin status and comorbidities. The reproducibility was assessed statistically by Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Study subjects included 49 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). The mean age was similar in pT2 and pT3 groups (P = .09). The mean serum PSA value was 8.32 ng/mL (range, 3.56-19.5) in pT2 group and 9.4 ng/mL (range, 3.8-22) in pT3 group. The margin status in pT2 and pT3 groups was positive in 25.0% and 47.6%, respectively. The decisions made at first and second MDTM for pT2 group were the same in 100% of cases with a perfect kappa coefficient (k = 1). In the group of pT3 (n = 21), the decisions were different in 33% at the second MDTM in comparison to the first MDTM. Especially for pT3b only 29% were reproducible decision with a slight agreement (k = 0.1). Concerning pT3a, 86% of the decisions were reproducible with a substantial agreement (k = 0.74). CONCLUSION: We showed a reliability and reproducibility of decision made at MDTM when guidelines are well defined. The therapeutic attitudes were less reproducible in locally advanced PCa but decision concerning those cases should be made in the setting of guidelines.

Morbidity and functional mid-term outcomes using Prolift pelvic floor repair systems.

INTRODUCTION: We assess midterm morbidity and functional outcomes using the Prolift (Gynecare/Ethicon, Somerville, NJ) system and identify potential related risk factors. The Prolift mesh system to treat genital prolapse was introduced in 2005. It was withdrawn from the market in early 2013 after rising doubts about safety. METHODS: Over a 7-year period, we retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 112 consecutive patients who underwent the Prolift procedure since 2006. Intraoperative and postoperative complications, anatomical and functional outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 49.5 months (range: 16-85). The mean age was 64.7 ± 10.9 years (range: 40-86). Of the 112 patients, 74 patients had stage 3 (66.1%) and 8 patients had stage 4 (7.14%) vaginal prolapse. Prolift surgery was performed for pro-lapse recurrence for 26 patients (23.2%). Total mesh was used in 32 patients (29%), an isolated anterior mesh in 57 patients (51%) and an isolated posterior mesh in 23 patients (21%). Concomitant surgical procedures were performed for 44 patients (39.3%). Overall, 72% (18/25) of the complications were managed medically. We reported a failure rate of 8% (n = 9) occurring after a median follow-up of 9.5 months (range: 1-45). Among the 64 patients who had preoperative sexual activity (57.1%), de novo dyspareunia occurred in 9 patients (16.07%). We extracted predictive factors concerning failure, complications and sexuality. CONCLUSION: Despite its market withdrawal, the Prolift system was associated with good midterm anatomic outcomes and few severe complications. Long-term follow-up data are still lacking, but surgeons and patients may be reassured.