Is it safe to defer prostate cancer treatment? Assessing the impact of surgical delay on the risk of pathological upstaging after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to investigate whether surgical delay may be associated with pathological upstaging in patients treated with robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive firstly-diagnosed PCa patients starting from March 2020 have been enrolled. All the patients were categorized according to EAU risk categories for PCa risk. Uni- and multivariate analysis were fitted to explore clinical and surgical predictors of pathological upstaging to locally advanced disease (pT3/pT4 - pN1 disease). RESULTS: Overall 2017 patients entered the study. Median age at surgery was 68 (IQR 63-73) years. Overall low risk, intermediate risk, localized high risk and locally advanced disease were recorded in 368 (18.2 %), 1071 (53.1 %), 388 (19.2 %) and 190 (9.4 %), respectively. Median time from to diagnosis to treatment was 51 (IQR 29-70) days. Time to surgery was 56 (IQR 32-75), 52 (IQR 30-70), 45 (IQR 24-60) and 41 (IQR 22-57) days for localized low, intermediate and high risk and locally advanced disease, respectively. Considering 1827 patients with localized PCa, at multivariate analysis ISUP grade group ≥4 on prostate biopsy (HR: 1.30; 95 % CI 1.07-1.86; p = 0.02) and surgical delay only in localized high-risk disease (HR: 1.02; 95 % CI 1.01-1.54; p = 0.02) were confirmed as independent predictors of pathological upstaging to pT3-T4/pN1 disease at final histopathological examination. CONCLUSIONS: In localized high-risk disease surgical delay could be associated with a higher risk of adverse pathologic findings.

Efficacy and safety profile of GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate in ≥ 75 years old patients: results from the Italian GreenLight Laser Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) is the most common non-malignant urological condition among men and its incidence rise with age. Among prostate treatments, GreenLight laser seems to reduce bleeding and would be safer in the aging population. AIMS: We aimed to compare the functional outcomes and safety profile of < 75 years old (Group A) and ≥ 75 years old (Group B) patients. METHODS: In a multicenter setting, we retrospectively analyzed all the patients treated with GreenLight Laser vaporization of the prostate (PVP). RESULTS: 1077 patients were eligible for this study. 757 belonged to Group A (median age 66 years) and 320 to Group B (median age 78 years). No differences were present between the two groups in terms of prostate volume, operative time, hospital stay, PSA decrease over time after surgery, complications and re-intervention rate with a median follow-up period of 18 months (IQR 12-26). Nevertheless, focusing on complications, GreenLight laser PVP demonstrated an excellent safety profile in terms of hospital stay, re-intervention and complications, with an overall 29.6% complication rate in older patients and only two cases of Clavien III. Functional outcomes were similar at 12 month and became in favor of Group A over time. These data are satisfactory with a Qmax improvement of 111.7% and an IPSS reduction of 69.5% in older patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate is a safe and efficient procedure for all patients, despite their age, with comparable outcomes and an equal safety profile.

Proctored Step by Step Training Program for GreenLight Laser Anatomic Photovaporization of the Prostate: A Single Surgeon's Experience.

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of a proctored step-by-step training program for GreenLight laser anatomic photovaporization (aPVP) of the prostate. Methods: Data from patients undergoing aPVP between January 2019 and December 2020 operated by a single surgeon following a dedicated step-by-step proctored program were prospectively collected. The procedure was divided into five modular steps of increasing complexity. Preoperative patients' data as well as total operative time, energy delivered on the prostate and postoperative data, were recorded. Then, we assessed how the overall amount of energy delivered and the operative times varied during the training program. Surgical steps were analyzed by cumulative summation. Univariable and multivariable regression models were built to assess the predictors of the amount of energy delivered on the prostate. Results: Sixty consecutive patients were included in the analysis. Median prostate volume was 56.5 mL. The training program was succesfully completed with no intraoperative or meaningful post-operative complications. The energy delivered reached the plateau after the 40th case. At multivariable analysis, increasing surgeon experience was associated with lower amounts of energy delivered as well as lower operative times. Conclusions: A step-by-step aPVP training program can be safely performed by surgeons with prior endoscopic experience if mentored by a skilled proctor. Considering the energy delivered as an efficacy surrogate metrics (given its potential impact on persistent postoperative LUTS), 40 cases are needed to reach a plateau for aPVP proficiency. Further studies are needed to assess the safety of our step-by-step training modular program in other clinical contexts.

Post-Operative Acute Urinary Retention After Greenlight Laser. Analysis of Risk Factors from A Multicentric Database.

PURPOSE: Greenlight laser is a mini-invasive technique used to treat Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO). Some of the advantages of GreenLight photoselective vaporization (PVP) are shorter catheterization time and hospital stay compared to TURP. Post-operative acute urinary retention (pAUR) leads to patients' discomfort, prolonged hospital stay and increased health care costs. We analyzed risk factors for urinary retention after GreenLight laser PVP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter experience, we retrospectively analyzed the onset of early and late post-operative acute urinary retention in patients undergoing standard or anatomical PVP. The pre-, intra- and post-operative characteristics were compared betweene patients who started to void and the patients who developed post-operative urinary retention. RESULTS: The study included 434 patients suitable for the study. Post-operative acute urinary retention occurred in 39 (9%). Patients with a lower prostate volume (P < .001), an adenoma volume lower than 40 mL (P < .001), and lower lasing time (P = .013) had a higher probability to develop pAUR at the univariate analysis. The multivariate logistic regression confirmed that lower lasing time (95% CI: 0.86-0.99, OR = 0.93, P = .046) and adenoma volume (95% CI: 0.89-0.98, OR = 0.94, P = .006) are correlated to pAUR. Furthermore IPSS ≥ 19 (95% CI: 1.19- 10.75, OR = 2.27, P = .023) and treatment with 5-ARI (95% CI: 1.05-15.03, OR = 3.98, P = .042) are risk factors for pAUR. CONCLUSION: In our series, post-operative acute urinary retention was related to low adenoma volume and lasing time, pre-operative IPSS ≥ 19 and 5-ARI intake. These data should be considered in deciding the best timing for urethral catheters removal.

Operative profile, safety and functional outcomes after GreenLight laser prostate surgery: results from a 12 months follow-up multicenter Italian cohort analyses.

BACKGROUND: Over the two past decades, GreenLight laser therapy has been considered a valid alternative for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia/benign prostatic obstruction (BPH/BPO). However, the debate on the effectiveness of laser therapy compared to conventional techniques is still open. The aim of our study is to analyze and describe the use of GreenLight laser prostate surgery in Italy, with regard to the surgical techniques performed and the surgical and functional outcomes at mid-term follow-up. METHODS: From March 2012 to July 2018, patients who underwent GreenLight laser prostate surgery for LUTS due to BPH/BPO from 19 Italian centers were included. The following parameters were evaluated in the population: age, prostate volume, prostate adenoma volume, PSA tot, Qmax at uroflowmetry (UFM), International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS), previous therapy for LUTS, use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs. We recorded also the kind of anesthesia, mean laser time (min), mean irradiation time (min), TURP conversion/completion rate, postoperative day of catheter removal, postoperative acute urinary retention (AUR), hospital stay, variation of hematocrit (Ht) and hemoglobin levels (Hb). Early complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, the re-operation rate within 30 days and after 30 days, the late complications and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement were also collected. Changes over time in terms of blood loss and functional outcomes (IPSS and Qmax at the UFM at 6 and 12 months) were tested with Student's test for paired samples. We assumed P≤0.05 as level of statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 1077 were enrolled in the study, 554 (56.4%) were treated with standard vaporization and 523 (48.6%) with anatomical vaporization. Student's t-test for paired samples showed no statistically significant differences in terms of reduction of Ht preoperative vs. Ht postoperative (42.80±3.91 vs. 39.93±5.35 95% CI P=0.3) and preintervention and postintervention Hb levels (14.28±1.46 vs. 13.72 P=0.35). Compared with the preoperative Qmax (8.60±2.64), the 6- and 12-month UFM showed a significant improvement [19.56±6.29, P<0.01 and 19.99±5.92 P<0.01]. In terms of IPSS variation, compared to the baseline level (22±5.51) the 6- and 12-month follow-up confirmed a significant reduction (8.01±4.41 P<0.01 and 5.81±4.12 P<0.01 respectively). Postoperative complications were CD0, CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4 in 33.0%,35.3%, 2.9%, 0.3%, and 0.6%. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the most numerous surgical series of GreenLight laser vaporization and with the longest follow-up. This technique should be considered as a safe and effective alternative in the treatment of secondary LUTS to BPH.

En-bloc endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) remains the gold standard for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Yet, the introduction of lasers for the treatment of LUTS due to BPO has dramatically changed the surgical landscape of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) treatment. Recently, "en-bloc" techniques have shown to prove advantageous in terms of better visualization, more prompt identification of the surgical capsule and the correct plane to dissect. Herein we provide a comprehensive overview of available series of en-bloc enucleation of the prostate, focusing on surgical techniques, perioperative and functional outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to PRISMA recommendations and was conducted on surgical techniques and perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive en-bloc surgery for prostate adenoma detachment. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 16 studies with 2750 patients between 2003 and 2019 were included. Specific technical nuances have been described to maximize perioperative outcomes of en-bloc prostatic enucleation, including early apical release, horse-shape incisions, inverted U-shape tractions and low power. Overall, regardless of the energy employed, en-bloc prostatic enucleation achieved favorable outcomes including low risk of major complications and quality of life improvement. However, a great heterogeneity of study design, patients' inclusion criteria, prostate volume and en-bloc surgical strategy was found. CONCLUSIONS: En-bloc endoscopic enucleation of the prostate has been shown to be technically feasible and safe, with potential technical advantages over the classic three-lobe technique. Larger comparative studies are needed to evaluate the ultimate impact of the en-bloc approach on postoperative outcomes, in light of the surgeon's learning curve.

GreenLight Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate: One Laser for Different Prostate Sizes.

Introduction: GreenLight laser vaporization of the prostate (photoselective vaporization of the prostate [PVP]) is a safe and effective procedure for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Long-term results and advantages of PVP in patients with large and symptomatic prostate are still under evaluation. Materials and Methods: In a multicenter experience, patients who underwent standard or anatomical PVP were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with follow-up >12 months were divided into two groups based on prostate volume (<100 cc vs ≥100 cc). Pre- and perioperative data, as well as postoperative results and complications, were recorded after 3, 6, and 12 months and then annually. Results: One thousand and thirty-one patients were eligible, 916 of these had a prostate volume of <100 cc and 115 ≥ 100 cc. Median follow-up period was 25.0 months (interquartile range [IQR] 16.5-35.0) and 16.0 months (IQR 12.0-24.0) in ≥100 and <100 groups, respectively. No difference was found in terms of catheterization time, postoperative stay, and postoperative acute urine retention. Patients with prostate ≥100 required longer operative time (75 vs 55 minutes), lasing time (41.7 vs 24.9 minutes), and higher energy used but lower energy density. Patients with prostate ≥100 had a higher incidence of early (50.4% vs 35.7%) and late complications (21.7% vs 12.8%) and early urge/incontinence symptoms (40.9% vs 29.3%). No statistically significant differences were found for the maximum urinary flow (Qmax) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) results between the two groups. The reintervention rate in ≥100 group was 3.5% vs 2.3% in <100. Conclusions: In the midterm follow-up, GreenLight PVP guarantees the same results in different prostate volume groups. Early and late complications are more frequent in large prostates.

Standard vs. anatomical 180-W GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate: a propensity score analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and complications rates after 180-W GreenLight laser (180-W GL laser) standard and anatomical photoselective vaporization (sPVP and aPVP). METHODS: Within a multi-institutional database, we identified patients who underwent sPVP or aPVP to relief BPH symptoms. IPSS, Q max, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were measured at baseline and during the follow-up. PGI-I score as well as early and late complications were recorded at follow-up visits. Log-binomial and multivariable proportional odds regression models were fitted to estimate the effect of aPVP vs. sPVP on PGI-I as well as on early and late complication rates, before and after adjustment for propensity score. RESULTS: 813 patients were included. Of those, the 50.4% underwent aPVP. Patients who underwent aPVP had larger prostate (64 vs. 55 mL, p < 0.001) and higher baseline PSA levels (3.1 vs. 2.5 ng/mL, p < 0.001). PGI-I score was signaled as very improved, improved, slightly improved, unchanged, or worsened in 55.5, 32.8, 8.3, 2.3, and 1.2% of the cases, respectively, with no differences according the technique used (p = 0.420). Acute urinary retention occurred in 9.2 vs. 8.9% of patients after aPVP vs. sPVP (p = 0.872). All models failed to find differences in: patients' satisfaction (OR 1.19, p = 0.256), early complications (RR 0.93, p = 0.387), early urge/incontinence symptoms (RR 0.97, p = 0.814), and late complications rates (RR 0.70, p = 0.053), after aPVP vs. sPVP. CONCLUSION: Our results showed similar functional results and complication rates after aPVP and sPVP. However, aPVP was used in larger prostates. Both techniques guarantee high patient's satisfaction.