Enhancing continence post holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: assessment of novel technique through randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Transient urinary incontinence (UI) is distressing event following holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). Novel technique namely, veil sparing HoLEP (VS-HoLEP), was proposed to improve early continence outcome. In this trial (NCT03494049), VS-HoLEP was compared to standard HoLEP (St-HoLEP). METHODS: VS-HoLEP entails early apical separation with sparing of ventral apical mucosal veil proximal to the verumontanum. Eligible symptomatic BPH patients were randomly allocated to St-HoLEP (91) and VS-HoLEP (89). The primary outcome was UI as depicted by one-hour pad test at one month postoperatively. Other outcome measures include all perioperative parameters, complications, and urinary outcome measures at different follow-up points. RESULTS: Median preoperative prostate size was 138 (50:282) and 128 (50:228) mL in St-HoLEP and VS-HoLEP groups respectively. At one month the number of patients with positive one-hour pad test was 21 (23.1%) and 10 (11.4%) in St-HoLEP and VS-HoLEP groups respectively (P 0.047). The difference was significantly in favor of VS-HoLEP considering the number of patients reporting UI, the number of patients with positive one-hour pad test as well as the grade of UI reported at one and 4 months. The difference was not statistically significant at 12 months. The median time to patients' reported continence was 8 (1-52) and 1.5 (1-52) weeks in St-HoLEP and VS-HoLEP groups respectively (P≤0.005). The technique independently predicted positive one-hour pad test at one and four months respectively. At twelve months presence of DM (diabetes mellitus) and more percent PSA reduction independently predicted positive one-hour pad test. CONCLUSIONS: Veil sparing HoLEP enhances significantly early postoperative urine continence both subjectively and objectively. Optimization of the surgical technique could cut short the number of leaking patients and reduce the degree as well as the duration of transient postoperative urine leak.

Assessment of the accuracy of biparametric MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy for index tumor evaluation using postoperative pathology specimens.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is widely used for the diagnosis, surveillance, and staging of prostate cancer. However, it has several limitations, including higher costs, longer examination times, and the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents. This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of preoperatively assessed index tumors (ITs) using biparametric MRI (bpMRI)/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion biopsy compared with radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. METHODS: We included 113 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer through bpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsies of lesions with a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category ≥ 3. These patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) at our institution between July 2017 and March 2023. We examined the localization of preoperative and postoperative ITs, the highest Gleason score (GS), and tumor diameter in these patients. RESULTS: The preoperative cT stage matched the postoperative pT stage in 53 cases (47%), while 31 cases (27%) were upstaged, and 29 cases (26%) were downstaged (Weighted Kappa = 0.21). The preoperative and postoperative IT localizations were consistent in 97 cases (86%). The concordance rate between Gleason groups in targeted biopsies and RP specimens was 51%, with an upgrade in 25 cases (23%) and a downgrade in 27 cases (25%) (Weighted Kappa = 0.42). The maximum diameter of the IT and the maximum cancer core length on biopsy were correlated with the RP tumor's maximum diameter (p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of bpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsy is comparable to mpMRI, suggesting that it can be a cost-effective and time-saving alternative.

Marked variations in medical provider and out-of-pocket costs for radical prostatectomy procedures in Australia.

Objectives Unwarranted clinical variations in radical prostatectomy (RP) procedures are frequently reported, yet less attention is given to the variations in associated costs. This issue can further widen disparities in access to care and provoke questions about the overall value of the procedure. The present paper aimed to delve into the disparities in hospital, medical provider and out-of-pocket costs for RP procedures in Australia, discussing plausible causes and potential policy opportunities. Methods A retrospective cohort study using Medibank Private claims data for RP procedures conducted in Australian hospitals between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2020 was undertaken. Results Considerable variations in both medical provider and out-of-pocket costs were observed across the country, with variations evident between different states or territories. Particularly striking were the discrepancies in the costs charged by medical providers, with a notable contrast between the 10th and 90th percentiles revealing a substantial difference of A$9925. Hospitals in Australia exhibited relatively comparable charges for RP procedures. Conclusions Initiatives such as enhancing transparency regarding individual medical provider costs and implementing fee regulations with healthcare providers may be useful in curbing the variations in RP procedure costs.

Eficacia y seguridad del equipo sistema quirúrgico robótico, para el tratamiento de pacientes con cáncer de próstata no metastásico que requieran prostatectomía radical / Efficacy and safety of the prostatectomy surgical system team, for the treatment of patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer requiring radical prostatectomy

ANTECEDENTES: El presente documento de evaluación de tecnología sanitaria (ETS) expone el análisis de la eficacia y seguridad del equipo sistema quirúrgico robótica (SQR) en pacientes con cáncer de próstata (CaP) no metastásico sometidos a prostatectomía radical (PR). Mediante la NOTA N° 394-2023-GRPR y el INFORME TÉCNICO N° 385-SGPI-GPEIGCPP-ESSALUD-2022, el departamento de cirugía general y digestiva del Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins (HNERM), a través de la Gerencia de la Red Prestacional Rebagliati, solicita al Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación (IETSI) la incorporación del SQR al petitorio de equipos biomédicos de EsSalud. El documento menciona que este equipo biornédico permitiría cumplir con los objetivos estratégicos del "Plan Estratégico Institucional 2020-2024" que busca "brindar a los asegurados acceso oportuno a prestaciones integrales y de calidad acorde a sus necesidades" y a la política de inversiones en EsSalud que busca "contribuir a mejorar la calidad de los servicios de salud". ASPECTOS GENERALES: La "cirugía robótica" o 'cirugía asistida por robot" es una técnica quirúrgica avanzada ,f-o que utiliza un sistema robótico controlado por un cirujano para realizar procedimientos p, uirúrgicos complejoc. Este sistema consta de una consola de control que el cirujano. utiliza para controlar los brazos robóticos del sistema equipados con instrumentos quirúrgicos miniaturizados que se introducen en el cuerpo del paciente a través de pequeñas incisiones (Diana & Marescaux, 2015). El cirujano controla los brazos mientras está sentado en una consola de computadora cerca de la mesa de operaciones que le brinda una vista ampliada de alta definición del sitio quirúrgico. Esta técnica permitiría realizar procedimientos mínimamente invasivos con mayor precisión, flexibilidad y control de lo que es posible con las técnicas convencionales (Bhandari, Zeffiro, & Reddiboina, 2020; Morrell et al., 2021). Existen varios sistemas de cirugía robótica en la actualidad que tienen sus propias características siendo importante emplear un sistema adecuado para determinados pacientes y procedimientos (Galfano et al., 2010; Morrell et al., 2021; Patel et al., 2011). Algunos de los más conocidos para cirugías abdominales y pélvicas son el da Vinci (Intuitive Surgical) o el Senhance (TransEnterix). Sin embargo, son dispositivos en constante evolución y que amplían progresivamente su oferta de aplicaciones. Siendo la prostatectomía radical uno de sus procedimientos más conocidos (Morrell et al., 2021). TECNOLOGÍA SANITARIA DE INTERÉS: Para realizar una cirugía robótica, el paciente se coloca en una mesa de operaciones y se administra anestesia general. Luego, se hacen pequeñas incisiones en el cuerpo del paciente y se insertan los instrumentos quirúrgicos y una cámara en el cuerpo a través de estos orificios. El cirujano se sienta en la consola de control y ve una imagen tridimensional en tiempo real de la parte del cuerpo del paciente en la que se está realizando la cirugía. Luego, utilizando los mandos y pedales de la consola, el cirujano controla los movimientos del brazo robótico y realiza los movimientos quirúrgicos necesarios (Diana & Marescaux, 2015; Galfano et al., 2010; Morrell et al., 2021). METODOLOGÍA: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de literatura científica a fin de identificar la mejor evidencia disponible a la fecha (hasta febrero del 2023) sobre la eficacia y seguridad del SQR. A partir de la pregunta PICO, se desarrolló una estrategia de búsqueda en 6 bases de datos (Medirle, Scopus, Embase, Scielo, Web of Science y Cochrane). En el ANEXO 2 se expone las bases de datos y la estrategia de búsqueda utilizada, así como el número de resultados obtenidos en cada una de estas. La búsqueda sistemática fue suplementada con una búsqueda manual en la lista de referencias bibliográficas de los estudios incluidos. Ademas, se realizó una búsqueda manual en los repositorios institucionales (Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas (INEN), Unidad de Análisis y Generación de Evidencias en Salud Pública (UNAGESP), A.lational Institute for Heaith and Caro Exceilence (HICE), de la Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies iri Health (CADTH) y de la Base Regional de Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud de las Américas (BRISA) y el buscador de Google (10 primeras páginas), a fin de poder identificar guías de práctica clínica (GPC) y ETS de relevancia que pudiesen haber sido omitidas por la estrategia de búsqueda o que no hayan sido publicadas en las bases de datos consideradas. Se consultaron páginas web de sociedades especializadas en urología y cirugía oncológica, como: European Association of Urology, American 'Jro!cgical Association y Confederación Americana de Urología. Por último, se realizó una búsqueda de estudios clínicos en ejecución o aún no terminados en las plataformas ClinicalTriais.gov e International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP). RESULTADOS: Se identificaron 2659 documentos a partir de la búsqueda bibliográfica sistemática en bases de datos. Luego de eliminar duplicados, 1437 fueron elegibles para tamizaje por título y resumen con el aplicativo web Rayyan. Así, se obtuvieron 25 documentos elegibles para la evaluación a texto completo. Por otra parte, como producto de la búsqueda manual, se obtuvieron 12 documentos candidatos para revisión a texto completo. De esta manera, se revisaron 37 artículos a texto completo, de los cuales 20 fueron considerados elegibles para inclusión en esta ETS. Para mayor detalle, el flujo de selección de la evidencia se encuentra ilustrado a continuación. CONCLUSIONES: El presente dictamen expone una síntesis de la mejor evidencia disponible a la fecha sobre la eficacia y seguridad del sistema quirugico robotico - SQR en pacientes con cáncer de próstata - CaP no metastásico en comparación con las técnicas quirúrgicas convencionales disponibles en EsSalud (laparoscopia convencional o cirugía abierta). Los datos evaluados provenientes de ocho Evaluaciones Clinicas AleatorizadasECA para los pacientes con cáncer de próstata - CaP localizado, muestran mayor eficacia relacionado a desenlaces críticos como calidad de vida, continencia urinaria o potencia sexual, con un perfil similar de seguridad en relación con las complicaciones reportadas. El expediente del área usuaria menciona que el dispositivo tiene una vida útil de 8 años, pero no explicita garantías, costos de calibración, costos por repuestos o costos de mantenimiento en caso de avería lo cual debe ser precisado para realizar el análisis costo efectividad. En ese sentido el IETSI determina de manera preliminar que, en términos de eficacia y seguridad, se puede aprobar el uso del sistema quirúrgico robótico - SQR en pacientes con cáncer de próstata - CaP no metastásico que requieran prostatectomía radical - PR. Sin embargo, se debe realizar un análisis de costoefectividad adicional para contar con un adecuado balance de beneficios-daños y costos para la aprobación final de su uso. El equipo técnico evaluador del IETSI se mantiene a la expectativa de mayor evidencia confiable sobre la eficacia y seguridad del sistema quirúrgico robótico - SQR u otras nuevas tecnologías sanitarias propuestas, tomando de referencia la normativa vigente.

Screening of Associated Factors for Erectile Dysfunction after Radical Prostatectomy and Construction of a Clinical Risk Assessment Model: A Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: In this article, the associated factors for erectile dysfunction (ED) after radical prostatectomy (RP) were explored, and a clinical risk assessment model was constructed. METHODS: A total of 155 patients who underwent RP in People's Hospital of Hunan Province from November 2020, to November 2021, were selected as the study group. In accordance with the results of International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) at 6 months after surgery, 88 patients were included in the ED group (IIEF-5 <22), and 67 patients were included in the non-ED group (IIEF-5 ≥22). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to screen the risk factors for ED after RP, and a risk model was constructed on this basis. In addition, 43 patients with ED after RP and 41 patients with non-ED after RP from January 2022, to January 2023, were included in the test group to evaluate the predictive efficacy of the clinical risk assessment model on the basis of the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: The study group had a lower postoperative IIEF-5 score than before surgery (p < 0.001). The incidence of ED after RP in the study group was 56.77% (88/155). Multivariate analysis showed that advanced age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.155), large prostate volume (OR = 1.077), smoking (OR = 5.676), drinking (OR = 3.495), hypertension (OR = 8.079), diabetes (OR = 6.082), low preoperative serum testosterone (T) level (OR = 0.684) and high preoperative serum endothelin-1 (ET-1) level (OR = 1.192) were risk factors for ED after RP (p < 0.05). A risk model was constructed as follows: Z = 0.144 × (age) + 0.074 × (prostate volume) + 1.736 × (smoking) + 1.251 × (drinking) + 2.089 × (hypertension) + 1.805 × (diabetes) - 0.380 × (preoperative serum T) + 0.175 × (preoperative serum ET-1). The area under curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and 95% CI of this model were 0.906, 97.70%, 73.20%, and 0.848-0.964, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical risk assessment model constructed on the basis of the above factors provides some references for the scientific prevention and treatment of ED after RP.

[Technological development of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy].

The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy have shown remarkable improvement over the last two decades since its advent, due to advances in surgical concepts, techniques, and equipment. Today, ongoing research aims to compare the benefits and drawbacks of various surgical approaches, such as anterior, posterior, lateral, transvesical, and transperineal approaches, in terms of tumor control, functional recovery, and complication reduction in order to achieve the goal of pentafecta (no postoperative complications and negative surgical margins in addition to trifecta) to the maximum extent. It is imperative to explore and integrate novel technologies such as 5G remote surgery and artificial intelligence into the clinical practice of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy while ensuring patient safety, which has immense potential for substantial benefits to patients with prostate cancer.

Assessment of different continence definitions in the context of the randomized multicenter prospective LAP-01 trial-Does the best definition change over time?

BACKGROUND: A uniform definition of continence is urgently needed to allow the comparison of study results and to estimate patient outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP). To identify a practical definition that includes both objective and subjective aspects in a tangible way, we assessed different continence definitions and evaluated which best reflects the patients' subjective perception of continence. METHODS: Our analyses included 718 patients that underwent either robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in a multicenter randomized patient-blinded trial. Continence was assessed through patient questionnaires prior to and at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery which included the number of pads used per day, the ICIQ-SF and the question "Do you suffer from incontinence? (yes/no)" to assess subjective continence. We used Krippendorff's Alpha to calculate the agreement of different continence definitions with the subjective perception. RESULTS: At 3 months, the "0/safety pad" definition shows the highest agreement by alpha = 0.70 (vs. 0.63 for "0 pads" and 0.37 for "0-1 pad"). At 6 and 12 months "0 pads" is the better match, with alpha values of 0.69 (vs. 0.62 and 0.31) after 6 months and 0.70 (vs. 0.65 and 0.32) after 12 months. The ICIQ-SF score shows good correlation with the subjective continence at 3 months (alpha = - 0.79), the coefficient then decreasing to - 0.69 and - 0.59 at 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSION: The best continence definition according to the patients' perspective changes over time, "0 pads" being the superior criterion in the long-term. We recommend using the 0-pad definition for standardized continence reporting, as it is simple yet as accurate as possible given the inevitably high subjectivity of continence perception. Trial registration The LAP-01 trial was registered with the U.S. National Library of Medicine clinical trial registry (clinicaltrials.gov), NCT number: NCT03682146, and with the German Clinical Trial registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), DRKS ID number: DRKS00007138.

Isolating the Drivers of Racial Inequities in Prostate Cancer Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Black individuals in the United States are less likely than White individuals to receive curative therapies despite a 2-fold higher risk of prostate cancer death. While research has described treatment inequities, few studies have investigated underlying causes. METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of 40,137 Medicare beneficiaries (66 and older) linked to the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry who had clinically significant, non-metastatic (cT1-4N0M0, grade group 2-5) prostate cancer (diagnosed 2010-2015). Using the Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition, we assessed the contributions of patient health and health care delivery on the racial difference in localized prostate cancer treatments (radical prostatectomy or radiation). Patient health consisted of comorbid diagnoses, tumor characteristics, SEER site, diagnosis year, and age. Health care delivery was captured as a prediction model with these health variables as predictors of treatment, reflecting current treatment patterns. RESULTS: A total of 72.1% and 78.6% of Black and White patients received definitive treatment, respectively, a difference of 6.5 percentage points. An estimated 15% [95% confidence interval (CI): 6-24] of this treatment difference was explained by measured differences in patient health, leaving the remaining estimated 85% (95% CI: 74-94) attributable to a potentially broad range of health care delivery factors. Limitations included insufficient data to explore how specific health care delivery factors, including structural racism and social determinants, impact differential treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show the inadequacy of patient health differences as an explanation of the treatment inequity. IMPACT: Investing in studies and interventions that support equitable health care delivery for Black individuals with prostate cancer will contribute to improved outcomes.

Evaluation of Private Payer and Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs Associated With the Surgical Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the financial burden of various surgical interventions for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: We identified commercially insured men with a diagnosis of BPH who underwent a procedure of interest (simple prostatectomy (SP), transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), photovaporization of the prostate (PVP), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), or water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT)) between 2015 and 2021 with the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Primary outcome was total health care costs (THC) which included both patient out-of-pocket (OOP) and health plan paid costs for the index procedure and combined follow-up years 1-5. A generalized linear model was used to estimate adjusted costs controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. Patients undergoing WVTT were excluded from extended follow-up analyses due to limited data. RESULTS: Among 25,407 patients with BPH, 10,117 (40%) underwent TURP, 6353 (25%) underwent PUL, 5411 (21%) underwent PVP, 1319 (5%) underwent SP, 1243 (5%) underwent WVTT, and 964 (4%) underwent HoLEP. Index procedure costs varied significantly with WVTT being the least costly [THC: $2637 (95% confidence interval (CI): $2513-$2761)], and SP being the costliest [THC: $14,423 (95% CI: $12,772-$16,075)]. For aggregate index and 5-year follow-up costs, HoLEP ($31,926 [95% CI: $29,704-$34,148]) was the least costly and PUL ($36,596 [95% CI: $35,369-37,823]) was the costliest. CONCLUSION: BPH surgical treatment is associated with significant system-level health care costs. The level of impact varies between procedures. Minimally invasive options, such as WVTT, may offer initial cost reductions; however, HoLEP and SP are associated with lower follow-up costs.

Comparison of senhance and da vinci robotic radical prostatectomy: short-term outcomes, learning curve, and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Senhance® Robotic System is a new laparoscopy-based platform that has been increasingly used in radical prostatectomy (RP) procedures. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcome of Senhance RP (SRP) with da Vinci RP (DRP) cases. METHODS: From August 2019 to April 2022, we prospectively recruited 63 cases of SRP. We compared the perioperative data, postoperative complication rates, short-term surgical outcomes (3-month postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and incontinence rates), learning curves, and cost analysis with data from 63 matched da Vinci Xi RP cases. RESULTS: There was no difference in BL (180 versus 180 ml, p = 0.86) and postoperative surgical complication rate (Clavient -Dindo grade I-IV, 25.3 versus 22.2%, p = 0.21) between the SRP cases and the DRP. Regarding the oncologic and continence function, there was no difference between positive margin rate (36.5% versus 41.3%, p = 0.58), rate of undetectable PSA level at postoperative 3 months (68.3 versus 66.7%, p = 0.85), and incontinence rate (14.3 versus 15.9%, p = 1.0) at postoperative 3 months between the two cohorts. The learning curve showed a quick downward slope for laparoscopic experienced surgeons. The median pocket cost for SRP patients in our hospital was $4170, which was lower than $7675 for the DRP patients. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and short-term outcomes are comparable between SRP and DRP. For experienced LRP surgeons, using the Senhance system to perform RP is straightforward. With a more affordable price as its biggest advantage, the Senhance system may serve as a safe and effective alternative for robotic RP.

An MRI assessment of prostate cancer local recurrence using the PI-RR system: diagnostic accuracy, inter-observer reliability among readers with variable experience, and correlation with PSA values.

OBJECTIVES: The Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) system has been recently proposed to promote standardisation in the MR assessment of prostate cancer (PCa) local recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT). This study aims to evaluate PI-RR's diagnostic accuracy, assess the inter-observer reliability among readers with variable experience, and correlate imaging results with anatomopathological and laboratory parameters. METHODS: Patients who underwent a pelvic MRI for suspicion of PCa local recurrence after RP or RT were retrospectively enrolled (October 2017-February 2020). PI-RR scores were independently assessed for each patient by five readers with variable experience in prostate MRI (two senior and three junior radiologists). Biochemical data and histopathological features were collected. The reference standard was determined through biochemical, imaging, or histopathological follow-up data. Reader's diagnostic performance was assessed using contingency tables. Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated to measure inter-observer reliability. RESULTS: The final cohort included 120 patients (median age, 72 years [IQR, 62-82]). Recurrence was confirmed in 106 (88.3%) patients. Considering a PI-RR score ≥ 3 as positive for recurrence, minimum and maximum diagnostic values among the readers were as follows: sensitivity 79-86%; specificity 64-86%; positive predictive value 95-98%; negative predictive value 33-46%; accuracy 79-87%. Regardless of reader's level of experience, the inter-observer reliability resulted good or excellent (κ ranges across all readers: 0.52-0.77), and ICC was 0.8. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity, baseline-PSA, and trigger-PSA resulted predictive of local recurrence at imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The PI-RR system is an effective tool for MRI evaluation of PCa local recurrence and facilitates uniformity among radiologists. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study confirmed the PI-RR system's good diagnostic accuracy for the MRI evaluation of PCa local recurrences. It showed high reproducibility among readers with variable experience levels, validating it as a promising standardisation tool for assessing patients with biochemical recurrence. KEY POINTS: • In this retrospective study, the PI-RR system revealed promising diagnostic performances among five readers with different experience (sensitivity 79-86%; specificity 64-86%; accuracy 79-87%). • The inter-observer reliability among the five readers resulted good or excellent (κ ranges: 0.52-0.77) with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.8. • The PI-RR assessment score may facilitate standardisation and generalizability in the evaluation of prostate cancer local recurrence among radiologists.

Economical Evaluation of Prostate Cancer Treatment Using Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy and Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Prostate cancer is a common form of cancer among men worldwide. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the economic evaluations of prostate cancer treatment strategies. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted using multiple electronic databases up to May 2021. English-language economic evaluation studies that compared intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), and radical prostatectomy (RP) were included. The studies were evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. The search yielded 1151 potentially relevant publications, which were screened based on the title and abstract. After the removal of duplicates, 55 studies remained, and 9 studies were screened in full text. Finally, textual data were analyzed manually using by-content analysis method. RESULTS: All studies were cost-effective and evaluated quality-adjusted life year as the efficacy indicator. The studies were conducted from either payers' or health systems' perspectives, and the time horizon varied from 5 to 20 years. We included only full economic evaluation studies. The use of IMRT in comparison with 3DCRT was evaluated in 6 studies, based on which IMRT increased health and reduced side effects of treatment. According to incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) results, IMRT was more cost-effective than 3DCRT. Three studies evaluated the use of RP in comparison with radiotherapy. Based on these studies, radiotherapy was more effective than RP. CONCLUSION: IMRT was found to be more cost-effective than 3DCRT in all 6 studies compared with the threshold. Radiotherapy was found to be more effective than RP. However, long-term clinical trial studies are needed to confirm these findings and to provide more definitive conclusions.

Robot-Assisted Surgery and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Post-Prostatectomy Outcomes Among Prostate Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether the differences in short-term outcomes between patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and those treated with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) differ by race and ethnicity. METHODS: This observational study used New York State Cancer Registry data linked to discharge records and included patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer during 2008-2018. We used logistic regression to examine the association between race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic White [NHW], non-Hispanic Black [NHB], Hispanic), surgical approach (RARP, ORP), and postoperative outcomes (major events, prolonged length of stay [pLOS], 30-day re-admission). We tested interaction between race and ethnicity and surgical approach on multiplicative and additive scales. RESULTS: The analytical cohort included 18,926 patients (NHW 14,215 [75.1%], NHB 3195 [16.9%], Hispanic 1516 [8.0%]). The average age was 60.4 years (standard deviation 7.1). NHB and Hispanic patients had lower utilization of RARP and higher risks of postoperative adverse events than NHW patients. NHW, NHB, and Hispanic patients all had reduced risks of adverse events when undergoing RARP versus ORP. The absolute reductions in the risks of major events and pLOS following RARP versus ORP were larger among NHB {relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI): major events -0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.71 to -0.03]; pLOS -0.63 [95% CI -0.98 to -0.35]) and Hispanic (RERI major events -0.27 [95% CI -0.77 to 0.09]; pLOS -0.93 [95% CI -1.46 to -0.51]) patients than among NHW patients. The interaction was absent on the multiplicative scale. CONCLUSIONS: RARP use has not penetrated and benefited all racial and ethnic groups equally. Increasing utilization of RARP among NHB and Hispanic patients may help reduce disparities in patient outcomes after radical prostatectomy.

Prostate Cancer in Transgender Women: Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Management Challenges.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To systematically review the evidence on prostate cancer (PCa) in transgender women (TGW). RECENT FINDINGS: A total of 25 studies were included. Fourteen articles were case reports or case series describing 21 TGW with PCa; 11 papers focused primarily on assessing the incidence or screening of PCa in TGW. The median (range) age of patients with PCa was 63 (45-78) years. Median (range) PSA at diagnosis was 7.5 (0.4-1710) ng/mL. Prostate biopsy detected ISUP 3-5 in 10 (67%) cases. T3-4 stages were described in 7 (64%) patients. Three (14.3%) cases of nodal involvement and 2 (9.5%) of metastases were reported at diagnosis. First-line therapy included radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy ± androgen deprivation therapy in 14 (74 %) subjects. Median (range) follow-up was 24 (2-120) months. A good response to first-line therapy was recorded in 8 (47.1%) cases. Median (range) incidence of PCa in TGW was 44.1 (4.34-140) cases per 100,000 person-years. PCa was significantly less frequent in TGW than in cisgender males (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9). Risk of death after PCa diagnosis was significantly higher in TGW compared to cisgender males (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.06-3.45). TGW had lower lifetime PSA rates (48% vs. 64.6%, p = 0.048) than cisgender males. Few cases of PCa in TGW are currently reported. PCa seems significantly less frequent in TGW than in cisgender males; however, some data suggest a possible higher mortality in this cohort. TGW appear to have less access to PSA testing than cisgender men.

The assessment of erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy using pudendal somatosensory evoked potential.

Erectile dysfunction in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy was evaluated with pudendal somatosensory evoked potentials (PSEP) to measure and predict erectile dysfunction objectively. Fifty-seven patients who completed requirements were included in the study. Patients were divided into 2 groups (potency/non-potency). Erectile function recovery was defined as question 2 and 3 on the IIEF-5 questionnaire at 12 months after surgery. The two-channel PSEP test was performed at the day before RP and 3-6 months after RP. Twenty patients were assigned to the potency group and 37 to the non-potency group. Mean age was less in the potency group. Other clinical variables were similar in two groups. The non-potency group had prolonged lumbar and cortical latencies in postoperative PSEP, and the mean differences of latencies between pre- and postoperative PSEP in lumbar and cortical regions were also greater in the non-potency group. Logistic regression analysis showed that age, lumbar post-operative latency, cortical post-operative latency, and difference of latency in lumbar region were associated with non-potency; odds ratios were 1.292 (p = 0.018), 0.425 (p = 0.047), 1.637 (p < 0.001), and 3.272 (p = 0.010), respectively. This study suggests that PSEP is an effective means of evaluating erectile dysfunction in prostate cancer patients after surgery.

Effect of preoperative PI-RADS assessment on pathological outcomes in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of preoperative MRI with standardized Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment on pathological outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa) patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients who had undergone prostate MRI and subsequent RP for PCa between January 2017 and December 2022. The patients were divided into the PI-RADS group and the non-PI-RADS group according to evaluation scheme of presurgery MRI. The preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were retrieved and analyzed. The pathological outcomes included pathological T stage (pT2 vs. pT3-4) and positive surgical margins (PSMs). Patients were further stratified according to statistically significant preoperative variables to assess the difference in pathological outcomes. A propensity score matching based on the above preoperative characteristics was additionally performed. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients were included in this study, with 201 patients in the PI-RADS group and 179 in the non-PI-RADS group. The two groups had similar preoperative characteristics, except for clinical T stage (cT). As for pathological outcomes, the PI-RADS group showed a significantly lower percentage of pT3-4 (21.4% vs. 48.0%, p < 0.001), a lower percentage of PSMs (31.3% vs. 40.9%, p = 0.055), and a higher concordance between the cT and pT (79.1% vs. 64.8%, p = 0.003). The PI-RADS group also showed a lower proportion of pT3-4 (p < 0.001) in the cT1-2 subgroup and the cohort after propensity score matching. The PSM rate of cT3 patients was reduced by 39.2% in the PI-RADS group but without statistical significance (p = 0.089). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MRI with standardized PI-RADS assessment could benefit the decision-making of patients by reducing the rate of pathologically confirmed non-organ-confined PCa after RP and slightly reducing the PSM rate compared with non-PI-RADS assessment.