Oncological effect of palliative transurethral resection of the prostate in patients with advanced prostate cancer: a propensity score matching study.

PURPOSE: We investigated the oncologic effect of palliative transurethral resection of the prostate (pTURP) in patients with prostate cancer who received primary androgen deprivation therapy. METHODS: We reviewed 614 patients, including 83 who underwent pTURP; those with incidental prostate cancer were excluded. Patients were divided into the TURP group and non-TURP group. Propensity score matching was performed for comorbidity, initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA), TNM stage, and Gleason score (GS). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to confirm castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Cox regression was performed to confirm factors affecting CSS. RESULTS: Before matching, the TURP group had a worse TNM stage (p < 0.01) and GS (p = 0.028) and larger prostate volume (50.1 vs. 39.0 cc, p = 0.005) than the non-TURP group. The most common reason for pTURP was acute urinary retention. After matching, the TURP group showed worse outcomes in CRPC (p = 0.003), CSS (p = 0.003), and OS (p = 0.026). In multivariate analysis, factors for predicting CSS were a positive core percent [hazard ratio (HR) 1.015, p = 0.0272], GS (10 vs. ≤8; HR 6.716, p = 0.0008), and TURP within 3 months after biopsy (HR 2.543, p = 0.0482). The resection weight (HR 1.000, p = 0.9730), resection time (HR 1.000, p = 0.3670), and blood transfusion (HR 0.630, p = 0.1860) were not associated with CSS. CONCLUSIONS: The oncologic effect of pTURP as cytoreductive operation seems to be limited. Patients who had to receive pTURP due to cancer-related symptoms, especially early necessity of pTURP (within 3 months after biopsy), showed worse clinical courses; therefore, they should be treated more carefully and actively.

Impact of surgery on the prognosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with IVC thrombus received TKI therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of surgery on the prognosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombus. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the medical records of 45 patients who presented with synchronous mRCC with IVC thrombus, between 2005 and 2012, were reviewed. Twenty-eight patients underwent radical nephrectomy with IVC thrombectomy followed by targeted therapy (group 1) and 17 received targeted therapy alone (group 2). Cox proportional hazards regression models served to estimate the prognostic significance of variables. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival of group 1 and group 2 was 4.1 and 3.5 months, respectively (P = 0.672). Their median overall survival was 17.3 and 19.7 months, respectively (P = 0.353). Multivariate analysis revealed that non-clear cell type RCC (HR = 3.46, P = 0.007) and lymph node metastasis (HR = 2.31, P = 0.003) independently predicted progression-free survival, and Karnofsky performance status (HR = 3.82, P = 0.013) and non-clear cell type RCC (HR = 4.01, P = 0.003) independently predicted overall survival. Surgical resection of the primary renal mass with IVC thrombus did not affect the probability of progression or overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our limited data set would suggest a limited role for surgery in this patient population and that a prospective study in this group may define the role of surgery.

Cystoscopic injection of N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate followed by fibrin glue for the treatment of persistent or massive vesicourethral anastomotic urine leak after radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: Vesicourethral anastomotic urine leak is a common postoperative complication of radical prostatectomy. Herein we describe a novel method for the treatment of this complication. METHODS: Intervention for a prolonged or massive anastomotic urine leak was required in 10 out of 1828 patients (0.5%) submitted to radical prostatectomy between 2007 and 2011. N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (Histoacryl) followed by fibrin glue (Greenplast) were injected under local anesthesia into vesicourethral anastomotic gaps under fluoroscopic guidance using a 20-Fr rigid cystoscope. Cystograms were taken in all patients to confirm complete urine leak resolution before the removal of the urethral catheter. RESULTS: Cystoscopic injection of Histoacryl followed by fibrin glue was technically successful and well tolerated in all patients. The mean time from radical prostatectomy to glue injection was 16.0 days (range 12-27 days). Urethral catheterization was required for an average of 7.7 days after cystoscopic injection of fibrin glue (range 3-13 days). These measures ultimately enabled complete resolution of the urine leak in all cases. At a mean follow up of 23.3 months, all 10 patients were fully continent. The mean time to recovery of urinary continence was 20.4 weeks (range 3.9-60.0 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Cystoscopic injection of N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate followed by fibrin glue into the anastomotic gap is both a feasible and effective solution in patients with a persistent or massive vesicourethral anastomotic urine leak after radical prostatectomy.

Comparative efficacy of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after the failure of first-line VEGF TKI.

Sequential therapy is a standard strategy used to overcome the limitations of targeted agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. It remains unclear whether a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor is a more effective second-line therapy after first-line vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGF TKI) has failed than the alternative, VEGF TKI. A clinical database was used to identify all patients with renal cell carcinoma who failed at first-line VEGF TKI and then treated with second-line VEGF TKI or mTOR inhibitors in the Asan Medical Center. Patient medical characteristics, radiological response and survival status were assessed. Of the 83 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 41 received second-line VEGF TKI [sunitinib (n = 16) and sorafenib (n = 25)] and 42 were treated with mTOR inhibitors [temsirolimus (n = 11) and everolimus (n = 31)]. After a median follow-up duration of 23.9 months (95 % CI, 17.8-30.0), progression-free survival was 3.0 months for both groups [hazard ratio (HR, VEGF TKI vs. mTOR inhibitor) = 0.97, 95 % CI 0.59-1.62, P = 0.92]. Overall survival was 10.6 months for the VEGF TKI group and 8.2 months for the mTOR inhibitor group (HR = 0.98, 95 % CI 0.57-1.68, P = 0.94). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of disease control rate (51 % for VEGF TKI and 59 % for mTOR inhibitor, P = 0.75). Second-line VEGF TKI seems to be as effective as mTOR inhibitors and may be a viable option as a second-line agent after first-line anti-VEGF agents have failed.

Efficacy and safety of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and poor risk features.

BACKGROUND: Temsirolimus is a standard of care in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with poor risk factors. The role of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) remains poorly defined in this setting. METHODS: Records of our center were examined to identify patients with mRCC and 3 or more poor prognosis factors, as determined in the Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (ARCC) trial, who had been treated with VEGFR TKIs. Their baseline characteristics, radiologic response, adverse events, and survival status were assessed. RESULTS: The 88 patients who met our inclusion criteria had a median age of 56 years (range 17-83 years). We observed clear cell histology in 71 (81%) patients, and 52 (59%) underwent prior nephrectomy. Seventy-six patients (86%) were treated with sunitinib and 10 (11%) with sorafenib. Of 85 patients with measurable lesions, 19 (22%) showed objective response, with disease control achieved in 49 (56%). At a median follow-up of 29.6 months, the median time to progression was 5.0 months (95% CI, 3.5-6.5 months) and the median overall survival (OS) was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.1-11.5 months). Neutrophil count (>ULN), bone metastasis, and lymph node metastasis were independent prognostic factors for OS, whereas prior nephrectomy was not. CONCLUSIONS: VEGFR TKIs, especially sunitinib, are active and tolerated by mRCC patients with poor risk features.

Comparative efficacy of sunitinib versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the efficacy and toxicity of sorafenib and sunitinib as primary treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: We identified 49 and 220 patients treated with sorafenib and sunitinib, respectively, as first-line therapy in the Asan Medical Centre from April 2005 to March 2011. RESULTS: Disease control rates of 71 and 74% were achieved with sorafenib and sunitinib, respectively (p = 0.687). After a median follow-up of 27.6 months, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between the sorafenib and the sunitinib group (PFS 8.6 vs. 9.9 months, respectively, p = 0.948, and OS 25.7 vs. 22.6 months, p = 0.774). Patients treated with sorafenib required dose reduction due to toxicities less frequently than those treated with sunitinib (37 vs. 54%, p = 0.034). Haematological toxicity of grade 3 or 4 was more common in the sunitinib group than in the sorafenib group (45 vs. 4%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed old age, Heng's risk group, and bone and liver metastases, but not the type of vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, were independent prognostic factors affecting OS. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that sorafenib has comparable efficacy to sunitinib in the treatment of mRCC patients and fewer and less severe toxicities, but the number of patients included in the study was small.

Effectiveness of local anaesthesia techniques in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized study.

AIM: This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of intrarectal lidocaine gel versus periprostatic lidocaine injection during transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. METHODS: Ninety men undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy from July through December 2004 were randomized into three groups of 30 patients each. Before the biopsy, patients in Group 1 received 20 mL of 2% lidocaine gel intrarectally; patients in Group 2 received 5 mL (2.5 mL per side) of 2% lidocaine solution injected near the junction of the seminal vesicle with the base of the prostate (along the neurovascular bundles), and patients in Group 3 (control group) received 5 mL (2.5 mL per side) of normal saline injected along the neurovascular bundles. Pain level after the biopsy was assessed using a 10-point linear visual analog scale (VAS). Results were statistically compared by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. RESULTS: Patients in Group 2 had significantly lower VAS scores than those in Group 3 (3.6 +/- 2.1 vs 5.8 +/- 1.9, P < 0.0001), but those in Group 1 did not (5.5 +/- 2.7 vs 5.8 +/- 1.9, P = 0.67). Gross hematuria, rectal bleeding, and hemospermia occurred in 36 (40.0%), 6 (7%) and 5 (6%) patients. One patient had temporary vasovagal syncope. No patient reported febrile urinary tract infection or urinary retention. CONCLUSIONS: Periprostatic injection of local anaesthetic is a safe technique that significantly reduces pain during prostate biopsy, whereas intrarectal lidocaine injection did not reduce pain. This safe, simple technique should be applied in men undergoing TRUS-guided prostate biopsy to limit patient discomfort.