Trimodal therapy with high-dose-rate brachytherapy and hypofractionated external beam radiation combined with long-term androgen deprivation for unfavorable-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the outcomes of high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy and hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) combined with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in very-high-risk (VHR) versus high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa), as defined in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria. METHODS: Data from 338 consecutive HR or VHR PCa patients who had undergone this tri-modal therapy between 2005 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free, progression-free, overall, and cancer-specific survival (BCRFS/PFS/OS/CSS) rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Wilcoxon test. Cox regression models were used to evaluate candidate prognostic factors for survival. C­indexes were used to assess model discrimination. RESULTS: Within a median follow-up of 84 months, 68 patients experienced BCR, 58 had disease progression including only 3 with local progression, 27 died of any cause, and 2 died from PCa. The 5­year BCRFS, PFS, OS, and CSS rates were 82.2% (HR 86.5%; VHR 70.0%), 90.0% (HR 94.3%; VHR 77.6%), 95.7% (HR, 97.1%; VHR, 91.8%), and 99.6% (HR, 100%; VHR, 98.0%), respectively. In multivariable analyses that adjusted for standard clinicopathologic features, the risk subclassification was associated both PFS and OS (p = 0.0003 and 0.001, respectively). Adding the risk subclassification improved the accuracy of models in predicting BCRFS, PFS, and OS. CONCLUSION: While the outcome of this trimodal approach appears favorable, VHR PCa patients had significantly worse oncological outcomes than those with HR PCa. The NCCN risk subclassification should be integrated into prognostic tools to guide risk stratification, treatment, and follow-up for unfavorable PCa patients receiving this trimodal therapy.

Prospective comparison of the efficacy of caudal versus periprostatic nerve block, both with intrarectal local anesthesia, during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostatic needle biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of caudal block (CB) versus periprostatic nerve block (PPNB), both with intrarectal local anesthesia (IRLA), in reducing pain during transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostatic biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 532 patients: 266 patients received CB with IRLA and 266 patients PPNB with IRLA. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was applied to prospectively evaluate pain (1) at induction of anesthesia, (2) at insertion of the TRUS probe, (3) at needle penetration to the prostate, and (4) throughout the biopsy procedure. Pain scores were compared to evaluate differences between groups. The secondary endpoint of serious complication rate was also evaluated. As a subanalysis, the pain scores were compared in patients with high body mass index (BMI ≥25 kg/m²). RESULTS: Overall, the pain score in the PPNB group was significantly lower than in the CB group at induction of anesthesia (mean ± SD: 2.0 ± 1.9 vs 2.9 ± 2.1, p = .0001) but higher at insertion of the TRUS probe (2.7 ± 2.5 vs 1.9 ± 1.7, p = .009). The pain score did not differ significantly between groups at needle penetration or throughout the biopsy. Univariate analyses indicated no significant association between VAS scores and patient demographics. Overall rates of serious complications did not differ between the two groups (5.6% vs 5.3%, p = .85). In patients with high BMI, the pain score was significantly lower in the PPNB group than in the CB group throughout the procedure (2.5 ± 2.0 vs 3.5 ± 2.5, p = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures were equally effective in reducing pain, and the incidence of serious complications was similar. PPNB with IRLA may be more applicable than CB with IRLA in obese patients.

[Clinical studies on TUR-P using clinical path: report of 50 cases and review of literature].

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to clarify the usefulness and problems involved in the clinical path of transurethral prostatectomy (TUR-P) in hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The subjects consisted of 50 patients, for whom the Department of Urology, Jikei Medical University Hospital introduced its own clinical path and performed TUR-P during a period of 9 months from July 1999 to March 2000. The mean length of hospital stay, rate of postoperative complications, and the medical insurance claims made by these patients were clarified and compared with those of 73 patients before introduction of the clinical path. RESULTS: With the introduction of the clinical path, the length of hospital stay decreased by an average of 3.4 days and the total medical insurance claims decreased by an average of 18.5%. The rate of postoperative complications before and after introduction was almost equal. CONCLUSION: Our clinical path for TUR-P was well accepted by both patients and comedicals. However, the present medical treatment system in Japan is not as yet prepared to promote the introduction of this clinical path, and it will take some time before this clinical path is introduced on a full scale.