RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Current management options for localized prostate cancer (PCa) include radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT), and active surveillance (AS). Despite comparable oncological outcomes, there is still lack of evidence on their comparative effectiveness in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). We conducted a systematic review of studies comparing PROMs and PREMs after all recommended management options for localized PCa (RP, RT, AS). METHODS: A literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases in accordance with recommendations from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. All prospective clinical trials reporting PROMs and/or PREMs for comparisons of RP versus RT versus AS were included. A narrative synthesis was used to summarize the review findings. No quantitative synthesis was performed because of the heterogeneity and limitations of the studies available. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Our findings reveal that RP mostly affects urinary continence and sexual function, with better results for voiding symptoms in comparison to other treatments. RT was associated with greater impairment of bowel function and voiding symptoms. None of the treatments had a significant impact on mental or physical quality of life. Only a few studies reported PREMs, with a high rate of decision regret for all modalities (up to 23%). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: All recommended treatments for localized PCa have an impact on PROMs and PREMs, but for different domains and with differing severity. We found significant heterogeneity in PROM collection, so standardization in real-world practice and clinical trials is warranted. Only a few studies have reported PREMs, highlighting an unmet need that should be explored in future studies. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed differences in patient reports of their outcomes and experiences after surgical prostate removal, radiotherapy, or active surveillance for prostate cancer. We found differences in the effects on urinary, bowel, and sexual functions among the treatments, but no difference for mental or physical quality of life. Our results can help doctors and prostate cancer patients in shared decision-making.
RESUMEN
Despite transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPB) being still widespread globally, the EAU Guidelines strongly recommend the transperineal approach, due to the reported lower infectious risk. Our study aims to evaluate the impact of a standardized clinical pathway for TRPB on post-operative complications. We prospectively collected data from all patients undergoing mpMRI-targeted TRPB at our Academic Centre from January 2020 to December 2022. All patients followed a standardized, structured multistep pathway. Post-procedural complications were collected and classified according to the Clavien-Dindo (CD) Classification. Among 458 patients, post-procedural adverse events were reported by 203 (44.3%), of which 161 (35.2%) experienced CD grade 1 complications (hematuria [124, 27.1%], hematochezia [22, 4.8%], hematospermia [14, 3.1%], or a combination [20, 4.4%]), and 45 (9.0%) reported CD grade 2 complications (acute urinary retention or hematuria needing catheterization, as well as urinary tract infections, of which 2 cases required hospitalization). No major complications, including sepsis, were observed. At uni- and multivariable analysis, age > 70 years and BMI > 25 kg/ m2 for patients were identified as predictors of post-operative complications. The results of our study confirm that TRPB is a safe and cost-effective procedure with a low risk of severe adverse events in experienced hands and following a standardized pathway.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Focal therapy (FT) is a promising alternative with curative intent for Low- to Intermediate-risk localized Prostate Cancer (PCa), claiming better functional outcomes and safety profile than standard whole-gland treatments. Ten different FT modalities have been described in the literature. The objective of our narrative review is to evaluate the safety profile and functional outcomes of these different modalities and the current most used tools of assessment for those outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Literature search was performed on 21st February 2023 using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). Articles reporting whole-gland treatments were excluded. All articles reporting functional outcomes were included. RESULTS: One-hundred-seven studies, reporting data on 6933 patients, were included (26 on High Intensity Focal Ultrasound, 22 on Focal Cryotherapy, 14 on Irreversible Electroporation, 11 on Focal brachytherapy, 10 on Focal Laser Ablation, 8 on Photodynamic Therapy, 3 on Microwave ablation, 3 on Robotic Partial Prostatectomy, 2 on bipolar Radio Frequency Ablation, 1 on Prostatic Artery Embolization, and 7 studies comparing different FTs). Post-operative pad-free rate ranged between 92.3-100%. Greater heterogeneity exists considering the Change in Erectile Function, with Changing in Erectile function- rates ranging between 0-94.4% (Cryotherapy). The most used Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were the International Prostate Symptom Score and the International Index of Erectile Function for incontinence/urinary function and potency, respectively. The most common reported complications were hematuria, infections, and urethral strictures, with rates widely ranging among different treatments. The Clavien-Dindo Classification was the most used (40/88 papers) to describe adverse events. CONCLUSION: FT is a promising treatment for localized PCa, achieving excellent results in terms of safety and functional outcomes. There is a wide heterogeneity in the definition of PROMS and time of collection between studies. High quality comparative studies with standard treatments are needed to reinforce these findings.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Focal therapy (FT) is a promising alternative to whole-gland treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer. Ten different FT modalities have been described in literature. However, FT is not yet recommended by the International Guidelines, due to the lack of robust data on Oncological Outcomes. The objective of our Narrative Review is to evaluate the oncological profile of the available FT modalities and to offer a comprehensive overview of the definitions of Cancer Control for FT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Literature search was performed on 21st February 2023 using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). Articles reporting whole gland-treatments were excluded. All articles reporting oncological outcomes were included. RESULTS: One-hundred-twenty-four studies, reporting data on more than 8000 patients treated with FT, were included. Overall, 40 papers were on High Intensity Focal Ultrasound (HIFU), 24 on Focal Cryotherapy, 13 on Irreversible Electroporation (IRE), 11 on Focal brachytherapy, 10 on Focal Laser Ablation (FLA), 8 on Photo-Dynamic Therapy (PDT), 3 on Microwave ablation, 3 on Robotic Partial Prostatectomy, 2 on bipolar Radio Frequency Ablation (bRFA), 1 on Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) and 9 comparative papers. Overall, the Biochemical Recurrence (BCR) rate ranged from 0% (Focal Brachytherapy) to 67.5% (HIFU); the Salvage treatment rate ranged from 1% (IRE) to 54% (HIFU) considering re-treatment with FT and from 0% (Focal Brachytherapy) to 66.7% considering standard Radical Treatments. There is no univocal definition of Cancer Control, however the "Phoenix criteria" for BCR were the most commonly used. CONCLUSIONS: FT is a promising alternative treatment for localized prostate cancer in terms of Oncological Outcomes, however there is a wide heterogeneity in the definition of cancer control, the reporting of oncological outcomes and a lack of high-quality clinical trials. Solid comparative studies with standard treatments and an unambiguous consensus on how to describe Cancer Control in the field of Focal Therapy are needed.