Salvage vesiculectomy for local prostate cancer recurrence: surgical technique and early post-operative outcomes.

PURPOSE: Isolated recurrence in remnants of the seminal vesicles (SV) after treatment of primary prostate cancer (PCa) has become a more frequent entity with the widespread use of more sensitive next-generation imaging modalities. Salvage vesiculectomy is hypothesized to be a worthwhile management option in these patients. The primary goal of this study is to describe the surgical technique of this new treatment option. Secondary outcomes are peri- and post-operative complications and early oncological outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study, including 108 patients with solitary recurrence in the SV treated between January 2009 and June 2022, was performed. Patients with local recurrences outside the SVs or with metastatic disease were excluded. Both SVs were resected using a robot-assisted or an open approach. In selected cases, a concomitant lymphadenectomy was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 31 patients (29%) reported complications, all but one grade 1 to 3 on the Clavien-Dindo Scale. A median PSA decrease of 2.07 ng/ml (IQR: 0.80-4.33, p < 0.001), translating into a median PSA reduction of 92% (IQR: 59-98%) was observed. At a median follow-up of 14 months, freedom from secondary treatment was 54%. Lymphadenectomy had a significant influence on PSA reduction (p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Salvage vesiculectomy for PCa recurrence limited to the SV is a safe procedure with excellent PSA response and is a potential curative treatment in a subset of patients. A concomitant lymphadenectomy can best be performed in all patients that did not underwent one at primary treatment.

Progression-directed Therapy in Oligoprogressive Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Final Results from the Prospective, Single-arm, Phase 2 MEDCARE Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Next-line systemic treatment (NEST) is the standard of care for patients presenting with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Progression-directed therapy (PDT), defined as a lesion-directed approach in patients with a limited number of progressive and/or new lesions, could postpone the need for NEST in these patients with so-called oligoprogressive mCRPC. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility of postponing NEST initiation in oligoprogressive mCRPC by using PDT. METHODS: MEDCARE was a prospective, single-arm, nonrandomized phase 2 trial. Eligible patients had oligoprogressive mCRPC and were treated with PDT while their ongoing systemic therapy was continued. The primary endpoint was NEST-free survival (NEST-FS). Secondary endpoints were prostate-specific antigen response, clinical progression-free survival (cPFS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), overall survival (OS), and PDT-induced toxicity. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Twenty patients underwent PDT for 38 oligoprogressive lesions. At median follow-up of 28 mo, median NEST-FS was 17 mo and the 2-yr NEST-FS rate was 35%. Median PCSS and median OS were not reached. The PCSS and OS rates at 2 yr were 80% and 70%, respectively. The 2-yr local control rate was 95%. No patient experienced early or late grade ≥3 toxicity. NEST-FS was longer for patients who received PDT to all lesions visible on 18F-PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography (30 vs 13 mo; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This single-center, single-arm, phase 2 trial demonstrated that PDT in oligoprogressive mCRPC resulted in median NEST-FS of 17 mo without any early or late grade ≥3 toxicity. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with metastatic prostate cancer no longer responding to hormone therapy, we investigated radiotherapy targeted at progressive cancer lesions while continuing their ongoing systemic treatment. The results show that this targeted therapy had very low toxicity and delayed the need to start a new line of systemic treatment by 17 months.

Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life in High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated by Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy with or Without Adjuvant Treatments.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is used frequently to treat prostate cancer; yet, prospective data on the quality of life and functional outcomes are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of life and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy in different risk groups with or without adjuvant treatments. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Be-RALP database is a prospective multicentre database that covers 9235 RALP cases from 2009 until 2016. Of these 9235 patients, 2336 high-risk prostate cancer patients were matched with low/intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. INTERVENTION: Patients were treated with RALP only or followed by radiotherapy and/or hormone treatment. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We used a mixed-model analysis to longitudinally analyse quality of life, urinary function, and erectile function between risk groups with or without additional treatments. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Risk group was not significant in predicting quality of life, erectile function, or urinary function after RALP. Postoperative treatment (hormone and/or radiotherapy treatment) was significant in predicting International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), sexual activity, and sexual functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Risk group was not linked with clinically relevant declines in functional outcomes after RALP. The observed functional outcomes and quality of life are in favour of considering RALP for high-risk prostate cancer. Postoperative treatment resulted in lower erectile function measures without clinically relevant changes in quality of life and urinary functions. Hormone therapy seems to have the most prominent negative effects on these outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study investigated the quality of life, and urinary and erectile function in patients with aggressive and less aggressive prostate cancer after surgery only or in combination with hormones or radiation. We found that quality of life recovers completely, while erectile and urinary function recovers only partially after surgery. Aggressiveness of the disease had a minimal effect on the outcomes; yet, postoperative treatments lowered erectile function further.

Discovery of a novel androgen receptor antagonist, MEL-6, with stereoselective activity and optimization of its metabolic stability.

A new chemical scaffold with antagonistic activity towards the androgen receptor (AR) was identified. The parent compound, (3-Methoxy-N-[1-methyl-2-(4-phenyl-1-piperazinyl)-2-(2-thienyl)ethyl]benzamide) referred to as MEL-6, binds in the ligand binding pocket of AR and induces an antagonistic conformation of the ligand binding domain, even in presence of the antagonist-to-agonist switch mutations W741C, T877A and F876L-T877A. MEL-6 has antiproliferative effects on several AR positive prostate cancer cell lines. We further identified AR as the specific target of MEL-6 since it demonstrates little effect on other steroid receptors. In LNCaP cells it also inhibits the androgen-regulated transcriptome. These findings identify MEL-6 as a promising candidate for treatment of patients with prostate tumors that have become resistant to current clinically used AR antagonists. Analytical studies on the chemical composition of MEL-6 identified the presence of four isomers (two enantiomeric pairs), among which one isomer is responsible for the antiandrogenic activity. We therefore developed a synthetic route towards the selective preparation of the active enantiomeric pair. Various MEL-6-like analogues had improved metabolic stability while maintaining antiandrogenic activity. Metabolite identification of MEL-6 derivatives pinpointed N-dealkylation of the piperazine as the main mode for inactivation by liver enzymes. For further structural optimization, MEL-6 derivatives were purchased or synthesized having alterations on the N-phenyl group of the piperazine, the benzoyl group and additionally substituting the thiophen-2-yl ring of MEL-6 to a phenyl ring. This optimization process resulted in compound 12b with sustained AR inhibition and a 4-fold increased half-life due to the 1-(5-chloro-2-methylphenyl)-piperazine substitution, thienyl-to-phenyl substitution and chloro in para-position of the benzoyl group.

Nutritional Supplement With Fermented Soy in Men With an Elevated Risk of Prostate Cancer and Negative Prostate Biopsies: General and Oncological Results From the Prospective PRAECAP Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of a dietary supplement containing fermented soy on PSA, IPSS, changes in prostate volume and prostate cancer (PCa) development after a 6-month challenge in men at increased risk of PCa and negative previous biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with an elevated risk of PCa, defined by either 1 of the following criteria: PSA >3 ng/mL, suspect lesion at digital rectal examination (DRE), suspect lesion at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and previous negative prostate biopsies (at least 8 cores) within 12 months before inclusion. Statistical analysis was carried out using a non-parametric 1-sided paired Wilcoxon rank sum test, chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: In this trial, 94 patients were eligible for analysis. A PSA response was detected in 81% of the cases. In 25.8% (24/93) of patients, a decrease of at least 3 points on the IPSS was observed. The median prostate volume did not statistically change after 6 months (P = .908). Patients with PSA modulation required fewer investigations and had fewer positive biopsies (P <.001) and significantly fewer ISUP ≥3 lesions (P = .02). CONCLUSION: We observed a significantly lower PSA level after a 6-month challenge with a fermented soy-containing supplement, and an effect on IPSS in a subset of patients. Prescribing a fermented soy supplement in patients with an increased PCa risk could lead to a better selection of patients at real increased risk of having occult PCa.

Fibroblast Activation Protein-α and the Immune Landscape: Unraveling T1 Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer Progression.

Background and objective: The tumor microenvironment (TME) in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) plays an important role in the anticancer response. We aimed to identify the prognostic biomarkers in the TME of patients with NMIBC for progression to ≥T2. Methods: From our institutional database, 40 patients with T1 high-risk NMIBC who progressed were pair matched for Club Urologico Español de Tratamiento Oncologico (CUETO) progression variables with 80 patients who never progressed despite longer follow-up. Progression was defined as ≥T2 or extravesical disease. Patients were treated at least with bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) induction (five or more of six doses). Immunohistochemical (IHC) markers for the TME were used on tissue at first T1 diagnosis: CD8-PanCK, GZMB-CD8-FOXP3, CD163, PD-L1 SP142/SP263, fibroblast activation protein-α (FAP), and CK5-GATA3. Full tissue slides were annotated digitally. Relative marker area (IHC-positive area/total area) or density (IHC-positive cells per area; n/mm2) was calculated, differentiating between regions of interest (ROIs; T1, Ta, and carcinoma in situ) and between compartments (stromal, epithelial, and combined). Differences in IHC variables were assessed using the t test, for continuous variables using analysis of variance and comparisons of more than two groups using Tukey's test. Conditional logistic regression for progression at 5-yr follow-up was performed with clusters based on pair matching. Key findings and limitations: Only FAP expression (increase per 50%) in T1 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.70) and all ROIs combined (OR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.14-2.29) correlated significantly with progression. None of the other clinicopathological/IHC variables correlated with progression. Conclusions and clinical implications: FAP is a potential prognostic biomarker for progression in high-risk NMIBC. FAP is a marker for cancer-associated fibroblasts and is linked to immunosuppression and neoangiogenesis, which makes future investigation clinically relevant. Patient summary: We found that progression of high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer to muscle-invasive disease is less in patients with lower fibroblast activation protein-α (FAP) expression, which is a marker for cancer-associated fibroblasts.

Effect of Radical Prostatectomy on Survival for Men with High-risk Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Features Selected According to STAMPEDE Criteria: An EMPaCT Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis of two randomized STAMPEDE platform trials revealed that 3 yr of abiraterone acetate in addition to androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy significantly improved metastasis-free and overall survival (OS) in high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) and should be considered a new standard of care. The aim of our study was to assess long-term cancer-specific survival (CSS) and OS for surgically treated patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic node-negative PCa meeting the STAMPEDE criteria for high risk. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of patients with European Association of Urology (EAU) high-risk PCa who underwent radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. CSS was assessed using cumulative incidence curves and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate OS. We used a Fine and Gray model to evaluate the prognostic value of STAMPEDE high-risk factors (SHRFs) for CSS, and a Cox proportional-hazards model to assess the association of SHRFs with OS. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 2994 patients with EAU high-risk PCa were divided into groups with 0, 1, 2, or 3 SHRFs. The 10-yr survival estimates for patients with 0-1 versus 2-3 SHRFs were 95% versus 82% for CSS and 81% versus 64% for OS (both p < 0.0001). In comparison to patients with 0 SHRFs, hazard ratios were 1.2 (p = 0.5), 3.9 (p < 0.0001), and 5.5 (p < 0.0001) for CSS, and 1.1 (p = 0.4), 2.2 (p < 0.0001), and 2.5 (p = 0.0004) for OS for patients with 1, 2, and 3 SHRFs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our results confirm that the STAMPEDE high-risk criteria identify a subgroup of patients with highly aggressive PCa features and adverse long-term oncological outcomes. This population is likely to benefit most from aggressive multimodal treatment. Nevertheless, we have shown for the first time that surgery remains a viable treatment option for patients with STAMPEDE high-risk PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate cancer that meets the high-risk definitions from the STAMPEDE trial is an aggressive type of cancer. Our results for long-term cancer control outcomes indicate that surgery is a viable option for the subgroup of patients with this type of prostate cancer.

Risk of Cancer-related Death for Men with Biopsy Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer and High-risk Features: A European Multi-institutional Study.

International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 1 (GG 1) prostate cancer (PCa) is generally considered insignificant, with recent suggestions that it should even be considered as "noncancerous". We evaluated outcomes for patients with GG 1 PCa on biopsy (bGG 1) and high-risk features (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml and/or cT3-4 stage) to challenge the hypothesis that every case of bGG 1 PCa has a benign disease course. We used the multi-institutional EMPaCT database, which includes data for 9508 patients with high-risk PCa undergoing surgery. We included patients with bGG 1 PCa (n = 848) in our analysis and divided them into three groups according to PSA >20 ng/ml, cT3-4 stage, or both. The estimated 10-yr cancer-specific survival (CSS) rate was 96% in the overall population, 88% in the group with both PSA >20 ng/ml and cT3-4 stage, 97% in the group with PSA >20 ng/ml alone, and 98% in the group with cT3-4 stage alone. Similar CSS outcomes were found in subgroups with GG 1 PCa on pathology (n = 502) and with GG 1 on biopsy diagnosed after 2005 (n = 253). Study limitations include the lack of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) staging and MRI-targeted biopsies. In conclusion, patients with GG 1 and either PSA >20 ng/ml or cT3-4 stage have a low risk of dying from their cancer after surgery. However, patients with GG 1 PCa and both PSA >20 ng/ml and cT3-4 stage are at higher risk of cancer-specific mortality and active treatment should be discussed for this subgroup. Patient summary: We assessed outcomes for patients diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer on biopsy who also had one or two factors associated with high risk disease. Men with both of those risk factors had a higher risk of dying from their prostate cancer. Active treatment should be discussed for this subgroup of patients.

Guía de la EAU para el Cáncer de Próstata / EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer

Objetivos: Presentar un resumen de la versión del 2007 de la guía de la Asociación Europea de Urología (EAU) para el cáncer de próstata (CaP). Métodos: Se realizó por un grupo de trabajo una revisión de los nuevos datos presentes desde 2004 hasta 2007 en la literatura. Las guías han sido actualizadas y el nivel de evidencia/grado de recomendación ha sido añadido al texto basándose en una revisión sistemática de la literatura, que incluía una búsqueda de las bases de datos online y revisiones bibliográficas. Resultados: Una versión completa está disponible en la EAU Office o en www.uroweb.org. El método diagnóstico de elección es la biopsia sistematizada de la próstata bajo control ecográfico. El tratamiento activo es el recomendado en la mayoría de los pacientes con enfermedad localizada y una larga esperanza de vida, siendo la prostatectomía radical superior a la vigilancia (“watchful waiting”) en un ensayo randomizado prospectivo. La prostatectomía radical con preservación de bandeletas es la técnica de elección en la enfermedad órgano-confinada; el bloqueo androgénico neoadyuvante no ha demostrado una mejoría en las variables de resultados. La radioterapia debe realizarse con al menos 72 Gy en el CaP de bajo riesgo y con 78 Gy en el de intermedio - alto riesgo. El bloqueo androgénico en monoterapia es el estándar del tratamiento en el CaP metastásico; el bloqueo androgénico intermitente podría ser un tratamiento alternativo en pacientes seleccionados. El seguimiento se basa principalmente en los niveles de PSA y en la anamnesis específica de la enfermedad, estando las pruebas de imagen sólo indicadas cuando aparecen los síntomas. La quimioterapia con docetaxel ha surgido como el tratamiento de referencia para el CaP metastásico hormonorefractario. Conclusiones: El conocimiento en el campo del CaP está rápidamente cambiando. Estas guías de la EAU resumen los hallazgos más recientes y los aplican a la práctica clínica (AU)

Objectives: To present a summary of the 2007 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on prostate cancer (PCa).Methods: A literature review of the new data emerging from 2004 to 2007 was performed by the working panel. The guidelines have been updated, and the level of evidence/grade of recommendation was added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. Results: A full version is available at the EAU Office or at www.uroweb.org. Systemic prostate biopsy under ultrasound guidance is the preferred diagnostic method. Active treatment is mostly recommended for patients with localized disease and a long life expectancy, with radical prostatectomy being shown to be superior to watchful waiting in a prospective randomized trial. Nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease; neoadjuvant androgen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with at least 72 and 78 Gy in low-risk and intermediate- to high-risk PCa, respectively. Monotherapeutic androgen deprivation is the standard of care in metastatic PCa; intermittent androgen deprivation might be an alternative treatment option for selected patients. Follow-up is largely based on prostate-specific antigen and a disease-specific history with imaging only indicated when symptoms occur. Cytotoxic therapy with docetaxel has emerged as the reference treatment for metastatic hormone-refractory PCa. Conclusions: The knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarize the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice (AU)

Nefrectomía parcial abierta para tumores complejos y > 4 cm: ¿Es todavía la técnica de referencia en la era mínimamente invasiva? / Open partial nephrectomy for complex tumours and > 4 cm: is it still the gold standard technique in the minimally invasive era?

El objetivo de este artículo es discutir el papel de la nefrectomía parcial abierta (NPA) en tumores renales complejos y tumores grandes > 4 cm en la era mínimamente invasiva. Revisamos el estado actual de la NPA, la nefrectomía parcial laparoscópica (NPL) y la nefrectomía parcial robótica (NPR). Se realiza una búsqueda de la literatura utilizando la base de datos de la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (PubMed). La indicación de NPA se ha extendido a tumores T1b (4-7 cm). La nefrectomía parcial y la radical ofrecen resultados oncológicos equivalentes para estos tumores. Además, hay una aplicación creciente de la NPA para tumores complejos (de localización central, hiliares, multifocales). A pesar de la cohorte de pacientes más exigente, no hay un aumento de la morbilidad general de la NPA. En series contemporáneas hay un aumento de pacientes con sobrepeso y una incidencia mayor de tumores centrales tratados con NPA. La NPL se ha extendido a pacientes seleccionados con masas renales más grandes (4-7 cm) y tumores de localización central. La NPL para tumores > 4 cm se asociaba en la primera fase con un aumento de la tasa de complicaciones y con un tiempo de isquemia caliente prolongado. Las tasas de complicaciones descendieron con la mejora de la técnica quirúrgica y la experiencia. La experiencia temprana con la nefrectomía parcial robótica es prometedora y los resultados perioperatorios son al menos comparables con los de la NPL. La NPL y la robótica tienen que competir con los resultados funcionales y oncológicos de la NPA(AU)

En la era de la cirugía renal conservadora la NPA sigue siendo el estándar establecido para el tratamiento de los tumores renales T1 en centros sin experiencia en laparoscopia avanzada. Los casos complejos con tumores centrales, tumores en riñón único y lesiones multifocales probablemente se manejen mejor con NPA. La NPL es factible en numerosos escenarios en centros con experiencia en laparoscopia avanzada, pero sigue siendo una operación exigente. Son necesarios estudios a largo plazo para definir mejor el papel del abordaje robótico de la NP(AU)

The objective of this paper is to discuss the role of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) for complex renal tumours and large renal tumours > 4 cm in the minimally invasive era. The current status of OPN, laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robotic PN are reviewed. The literature search is done using the National Library of Medicine database (PubMed).The indication of OPN has been extended to T1b tumours (4-7 cm). PN and radical nephrectomy (RN) provide equivalent oncological outcomes for these tumours. In addition, there is a growing application of OPN for complex tumours (centrally located, hilar, multifocal). Despite the more challenging cohort of patients, there is no increase in the overall morbidity of OPN. In contemporary cohorts there is an increase in overweight patients and a higher incidence of central tumours treated with OPN. LPN has been extended to select patients with larger renal masses (4–7 cm) and centrally located tumours. LPN for tumours > 4 cm was in the early phase associated with increased complication rate and prolonged warm ischemia time (WIT). Complication rates decreased with improvement of surgical technique and expertise. Early experience with robotic PN is promising and perioperative outcomes are at least comparable to LPN. LPN and robotic PN have to compete with the functional and oncological results of OPN. In the era of nephron-sparing surgery (NSS), OPN remains the established standard for the management of T1 renal tumours in centres without advanced laparoscopic expertise. Complex scenarios with centrally located tumours, tumours in a solitary kidney, and multifocal lesions probably are best managed with OPN. LPN is feasible in numerous clinical scenarios in centres with advanced laparoscopic expertise but remains a challenging operation. Long-term studies are needed to further define the role of the robotic approach for PN(AU)

Papel actual de la cirugía en el cáncer de próstata de alto riego / Current role of surgery for high risk prostate cancer

En esta revisión se discute el papel de la cirugía en los pacientes con tumor de características adversas y alto riesgo de progresión tumoral. En la actual era del PSA, la proporción de pacientes que presentan cáncer de próstata (CaP) de alto riesgo se estima que es entre el 15% y 25%, con una supervivencia de 10 años cáncer-específica en el rango de 80-90% de los que recibieron tratamiento local activo. El tratamiento del cáncer de próstata de alto riesgo es un reto contemporáneo. La cirugía en este grupo está ganando popularidad, dado que se han publicado datos de 10 años de supervivencia cáncer-específica del 90%. La prostatectomía radical se debe combinar con linfadenectomía extendida. Los tratamientos adyuvantes o de rescate pueden ser necesarios en más de la mitad de los pacientes, basándose en los hallazgos anatomo-patológicos y el PSA postoperatorio. Lamentablemente no hay ensayos aleatorios controlados que comparen la prostatectomía radical y la radioterapia y no hay ningún tratamiento que pueda ser recomendado universalmente. Este grupo de pacientes de cáncer de próstata de alto riesgo debería ser considerado como un desafío multidisciplinario; sin embargo, la prostatectomía radical, para el paciente adecuadamente seleccionado, ya sea como primer o como único tratamiento puede ser considerada un tratamiento excelente(AU)

In this review, the role of surgery in patients with adverse tumor characteristics and a high risk of tumor progression are discussed. In the current PSA era the proportion of patients presenting with high risk prostate cancer (PCa) is estimated to be between 15% and 25% with a 10-year cancer specific survival in the range of 80-90% for those receiving active local treatment. The treatment of high risk prostate cancer is a contemporary challenge. Surgery in this group is gaining popularity since 10-year cancer specific survival data of over 90% has been described. Radical prostatectomy should be combined with extended lymphadenectomy. Adjuvant or salvage therapies may be needed in more than half of patients, guided by pathologic findings and postoperative PSA. Unfortunately there are no randomized controlled trials comparing radical prostatectomy to radiotherapy and no single treatment can be universally recommended. This group of high risk prostate cancer patients should be considered a multi-disciplinary challenge; however, for the properly selected patient, radical prostatectomy either as initial or as the only therapy can be considered an excellent treatment(AU)

Salvage reconstructive surgery in an adult patient with failed previous repair of an extrophy-epispadias complex: an operation with a functional and aesthetic purpose

Salvage surgical procedures after failed reconstruction for an extrophy-epispadias complex are extremely challenging. The goals are to restore continence and improve aesthetic appearance in order to provide quality of life and an improved body image to the patient. We describe the surgical steps in an adult patient who presented anal urinary incontinence and a poor body image due to the absence of an umbilicus and the presence of hypertrophic scars. He underwent a modified Mainz II reconstruction of the lower urinary tract at childhood for an extrophy-epispadias complex. Restoration of continence was achieved by the construction of a modified Mainz I pouch with a continent stoma in a neo-umbilicus. Body image improved dramatically by the construction of a neo-umbilicus, a surgical revision of the hypertrophic abdominal scars and an abdominoplasty. It is mandatory that such demanding surgery should only be attempted as a combined multidisciplinary effort with urologists and plastic/reconstructive surgeons.