Current practice and unmet training needs in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: investigation from the Junior ERUS/YAU working group.

PURPOSE: To access the current scenario of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy training in multiple centers worldwide. METHODS: We created a multiple-choice questionnaire assessing all details of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy training with 41 questions divided into three different categories (responder demography, surgical steps, and responder experience). The questionnaire was created and disseminated using the "Google Docs" platform. All responders had an individual invitation by direct message or Email. We selected urologists who had recently finished a postgraduation urologic robotic surgery training (fellowship) in the last five years. We sent 624 invitations to urologists from 138 centers, from January 10th to April 10th, 2022. The answers were reported as percentages and illustrated in pie charts. RESULTS: The response rate was 58% among all centers invited (138/81), 20% among all individual invitations (122/624 answers). Globally, we gathered responses from 23 countries. Most surgeons were older than 34 years, 71% trained in an academic center, and 64% performed less than ten full RARP cases. Transperitoneal is the most common access, and 63% routinely opens the endopelvic fascia. Almost 90% perform the Rocco's stitch, and 94% perform the anastomosis with barbed sutures. Finally, only 31% of surgeons assisted more than 100 cases before moving to the console, and most surgeons (63.9%) performed less than ten full RARP cases during their training. CONCLUSION: By assessing the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy training status in 23 countries and 81 centers worldwide, we assessed the trainees' demography, step-by-step surgical technique, training perspectives, and impressions of surgeons who trained in the last five years. This data is crucial for a better understanding the trainee's standpoint, addressing potential deficiencies, and implementing improvements needed in the training process. Our study clearly indicates elements of current training modalities that are prone to major improvement.

Why Do Men Reject Adjuvant Radiotherapy following Radical Prostatectomy? A Systematic Survey.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate non-adherence rates to adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) and to obtain patient reported reasons for rejecting aRT despite recommendation by a multidisciplinary team discussion (MTD). METHODS: In a retrospective monocentric analysis, we identified 1,197 prostate cancer patients who underwent RP between 2014 and 2022 at our institution, of which 735 received a postoperative MTD recommendation. Patients with a recommendation for aRT underwent a structured phone interview with predefined standardised qualitative and quantitative questions and were stratified into "adherent" (aRT performed) and "non-adherent" groups (aRT not performed). RESULTS: Of 55 patients receiving a recommendation for aRT (7.5% of all RP patients), 24 (44%) were non-adherent. Baseline tumour characteristics were comparable among the groups. "Fear of radiation damage" was the most common reason for rejection, followed by "lack of information," "feeling that the treating physician does not support the recommendation" and "the impression that aRT is not associated with improved oncological outcome." Salvage radiotherapy was performed in 25% of non-adherent patients. CONCLUSION: High rates of non-adherence to aRT after RP were observed, and reasons for this phenomenon are most likely multifactorial. Multidisciplinary and individualized patient counselling might be a key for increasing adherence rates.

MRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer: current evidence and future challenges.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) screening, which relies on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, is a contentious topic that received negative attention due to the low sensitivity and specificity of PSA to detect clinically significant PCa. In this context, due to the higher sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), several trials investigate the feasibility of "MRI-only" screening approaches, and question if PSA testing may be replaced within prostate cancer screening programs. METHODS: This narrative review discusses the current literature and the outlook on the potential of MRI-based PCa screening. RESULTS: Several prospective randomized population-based trials are ongoing. Preliminary study results appear to favor the "MRI-only" approach. However, MRI-based PCa screening programs face a variety of obstacles that have yet to be fully addressed. These include the increased cost of MRI, lack of broad availability, differences in MRI acquisition and interpretation protocols, and lack of long-term impact on cancer-specific mortality. Partly, these issues are being addressed by shorter and simpler MRI approaches (5-20 min bi-parametric MRI), novel quality indicators (PI-QUAL) and the implementation of radiomics (deep learning, machine learning). CONCLUSION: Although promising preliminary results were reported, MRI-based PCa screening still lack long-term data on crucial endpoints such as the impact of MRI screening on mortality. Furthermore, the issues of availability, cost-effectiveness, and differences in MRI acquisition and interpretation still need to be addressed.

Comparison of peri- and intraoperative outcomes of open vs robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard surgical treatment for resectable renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors. However, the decision whether a robotic (RAPN) or open PN (OPN) approach is chosen is often based on the surgeon's individual experience and preference. To overcome the inherent selection bias when comparing peri- and postoperative outcomes of RAPN vs. OPN, a strict statistical methodology is needed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We relied on an institutional tertiary-care database to identify RCC patients treated with RAPN and OPN between January 2003 and January 2021. Study endpoints were estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications, and trifecta. In the first step of analyses, descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models (MVA) were applied. In the second step of analyses, to validate initial findings, MVA were applied after 2:1 propensity-score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Of 615 RCC patients, 481 (78%) underwent OPN vs 134 (22%) RAPN. RAPN patients were younger and presented with a smaller tumor diameter and lower RENAL-Score sum, respectively. Median EBL was comparable, whereas LOS was shorter in RAPN vs. OPN. Both intraoperative (27 vs 6%) and Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications (11 vs 3%) were higher in OPN (both < 0.05), whereas achievement of trifecta was higher in RAPN (65 vs 54%; p = 0.028). In MVA, RAPN was a significant predictor for shorter LOS, lower rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications as well as higher trifecta rates. After 2:1 PSM with subsequent MVA, RAPN remained a statistical and clinical predictor for lower rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications and higher rates of trifecta achievement but not LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in baseline and outcome characteristics exist between RAPN vs. OPN, probably due to selection bias. However, after applying two sets of statistical analyses, RAPN seems to be associated with more favorable outcomes regarding complications and trifecta rates.

Solitary Fibrous Tumor of the Prostate Treated with Frozen-Section Supported Robot-Assisted Nerve-Sparing Radical Prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Solitary fibrous tumors (SFTs) of the prostate are extremely rare. We report on a 60-year-old man who was diagnosed with prostatic SFT through transurethral resection (TUR) of the prostate, and we provide a narrative literature review to put the case into perspective. We looked into multiple databases for articles published before June 2022. CASE REPORT: A 60-year-old man without comorbidities presented with acute urinary retention and significant macrohematuria. Due to recurrent bladder tamponades and relevant blood loss despite irrigation, an emergency endoscopic transurethral evaluation was initiated. Intraoperatively, diffuse venous hemorrhage from prostatic vessels around the bladder neck was detected, as well as significant hemorrhage from a grossly enlarged and tumor-suspicious prostate middle lobe. Within the framework of extensive bipolar coagulation, parts of the suspicious middle lobe were removed via TUR. The final histopathology report showed incompletely resected SFT of the prostate. Due to the extremely rare SFT diagnosis, the case was discussed in an interdisciplinary tumor board and further diagnostic workup, including thoracoabdominal computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis, was performed, which revealed no secondary tumors or signs of metastasis. According to the tumor board recommendation, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with bilateral nerve sparing was performed, supported by intraoperative frozen section. The final histopathology confirmed the SFT that had developed from the transition zone. The SFT was resected with negative frozen section result and negative surgical margins (R0). No intra- and perioperative complications occurred, and in the short-term follow-up, the patient presented in excellent general status with full continence. From 1997 to June 2022, we identified a total of 12 publications reporting on treatment for prostatic SFT (11 case reports and 2 patient series), with none performing bilateral nerve sparing, frozen section, or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. No common survival endpoints were accessible. CONCLUSION: This case demonstrates the exceedingly rare case of SFT of the prostate, which has been described in the literature in only 23 men worldwide. Here, we were the first to demonstrate the feasibility of bilateral nerve-sparing RARP supported by frozen section. A systematic review was not possible due to the lack of common endpoints.

Epidemiology of Unconventional Histological Subtypes of Urethral Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to examine cancer-specific mortality (CSM) of unconventional urethral cancers. METHODS: Within the SEER (2004-2016) database, we analyzed CSM of 165 patients with unconventional urethral-cancer histology. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to test the effect of unconventional histologies in urethral cancer on CSM. RESULTS: Of 165 eligible patients, the Mullerian type accounted for 55 (33.3%) versus melanocytic (26.7%) versus neuroendocrine 25 (15.2%) versus lymphoma 22 (13.3%) versus mesenchymal/sarcoma 15 (9.1%) versus spindle cell 4 (2.1%) patients. Median age at diagnosis was 81 years in spindle cell, 75 in melanocytic, 74 in neuroendocrine and mesenchymal/sarcoma, 67 in lymphoma, and 62 years Mullerian type (p < 0.001). Of all, 116 (70.3%) were female. The Mullerian type exhibited the highest female ratio (96.4%) versus the lowest female ratio in neuroendocrine (24.0%). The Mullerian type was most frequent in African-American females. In Caucasian females, the melanocytic type was most frequent (49.1%). In African-American (38.9%) and Caucasian males (33.3%), neuroendocrine histology was most frequent. Three-year CSM was, respectively, 27.5%, 23.1% 22.3%, 20.5%, and 16.1% for melanocytic, mesenchymal/sarcoma, Mullerian type, neuroendocrine, and lymphoma histology. Median cancer-specific survival was 106 versus 10 months for combined nonmetastatic versus metastatic nonconventional histologies. CONCLUSION: Important age, sex, racial/ethnic group distribution, and survival differences exist between each unconventional urethral-cancer histological subtypes.

Outcomes of Salvage Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the last decade: systematic review and perspectives of referral centers.

PURPOSE: Salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) has gained prominence in recent years for treating patients with cancer recurrence following non-surgical treatments of Prostate Cancer. We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate the role and outcomes of S-RARP over the past decade. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, encompassing articles published between January 1st, 2013, and June 1st, 2023, on S-RARP outcomes. Articles were screened according to PRISMA guidelines, resulting in 33 selected studies. Data were extracted, including patient demographics, operative times, complications, functional outcomes, and oncological outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1,630 patients from 33 studies, radiotherapy was the most common primary treatment (42%). Operative times ranged from 110 to 303 minutes, with estimated blood loss between 50 to 745 mL. Intraoperative complications occurred in 0 to 9% of cases, while postoperative complications ranged from 0 to 90% (Clavien 1-5). Continence rates varied (from 0 to 100%), and potency rates ranged from 0 to 66.7%. Positive surgical margins were reported up to 65.6%, and biochemical recurrence ranged from 0 to 57%. CONCLUSION: Salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with cancer recurrence after previous prostate cancer treatment is safe and feasible. The literature is based on retrospective studies with inherent limitations describing low rates of intraoperative complications and small blood loss. However, potency and continence rates are largely reduced compared to the primary RARP series, despite the type of the primary treatment. Better-designed studies to assess the long-term outcomes and individually specify each primary therapy impact on the salvage treatment are still needed. Future articles should be more specific and provide more details regarding the previous therapies and S-RARP surgical techniques.

Concordance of biopsy and pathologic ISUP grading in salvage radical prostatectomy patients for recurrent prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the concordance of biopsy and pathologic International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading in salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP) patients for recurrent prostate cancer. METHODS: Within a high-volume center database, we identified patients who underwent SRP for recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) between 2004 and 2020. Upgrading, downgrading, concordance, and any discordance between posttreatment biopsy ISUP and ISUP at SRP were tested. Logistic regression models were used to predict ISUP upgrading and ISUP discordance. Models were adjusted for prostatic specific antigen before SRP, age at surgery, initial prostatic specific antigen (PSA), type of primary treatment, time from primary PCa diagnosis to SRP, number of positive cores at biopsy, and original Gleason score. RESULTS: Overall, 184 patients with available biopsy and pathologic ISUP grading were identified. Of those, 17.4% (n = 32), 40.8% (n = 75), 19.6% (n = 36), and 22.2% (n = 41) harbored biopsy ISUP 1, ISUP 2, ISUP 3, and ISUP 4-5 grading, respectively. Pathologic ISUP 1, ISUP 2, ISUP 3, and ISUP 4-5 grading was recorded in 6.0% (n = 11), 40.8% (n = 75), 32.1% (n = 59), and 21.2% (n = 39), respectively. Median PSA before SRP was 5.5 ng/ml (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.1-8.1 ng/ml), median age at SRP was 65.1 years (IQR:60.7-69.4 years) and median time from original PCa diagnosis to SRP was 47 months (IQR: 27.3-85.2 months). Concordance of biopsy and pathologic ISUP was identified in 45.1% (n = 83). Conversely, any ISUP discordance, upgrading and downgrading of at least one ISUP group was identified in 54.9% (n = 101), 35.3% (n = 65), and 19.6% (n = 36). In logistic models, none of the preoperative characteristics was associated with upgrading or ISUP discordance (all p > 0.1). CONCLUSION: Discordance between biopsy and pathologic ISUP grading is common at SRP. However, in 45% of SRP cases biopsy ISUP is capable to predict pathologic ISUP. Further studies are necessary to identify characteristics for ISUP upgrading at SRP.

Survival rates with external beam radiation therapy in newly diagnosed elderly metastatic prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The survival benefit of primary external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has never been formally tested in elderly men who were newly diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). We hypothesized that elderly patients may not benefit of EBRT to the extent as younger newly diagnosed mPCa patients, due to shorter life expectancy. METHODS: We relied on Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (2004-2016) to identify elderly newly diagnosed mPCa patients, aged >75 years. Kaplan-Meier, univariable and multivariable Cox regression models, as well as Competing Risks Regression models tested the effect of EBRT versus no EBRT on overall mortality (OM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM). RESULTS: Of 6556 patients, 1105 received EBRT (16.9%). M1b stage was predominant in both EBRT (n = 823; 74.5%) and no EBRT (n = 3908; 71.7%, p = 0.06) groups, followed by M1c (n = 211; 19.1% vs. n = 1042; 19.1%, p = 1) and M1a (n = 29; 2.6% vs. n = 268; 4.9%, p < 0.01). Median overall survival (OS) was 23 months for EBRT and 23 months for no EBRT (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.97, p = 0.6). Similarly, median cancer-specific survival (CSS) was 29 months for EBRT versus 30 months for no EBRT (HR: 1.04, p = 0.4). After additional multivariable adjustment, EBRT was not associated with lower OM or lower CSM in the entire cohort, as well as after stratification for M1b and M1c substages. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly men who were newly diagnosed with mPCa, EBRT does not affect OS or CSS. In consequence, our findings question the added value of local EBRT in elderly newly diagnosed mPCa patients.

Effect of chemotherapy in metastatic prostate cancer according to race/ethnicity groups.

BACKGROUND: No North-American study tested the survival benefit of chemotherapy in de novo metastatic prostate cancer according to race/ethnicity. We addressed this void. METHODS: We identified de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2014-2015). Separate and specific Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression models tested for overall survival differences between chemotherapy-exposed versus chemotherapy-naïve patients in four race/ethnicity groups: Caucasian versus African-American versus Hispanic/Latino vs Asian. Race/ethnicity specific propensity score matching was applied. Here, additional landmark analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 4232 de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients, 2690 (63.3%) were Caucasian versus 783 (18.5%) African-American versus 504 (11.8%) Hispanic/Latino versus 257 (6.1%) Asian. Chemotherapy rates were: 21.3% versus 20.8% versus 21.0% versus 20.2% for Caucasians versus African-Americans versus Hispanic/Latinos versus Asians, respectively. At 30 months of follow-up, overall survival rates between chemotherapy-exposed versus chemotherapy-naïve patients were 61.5 versus 53.2% (multivariable hazard ratio [mHR]: 0.76, 95 confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-0.92, p = 0.004) in Caucasians, 55.2 versus 51.6% (mHR: 0.76, 95 CI: 0.54-1.07, p = 0.11) in African-Americans, 62.8 versus 57.0% (mHR: 1.11, 95 CI: 0.73-1.71, p = 0.61) in Hispanic/Latinos and 77.7 versus 65.0% (mHR: 0.31, 95 CI: 0.11-0.89, p = 0.03) in Asians. Virtually the same findings were recorded after propensity score matching within each race/ethnicity group. CONCLUSIONS: Caucasian and Asian de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients exhibit the greatest overall survival benefit from chemotherapy exposure. Conversely, no overall survival benefit from chemotherapy exposure could be identified in either African-Americans or Hispanic/Latinos. Further studies are clearly needed to address these race/ethnicity specific disparities.

Survival after radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy in clinical node-positive prostate cancer.

AIM: To compare overall mortality (OM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM), and other cause mortality (OCM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) versus radiotherapy (RT) in clinical node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER) (2004-2016), we identified 4685 cN1 PCa patients, of whom 3589 (76.6%) versus 1096 (24.4%) were treated with RP versus RT. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression models tested the effect of RP versus RT on OM, while cumulative incidence plots and competing-risks regression (CRR) models addressed CSM and OCM between RP and RT patients. All analyses were repeated after the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). For CSM and OCM analyses, the propensity score was used as a covariate in the regression model. RESULTS: Overall, RT patients were older, harbored higher prostate-specific antigen values, higher clinical T and higher Gleason grade groups. PSM resulted in two equally sized groups of 894 RP versus 894 RT patients. After PSM, 5-year OM, CSM, and OCM rates were, respectively, 15.4% versus 25%, 9.3% versus 17%, and 6.1% versus 8% for RP versus RT (all p < 0.001) and yielded respective multivariate hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.63 (0.52-0.78, p < 0.001), 0.66 (0.52-0.86, p < 0.001), 0.71 (0.5-1.0, p = 0.05), all favoring RP. After IPTW, Cox regression models yielded HR of 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.66) for OM, and CRR yielded HRs of 0.49 (0.34-0.70) and 0.54 (0.36-0.79) for, respectively, CSM and OCM, all favoring RP (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RP may hold a CSM advantage over RT in cN1 PCa patients.

Cancer-specific survival after radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in high-risk and very high-risk African American prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk African American patients, as well as Johns Hopkins University (JHU) high-risk and very high-risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 4165 NCCN high-risk patients, of whom 1944 (46.7%) and 2221 (53.3%) patients qualified for JHU high-risk or very high-risk definitions. Of all 4165 patients, 1390 (33.5%) were treated with RP versus 2775 (66.6%) with EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models addressed CSM before and after 1:1 propensity score matching between RP and EBRT NCCN high-risk patients. Subsequently, analyses were repeated separately in JHU high-risk and very high-risk subgroups. Finally, all analyses were repeated after landmark analyses were applied. RESULTS: In the NCCN high-risk cohort, 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 2.4 versus 5.2%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.84, p = 0.009) favoring RP. In JHU very high-risk patients 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 3.7 versus 8.4%, respectively, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.28-0.95, p = 0.03) favoring RP. Conversely, in JHU high-risk patients, no significant CSM difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (5-year CSM rates: 1.3 vs 1.3%; multivariable hazard ratio: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16-1.90, p = 0.3). Observations were confirmed in propensity score-matched and landmark analyses adjusted cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In JHU very high-risk African American patients, RP may hold a CSM advantage over EBRT, but not in JHU high-risk African American patients.

Radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy is associated with higher other-cause mortality.

PURPOSE: To test the association between external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) vs RP only on rates of other-cause mortality (OCM) in men with prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the 2004-2016 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, we identified 181,849 localized PCa patients, of whom 168,041 received RP only vs 13,808 who received RP + EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots displayed OCM between RP vs RP + EBRT after propensity score matching for age, PSA, clinical T- and N-stages, and biopsy Gleason scores. Multivariable competing risks regression models addressed OCM, accounting prostate cancer-specific mortality (CSM) as a competing event. Stratifications were made according to low- vs intermediate- vs high-risk groups and additionally according to age groups of ≤ 60, 61-70, and ≥ 71 years, within each risk group. RESULTS: In low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, RP + EBRT rates were 2.7, 5.4 and 17.0%, respectively. After matching, 10-year OCM rates between RP and RP + EBRT were 7.7 vs 16.2% in low-, 9.4 vs 13.6% in intermediate-, and 11.4 vs 13.5% in high-risk patients (all p < 0.001), which, respectively, resulted in multivariable HR of 2.1, 1.3, and 1.2 (all p < 0.001). In subgroup analyses, excess OCM was recorded in low-risk RP + EBRT patients of all age groups (all p ≤ 0.03), but only in the older age group in intermediate-risk patients (61-70 years, p = 0.03) and finally, only in the oldest age group in high-risk patients (≥ 71 years, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Excess OCM was recorded in patients exposed to RT after RP. Its extent was most pronounced in low-risk patients, decreased in intermediate-risk patients, and was lowest in high-risk patients.

Temporal trends, tumor characteristics and stage-specific survival in penile non-squamous cell carcinoma vs. squamous cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To compare Cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in patients with Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) vs. non-SCC penile cancer, since survival outcomes may differ between histological subtypes. METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004-2016), penile cancer patients of all stages were identified. Temporal trend analyses, cumulative incidence and Kaplan-Meier plots, multivariable Cox regression and Fine and Gray competing-risks regression analyses tested for CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC penile cancer patients. RESULTS: Of 4,120 eligible penile cancer patients, 123 (3%) harbored non-SCC vs. 4,027 (97%) SCC. Of all non-SCC patients, 51 (41%) harbored melanomas, 42 (34%) basal cell carcinomas, 10 (8%) adenocarcinomas, eight (6.5%) skin appendage malignancies, six (5%) epithelial cell neoplasms, two (1.5%) neuroendocrine tumors, two (1.5%) lymphomas, two (1.5%) sarcomas. Stage at presentation differed between non-SCC vs. SCC. In temporal trend analyses, non-SCC diagnoses neither decreased nor increased over time (p > 0.05). After stratification according to localized, locally advanced, and metastatic stage, no CSM differences were observed between non-SCC vs. SCC, with 5-year survival rates of 11 vs 11% (p = 0.9) for localized, 33 vs. 37% (p = 0.4) for locally advanced, and 1-year survival rates of 37 vs. 53% (p = 0.9) for metastatic penile cancer, respectively. After propensity score matching for patient and tumor characteristics and additional multivariable adjustment, no CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC were observed. CONCLUSION: Non-SCC penile cancer is rare. Although exceptions exist, on average, non-SCC penile cancer has comparable CSM as SCC penile cancer patients, after stratification for localized, locally invasive, and metastatic disease.

Survival after Radical Prostatectomy versus Radiation Therapy in High-Risk and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to compare cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network© (NCCN©) high risk (HR) patients, as well as in Johns Hopkins University (JH) HR and very high risk (VHR) subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 24,407 NCCN HR patients, of whom 10,300 (42%) vs 14,107 (58%) patients qualified for JH HR vs VHR, respectively. Overall, 9,823 (40%) underwent RP vs 14,584 (60%) EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing-risks regression addressed CSM after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, prostate specific antigen, clinical T and N stages, and biopsy Gleason score) between RP and EBRT patients. All analyses addressed the combined NCCN HR cohort, as well as in JH HR and JH VHR subgroups. RESULTS: In the combined NCCN HR cohort 5-year CSM rates were 2.3% for RP vs 4.1% for EBRT and yielded a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.54-0.86, p <0.001) favoring RP. In VHR patients 5-year CSM rates were 3.5% for RP vs 6.0% for EBRT, yielding a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% CI 0.44-0.77, p <0.001) favoring RP. Conversely, in HR patients no significant difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.39-1.25, p=0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that RP holds a CSM advantage over EBRT in the combined NCCN HR cohort, and in its subgroup of JH VHR patients.

The impact of race/ethnicity on upstaging and/or upgrading rates among intermediate risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Race/ethnicity may predispose to less favorable prostate cancer characteristics in intermediate risk prostate cancer (IR PCa) patients. We tested this hypothesis in a subgroup of IR PCa patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: We relied on the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results 2004-2016. The effect of race/ethnicity was tested in univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses predicting upstaging (pT3+/pN1) and/or upgrading (Gleason Grade Group [GGG] 4-5) at RP. RESULTS: Of 20,391 IR PCa patients, 15,050 (73.8%) were Caucasian, 2857 (14.0%) African-American, 1632 (8.0%) Hispanic/Latino and 852 (4.2%) Asian. Asian patients exhibited highest age (64 year), highest PSA (6.8 ng/ml) and highest rate of GGG3 (31.9%). African-Americans exhibited the highest percentage of positive cores at biopsy (41.7%) and the highest proportion of NCCN unfavorable risk group membership (54.6%). Conversely, Caucasians exhibited the highest proportion of cT2 stage (35.6%). In univariable analyses, Hispanic/Latinos exhibited the highest rates of upstaging/upgrading among all race/ethnicities, in both favorable and unfavorable groups, followed by Asians, Caucasians and African-Americans in that order. In multivariable analyses, Hispanic/Latino race/ethnicity represented an independent predictor of higher upstaging and/or upgrading in favorable IR PCa (odds ratio [OR] 1.27, p < 0.01), while African-American race/ethnicity represented an independent predictor of lower upstaging and/or upgrading in unfavorable IR PCa (OR 0.79, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Race/ethnicity predisposes to differences in clinical, as well as in pathological characteristics in IR PCa patients. Specifically, even after full statistical adjustment, Hispanic/Latinos are at higher and African-Americans are at lower risk of upstaging and/or upgrading.

Plasmacytoid variant urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: effect of radical cystectomy and chemotherapy in non-metastatic and metastatic patients.

PURPOSE: Data about optimal management of plasmacytoid (PCV) bladder cancer patients are extremely scarce and limited by sample size. We focused on PCV bladder cancer patients to explore the effect of radical cystectomy (RC) and chemotherapy in non-metastatic (T 2-4N0-3M0), as well as in metastatic (TanyNanyM1) subgroups. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2000-2016), we identified 332 PCV patients with muscle-invasive disease or higher (≥ T2N0M0). Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression models addressed cancer-specific mortality (CSM). RESULTS: In 332 PCV patients, median age was 68 years (Interquartile range [IQR]:58-76). Of those, 252 were non-metastatic patients (76%) vs 80 were metastatic patients (24%), at presentation. Of non-metastatic patients, 142 (56%) underwent RC and 131 (52%) underwent chemotherapy. Chemotherapy did not improve CSM in non-metastatic PCV. Conversely, RC was associated with lower CSM (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.51, p = 0.002). Median CSM-free survival was 48 vs 38 months for RC treated vs RC not treated. Of metastatic patients, 22 (28%) underwent RC and 42 (52%) underwent chemotherapy. Both chemotherapy and RC improved CSM in metastatic PCV. Median CSM-free survival was 12 vs 7 months for RC treated vs RC not treated (HR: 0.27, p < 0.001). Median CSM-free survival was 11 vs 4 months for chemotherapy exposed vs chemotherapy naïve (HR: 0.32, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Although RC resulted in lower CSM, chemotherapy failed to show that effect in non-metastatic PCV patients. Conversely, both chemotherapy and RC resulted in statistically significantly lower CSM in metastatic PCV patients.

Assessment of the Anastomosis after Radical Prostatectomy: A Review of Available Diagnostic Methods.

INTRODUCTION: After radical prostatectomy, many institutions perform cystography to exclude vesicourethral anastomotic leakage before removing a urethral catheter. We reviewed diagnostic methods to exclude leakage compared to the reference standard cystography. METHODS: We performed systematic literature review to summarize the published options and outcomes for assessment of vesicourethral anastomotic leakage after radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Of 2,137 publications, 45 full-text manuscripts underwent full-text screening, of which 9 studies contributing 919 patients were included. Seven studies described ultrasound-guided assessment (four transrectal, two transabdominal, one transperineal). Two further studies described the use of computerized tomography. Ultrasound-guided assessment of the anastomosis after radical prostatectomy shows promising agreement with cystography. Computerized tomography-aided assessment of vesicourethral anastomosis detects more leakages; however, clinical consequences are not defined. CONCLUSION: Further studies are warranted to (1) identify men at risk of anastomotic leakage who should undergo assessment before trial without a catheter and (2) provide prospective comparisons of different ultrasound-guided approaches.

The Impact of Preoperative Double-J Stent on Perioperative Complications, Recurrence, and Quality of Life in Adult Patients Undergoing Pyeloplasty.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of preoperative double-J stent (DJ) in pyeloplasty patients on perioperative complications, recurrence, and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Pyeloplasties due to ureteropelvic junction obstructions between January 2010 and December 2020 were consecutively identified. A standardized follow-up questionnaire was used. Tabulation was made according to preoperative DJ versus no DJ. Subgroup analyses addressed primary robotic pyeloplasties. RESULTS: Of 95 pyeloplasty patients, 62% received a preoperative DJ. Patients with preoperative DJ exhibited higher rates of Clavien-Dindo (CD) 2 (22 vs. 11%) complications, but not of CD3 (8.5 vs. 8.3%, p = 0.5). After a median follow-up of 61 months, 9 patients exhibited a recurrence, of whom 7 had a preoperative DJ. In QoL assessment, comparable findings were made between patients with and without preoperative DJ. In robotic pyeloplasty patients (n = 73), patients with preoperative DJ (58%, n = 42) experienced higher CD3 complication rates, compared to patients without preoperative DJ (12 vs. 6.5%). Moreover, higher rates of recurrences were observed in preoperative DJ patients (12 vs. 3.2%). CONCLUSION: In a contemporary pyeloplasty cohort, the midterm success rate was good with 91%. Our findings suggest that preoperative DJ is associated with higher recurrence rates. However, QoL did not differ between patients with and without preoperative DJ.

External beam radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy are associated with better survival in Asian prostate cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To test the effect of race/ethnicity on cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer patients. METHODS: In the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database 2004-2016, we identified intermediate-risk and high-risk white (n = 151 632), Asian (n = 11 189), Hispanic/Latino (n = 20 077) and African American (n = 32 550) localized prostate cancer patients, treated with external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. Race/ethnicity-stratified cancer-specific mortality analyses relied on competing risks regression, after propensity score matching for patient and cancer characteristics. RESULTS: Compared with white patients, Asian intermediate- and high-risk external beam radiotherapy patients showed lower cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio 0.58 and 0.70, respectively, both P ≤ 0.02). Additionally, Asian high-risk radical prostatectomy patients also showed lower cancer-specific mortality than white patients (hazard ratio 0.72, P = 0.04), but not Asian intermediate-risk radical prostatectomy patients (P = 0.08). Conversely, compared with white patients, African American intermediate-risk radical prostatectomy patients showed higher cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio 1.36, P = 0.01), but not African American high-risk radical prostatectomy or intermediate- and high-risk external beam radiotherapy patients (all P ≥ 0.2). Finally, compared with white people, no cancer-specific mortality differences were recorded for Hispanic/Latino patients after external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy, in both risk levels (P ≥ 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to white patients, an important cancer-specific mortality advantage applies to intermediate-risk and high-risk Asian prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy, and to high-risk Asian patients treated with radical prostatectomy. These observations should be considered in pretreatment risk stratification and decision-making.