Standardized technique for ejaculation preservation during prostatic endoscopic ablative surgery.

PURPOSE: Ejaculatory dysfunction is the most common side effect of benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery. Modified techniques have emerged with the aim of preserving antegrade ejaculation without compromising obstruction relief. None are standardized or validated. The PARTURP study is a randomized study investigating partial versus complete prostate resection. We conducted an investigator consensus meeting to define the ideal surgical technique to achieve both correct obstruction relief with ejaculation preservation. METHODS: An expert consensus meeting involving all investigators of the PARTURP study took place to define a common technique using the nominal group methodology. The objectives were to define the areas to be resected and the areas to be preserved; to define the criteria for proper obstruction relief; to define the criteria for proper ejaculation preservation. RESULTS: All investigators (n = 15) attended the consensus meeting, and agreement between all the participants was obtained. The anatomical landmarks to be preserved are located around the verumontanum and along the posterior part of the prostatic urethra. These structures must be preserved up to 2 cm from the verumontanum. The participants agreed on the need to preserve the urethral mucosa in all the areas to be preserved and to reach the enucleation plane in the areas of resection. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical landmarks for ejaculation-sparing surgery have been defined by the investigators of the PARTURP randomized study. These landmarks will be used during the study, and the clinical outcomes of this ejaculation-sparing technique will be compared with complete resection with up to 3 years follow-up.

Do patients have to choose between ejaculation and miction? A systematic review about ejaculation preservation technics for benign prostatic obstruction surgical treatment.

PURPOSE: Ejaculatory dysfunction is the most common side effect related to surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Nowadays, modified surgical techniques and non-ablative techniques have emerged with the aim of preserving antegrade ejaculation. Our objective was to conduce a systematic review of the literature regarding efficacy on ejaculatory preservation of modified endoscopic surgical techniques, and mini-invasive non-ablatives techniques for BPO management. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was carried out on the PubMed database using the following MESH terms: "Prostatic Hyperplasia/surgery" and "Ejaculation", in combination with the following keywords: "ejaculation preservation", "photoselective vaporization of the prostate", "photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate", "holmium laser enucleation of the prostate", "thulium laser", "prostatic artery embolization", "urolift", "rezum", and "aquablation". RESULTS: The ejaculation preservation rate of modified-TURP ranged from 66 to 91%. The ejaculation preservation rate of modified-prostate photo-vaporization ranged from 87 to 96%. The only high level of evidence studies available compared prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and aquablation versus regular TURP in prospective randomized-controlled trials. The ejaculation preservation rate of either PUL or aquablation compared to regular TURP was 100 and 90 versus 34%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Non-ablative therapies and modified endoscopic surgical techniques seemed to be reasonable options for patients eager to preserve their ejaculatory functions.

Evaluating the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial High Grade Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in 10 international biopsy cohorts: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the applicability of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial High Grade (Gleason grade ≥ 7) Risk Calculator (PCPTHG) in ten international cohorts, representing a range of populations. METHODS: A total of 25,512 biopsies from 10 cohorts (6 European, 1 UK and 3 US) were included; 4 implemented 6-core biopsies, and the remaining had 10 or higher schemes; 8 were screening cohorts, and 2 were clinical. PCPTHG risks were calculated using prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, age, African origin and history of prior biopsy and evaluated in terms of calibration plots, areas underneath the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and net benefit curves. RESULTS: The median AUC of the PCPTHG for high-grade disease detection in the 10- and higher-core cohorts was 73.5% (range, 63.9-76.7%) compared with a median of 78.1% (range, 72.0-87.6%) among the four 6-core cohorts. Only the 10-core Cleveland Clinic cohort showed clear evidence of under-prediction by the PCPTHG, and this was restricted to risk ranges less than 15%. The PCPTHG demonstrated higher clinical net benefit in higher-core compared with 6-core biopsy cohorts, and among the former, there were no notable differences observed between clinical and screening cohorts, nor between European and US cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The PCPTHG requires minimal patient information and can be applied across a range of populations. PCPTHG risk thresholds ranging from 5 to 20%, depending on patient risk averseness, are recommended for clinical prostate biopsy decision-making.

Pelvic organ prolapse transvaginal repair by the Prolift system: evaluation of efficacy and complications after a 4.5 years follow up.

OBJECTIVES: The Prolift system is a polypropylene device designed for pelvic organ prolapse repair by a transvaginal approach. Numerous studies have reported on short-term outcomes of this procedure, but long-term studies are lacking. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients who underwent pelvic organ prolapse repair by Prolift between September 2005 and September 2008 was carried out in two tertiary reference centers by two experienced surgeons. Preoperative and postoperative follow up was based on medical records of baseline and follow-up visits with complete clinical examination, including Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage. At last follow up, the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 questionnaire was assessed by telephone interview. Cure was defined as an anatomical success at last follow up, being a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage ≤ 1 without further surgical intervention in any compartment. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were included in this analysis with a mean follow up of 53.7 ± 8.8 months (range 36-72 months). Patients were treated with two-arm Prolift posterior, four-arm Prolift anterior and six-arm Prolift total in three (4%), 51 (69%) and 21 (27%) cases, respectively. At last follow up, 64 (85.3%) patients were cured, with no prolapse recurrence. Mesh exposure occurred in four (5.3%) patients. The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 symptom score was low at last follow up (median 8, range 3-18), in accordance with objective cure data. CONCLUSIONS: The Prolift system is safe and efficacious for pelvic organ prolapse repair by transvaginal approach after a 4.5-year follow up.

Evaluating the PCPT risk calculator in ten international biopsy cohorts: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the discrimination, calibration, and net benefit performance of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPTRC) across five European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), 1 United Kingdom, 1 Austrian, and 3 US biopsy cohorts. METHODS: PCPTRC risks were calculated for 25,733 biopsies using prostate-specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination, family history, history of prior biopsy, and imputation for missing covariates. Predictions were evaluated using the areas underneath the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), discrimination slopes, chi-square tests of goodness of fit, and net benefit decision curves. RESULTS: AUCs of the PCPTRC ranged from a low of 56% in the ERSPC Goeteborg Rounds 2-6 cohort to a high of 72% in the ERSPC Goeteborg Round 1 cohort and were statistically significantly higher than that of PSA in 6 out of the 10 cohorts. The PCPTRC was well calibrated in the SABOR, Tyrol, and Durham cohorts. There was limited to no net benefit to using the PCPTRC for biopsy referral compared to biopsying all or no men in all five ERSPC cohorts and benefit within a limited range of risk thresholds in all other cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: External validation of the PCPTRC across ten cohorts revealed varying degree of success highly dependent on the cohort, most likely due to different criteria for and work-up before biopsy. Future validation studies of new calculators for prostate cancer should acknowledge the potential impact of the specific cohort studied when reporting successful versus failed validation.

Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the predictive performance and potential clinical usefulness of risk calculators of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC RC) with and without information on prostate volume. METHODS: We studied 6 cohorts (5 European and 1 US) with a total of 15,300 men, all biopsied and with pre-biopsy TRUS measurements of prostate volume. Volume was categorized into 3 categories (25, 40, and 60 cc), to reflect use of digital rectal examination (DRE) for volume assessment. Risks of prostate cancer were calculated according to a ERSPC DRE-based RC (including PSA, DRE, prior biopsy, and prostate volume) and a PSA + DRE model (including PSA, DRE, and prior biopsy). Missing data on prostate volume were completed by single imputation. Risk predictions were evaluated with respect to calibration (graphically), discrimination (AUC curve), and clinical usefulness (net benefit, graphically assessed in decision curves). RESULTS: The AUCs of the ERSPC DRE-based RC ranged from 0.61 to 0.77 and were substantially larger than the AUCs of a model based on only PSA + DRE (ranging from 0.56 to 0.72) in each of the 6 cohorts. The ERSPC DRE-based RC provided net benefit over performing a prostate biopsy on the basis of PSA and DRE outcome in five of the six cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying men at increased risk for having a biopsy detectable prostate cancer should consider multiple factors, including an estimate of prostate volume.

A panel of kallikrein markers can predict outcome of prostate biopsy following clinical work-up: an independent validation study from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer screening, France.

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that a panel of kallikrein markers--total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, intact PSA and human kallikrein-related peptidase 2 (hK2)--can predict the outcome of prostate biopsy in men with elevated PSA. Here we investigate the properties of our panel in men subject to clinical work-up before biopsy. METHODS: We applied a previously published predictive model based on the kallikrein panel to 262 men undergoing prostate biopsy following an elevated PSA (≥ 3 ng/ml) and further clinical work-up during the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer screening, France. The predictive accuracy of the model was compared to a "base" model of PSA, age and digital rectal exam (DRE). RESULTS: 83 (32%) men had prostate cancer on biopsy of whom 45 (54%) had high grade disease (Gleason score 7 or higher). Our model had significantly higher accuracy than the base model in predicting cancer (area-under-the-curve [AUC] improved from 0.63 to 0.78) or high-grade cancer (AUC increased from 0.77 to 0.87). Using a decision rule to biopsy those with a 20% or higher risk of cancer from the model would reduce the number of biopsies by nearly half. For every 1000 men with elevated PSA and clinical indication for biopsy, the model would recommend against biopsy in 61 men with cancer, the majority (≈80%) of whom would have low stage and low grade disease at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: In this independent validation study, the model was highly predictive of prostate cancer in men for whom the decision to biopsy is based on both elevated PSA and clinical work-up. Use of this model would reduce a large number of biopsies while missing few cancers.

The relationship between prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer risk: the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group.

PURPOSE: The relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and prostate cancer risk remains subject to fundamental disagreements. We hypothesized that the risk of prostate cancer on biopsy for a given PSA level is affected by identifiable characteristics of the cohort under study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We used data from five European and three U.S. cohorts of men undergoing biopsy for prostate cancer; six were population-based studies and two were clinical cohorts. The association between PSA and prostate cancer was calculated separately for each cohort using locally weighted scatterplot smoothing. RESULTS: The final data set included 25,772 biopsies and 8,503 cancers. There were gross disparities between cohorts with respect to both the prostate cancer risk at a given PSA level and the shape of the risk curve. These disparities were associated with identifiable differences between cohorts: for a given PSA level, a greater number of biopsy cores increased the risk of cancer (odds ratio for >6- versus 6-core biopsy, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.54; P < 0.0005); recent screening led to a smaller increase in risk per unit change in PSA (P = 0.001 for interaction term) and U.S. cohorts had higher risk than the European cohorts (2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.30; P < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the relationship between PSA and risk of a positive prostate biopsy varies, both in terms of the probability of prostate cancer at a given PSA value and the shape of the risk curve. This poses challenges to the use of PSA-driven algorithms to determine whether biopsy is indicated.