Perioperative Rates of Incidental Prostate Cancer after Aquablation and Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate.

INTRODUCTION: Aquablation and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) have evolved as established therapeutic options for men with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). We sought to compare the rates of incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) after aquablation and HoLEP. METHODS: At our center, between January 2020 and November 2022, 317 men underwent aquablation, and 979 men underwent HoLEP for BPO. Histopathological assessment of resected tissue was conducted in all cases. If iPCa was detected, the Gleason score and percentage of affected tissue were assessed. Differences in important predictive factors for prostate cancer between study groups were accounted for by additional matched pairs analysis (with matching on age ± 1 year; PSA ± 0.5 ng/mL; and prostate volume ± 5 mL). RESULTS: Histopathology revealed iPCas in 60 patients (4.6%): 59 (6.03%) after HoLEP and 1 (0.3%) after aquablation (p = 0.001). Of 60 of incidental cancers, 11 had a Gleason score ≥7 (aquablation: 1/1 [100%]; HoLEP: 10/59 [16.9%]). The aquablation and HoLEP study groups differed in patient age, preoperative PSA, and prostate volume. Therefore, matched pairs analysis (aquablation: 132 patients; HoLEP: 132 patients) was conducted to improve comparability. Also after the matching procedure, significantly fewer iPCas were diagnosed after aquablation than HoLEP (aquablation: 0 [0%]; HoLEP: 6 [4.5%]; p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Significantly fewer iPCas were identified after aquablation than HoLEP procedures. Histopathologic assessment of tissue after aquablation is feasible and may lead to the diagnosis of clinically significant iPCa. Therefore, histopathologic examination of the aquablation resective tissue should not be omitted.

The Dilemma of Misclassification Rates in Senior Patients With Prostate Cancer, Who Were Treated With Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Implications for Patient Counseling and Diagnostics.

OBJECTIVES: There is a recent paradigm shift to extend robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to very senior prostate cancer (PCa) patients based on biological fitness, comorbidities, and clinical PCa assessment that approximates the true risk of progression. Thus, we aimed to assess misclassification rates between clinical vs. pathological PCa burden. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared senior patients with PCa ≥75 y (n = 847), who were propensity score matched with younger patients <75 y (n = 3,388) in a 1:4 ratio. Matching was based on the number of biopsy cores, prostate volume, and preoperative Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) risk groups score. Multivariable logistic regression models (LRMs) predicted surgical CAPRA (CAPRA-S) upgrade, which was defined as a higher risk of the CAPRA-S in the presence of lower-risk preoperative CAPRA score. LRM incorporated the same variables as propensity score matching. Moreover, patients were categorized as low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, preoperative and according to their CAPRA and CAPRA-S scores. RESULTS: Surgical CAPRA risk strata significantly differed between the groups. Greater proportions of unfavorable intermediate risk (39 vs. 32%) or high risk (30 vs. 28%; p < 0.001) were observed. These proportions are driven by greater proportions of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Gleason Grade Group 4 or 5 (33 vs. 26%; p = 0.001) and pathological tumor stage (≥T3a 54 vs. 45%; p < 0.001). Increasing age was identified as an independent predictor of CAPRA-S-based upgrade (age odds ratio [OR] 1.028 95% CI 1.02-1.037; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Approximately every second senior patient has a misclassification in (i.e., any up or downgrade) and each 4.5th senior patient specifically has an upgrade in his final pathology that directly translates to an unfavorable PCa prognosis. It is imperative to take such substantial misclassification rates into account for this sensitive PCa demographic of senior men. Future prospective studies are warranted to further optimize PCa workflow and diagnostics, such as to incorporate modern imaging, molecular profiling and implement these into biopsy strategies to identify true PCa burden.

Robot-Assisted Nerve-Sparing Excision of a Symptomatic Obturator Nerve Schwannoma: A Case Report.

Reports in the literature have presented the feasibility of a minimally invasive resection of retroperitoneal or pelvic schwannomas. However, there are only a few reports in the literature about a robot-assisted nerve-sparing approach towards obturator schwannomas. We present a case of a concomitant excision of a symptomatic obturator nerve schwannoma in a patient undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy. The patient complained about an ongoing, low-grade sensory dysfunction in the left proximal thigh area, without loss of muscular function. A preoperative pelvic MRI incidentally showed a thickening of the left obturator nerve of about 1 cm. During pelvic lymphadenectomy, the thickening was identified, an axial incision was made to the nerve sheath, and a small tumor mass (9 mm x 5 mm x 3 mm) was excised, thereby decompressing the nerve fibers and simultaneously preserving the continuity of the obturator nerve. The nerve sheath was closed using a 7-0 monofilament suture. Frozen section biopsy that was undertaken during the surgical procedure excluded the presence of a malignancy. There were no intra- or postoperative complications. Postoperatively, the patient described a temporary sensory dysfunction of the left inner-thigh area, which regressed completely. The histopathological result confirmed a benign schwannoma of the obturator nerve. In experienced hands, the robot-assisted approach appears safe and feasible as a technique to excise a schwannoma of the obturator nerve, without the need to proceed to a full nerve resection.

Correction: Development and validation of a novel risk score for the detection of insignificant prostate cancer in unscreened patient cohorts.

Since the publication of this paper, the authors noticed that Amar Ahmad was not credited as contributing equally to the paper. He should be considered as a joint first author with Lorenzo Dutto. In addition, the author Ashwin Sridhar was incorrectly listed as Ashwin Shridhar, and the author Gregory L. Shaw was incorrectly listed as Gregory Shaw. The correct names are listed above.

Development and validation of a novel risk score for the detection of insignificant prostate cancer in unscreened patient cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance is recommended for insignificant prostate cancer (PCa). Tools exist to identify suitable candidates using clinical variables. We aimed to develop and validate a novel risk score (NRS) predicting which patients are harbouring insignificant PCa. METHODS: We used prospectively collected data from 8040 consecutive unscreened patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2006 and 2016. Of these, data from 2799 patients with Gleason 3 + 3 on biopsy were used to develop a multivariate model predicting the presence of insignificant PC at radical prostatectomy (ERSPC updated definition3: Gleason 3 + 3 only, index tumour volume < 1.3 cm3 and total tumour volume < 2.5 cm3). This was used to develop a novel risk score (NRS) which was validated in an equivalent independent cohort (n = 441). We compared the accuracy of existing predictive tools and the NRS in these cohorts. RESULTS: The NRS (incorporating PSA, prostate volume, age, clinical T Stage, percent and number of positive biopsy cores) outperformed pre-existing predictive tools in derivation and validation cohorts (AUC 0.755 and 0.76, respectively). Selection bias due to analysis of a surgical cohort is acknowledged. CONCLUSIONS: The advantage of the NRS is that it can be tailored to patient characteristics and may prove to be valuable tool in clinical decision-making.