ABSTRACT
Salvage radical prostatectomy is a postradiation treatment for patients with localized prostate cancer. In 2016, Ozu et al. (Ozu C, Aoki K, Nakamura K, Yagi Y, Muro Y, Nishiyama T, et al. The initial case report: salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy after heavy ion radiotherapy. Urol Case Rep 2016;7:45-7) first reported salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (sRARP) after heavy-ion radiotherapy (HIRT). Thereafter, sRARP has been performed in >100 cases. However, it is currently avoided owing to some difficulties. Herein, we report about sRARP in a 67-year-old man who received two sessions of HIRT despite some expected challenges. He was initially treated with HIRT for prostate cancer in 2009 and received the second HIRT as salvage treatment for local recurrence in 2016. In 2019, he had biochemical recurrence and underwent sRARP. There were no significant peri- or postoperative complications. Subsequently, 12 months after sRARP, hormonal therapy was introduced after the diagnosis of biochemical recurrence. The patient's prostate-specific antigen level is currently undetectable.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Palliative care, including symptom alleviation and advance-care planning, is relevant for patients with heart failure (HF). The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicator Tool (SPICT) is a tool for identifying patients who may benefit from palliative-care assistance but has not been validated in patients hospitalized due to HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical backgrounds, symptom burdens and outcomes were evaluated using the SPICT as assessed on admission in consecutive hospitalized patients with HF. SPICT-positive was defined when 2 or more general indicators and a New York Heart Association class ≥ III were present. Of 601 patients hospitalized due to HF (mean age: 79 ± 12 years; male, 314 [52%]; and mean left ventricular ejection fraction: 44 ± 18%), 100 (17%) patients were SPICT-positive. SPICT-positive patients were older (85 ± 9 vs 78 ± 12 years; P < 0.001) and had higher clinical frailty scales (6 ± 1 vs 4 ± 1 points; P < 0.001), whereas symptom burdens assessed by the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were not different (17 [13, 28] vs 20 [11, 26] points; Pâ¯=â¯0.97) when compared with patients who were SPICT-negative. During the median follow-up period of 518 days, 178 patients (30%) died. Being SPICT-positive was independently associated with higher all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 3.49, 95% confidence interval: 2.41-5.05; P < 0.001) after adjusting for age, sex, New York Heart Association class IV, Get-With-The-Guideline risk score, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide levels, and left ventricular ejection fractions. CONCLUSIONS: In patients admitted for HF, being SPICT-positive was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality rates, suggesting the utility of the SPICT as an indicator to initiate advance-care planning for end-of-life care among patients hospitalized due to HF.