Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: what does it mean?

ABSTRACT Background Radical prostatectomy (RP) has been used as the main primary treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) for many years with excellent oncologic results. However, approximately 20-40% of those patients has failed to RP and presented biochemical recurrence (BCR). Prostatic specific antigen (PSA) has been the pivotal tool for recurrence diagnosis, but there is no consensus about the best PSA threshold to define BCR until this moment. The natural history of BCR after surgical procedure is highly variable, but it is important to distinguish biochemical and clinical recurrence and to find the correct timing to start multimodal treatment strategy. Also, it is important to understand the role of each clinical and pathological feature of prostate cancer in BCR, progression to metastatic disease and cancer specific mortality (CSM). Review design A simple review was made in Medline for articles written in English language about biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Objective To provide an updated assessment of BCR definition, its meaning, PCa natural history after BCR and the weight of each clinical/pathological feature and risk group classifications in BCR, metastatic disease and CSM.

Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: what does it mean?

BACKGROUND: Radical prostatectomy (RP) has been used as the main primary treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) for many years with excellent oncologic results. However, approximately 20-40% of those patients has failed to RP and presented biochemical recurrence (BCR). Prostatic specific antigen (PSA) has been the pivotal tool for recurrence diagnosis, but there is no consensus about the best PSA threshold to define BCR until this moment. The natural history of BCR after surgical procedure is highly variable, but it is important to distinguish biochemical and clinical recurrence and to find the correct timing to start multimodal treatment strategy. Also, it is important to understand the role of each clinical and pathological feature of prostate cancer in BCR, progression to metastatic disease and cancer specific mortality (CSM). Review design: A simple review was made in Medline for articles written in English language about biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated assessment of BCR definition, its meaning, PCa natural history after BCR and the weight of each clinical/pathological feature and risk group classifications in BCR, metastatic disease and CSM.

Focal brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: Urinary toxicity depends on tumor location.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether patients with prostate cancer have worse functional urinary recovery with focal brachytherapy (FBT) at the base versus the apex of the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The functional outcomes of patients treated with FBT at the base of the prostate were compared with those of patients treated with FBT at the apex. Urinary symptoms, continence, and erectile dysfunction were measured using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Continence Score (ICS), and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaires, respectively, at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-eight and 13 patients were treated with FBT at the apex and the base, respectively, of the prostate. A significant difference between groups was found in the IPSS score at 6 months (mean IPSS: apex 6.4 ± 4.7, base 10.6 ± 5.7; p = 0.02), but not at baseline or at 12 and 24 months after treatment. On multivariate analysis, only FBT at the base of the prostate remained an independent predictor of worsening urinary symptoms (odds ratio, 5.8; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: At 6 months after FBT, significantly less urinary toxicity was found in patients who underwent FBT at the apex versus the base of the prostate. Continence and sexual side effects were minimal in all patients.

Evaluation of the Spies TM modalities image quality

Introduction The Spies™ system (Karl-Storz®) was introduced into digital ureteroscopy to improve endoscopic vision. To date, there is no data to either indicate which of the Spies modalities is better for improving diagnosis and treatment procedures, nor to compare the modalities in terms of image quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the image quality of five Spies™ modalities (SM) to the standard white light in an in-vitro model. Materials and Methods Two standardized grids and 3 stones of different composition were recorded in white light and the 5SM (Clara, Chroma, Clara+Chroma), Spectra A and B) using 4 standardized aqueous scenarios. Twelve templates were done in order to simultaneously compare the same objective in the different modalities. Six urologists, five medical students, five urology residents, and five persons not involved with urology evaluated each video on a scale of 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good). Results Comparing white light to SM, subjects scored better the quality of Clara and Clara+Chroma than white light (p=0.0139 and p<0.05) and scored worse Spectra A and B (p=0.0005 and p=0.0023)). When comparing Clara to the other SM, it was ranked equivalent to Clara+Chroma (p=0.67) and obtained a higher rank than Chroma, Spectra A and B (p<0.05, p=0.0001 and p=0.0001). In the multivariate analysis mean scores were higher among urologists. Conclusion In all analyzed scenarios, the subjects ranked Clara and Clara+Chroma as the modalities with better image quality compared to white light.

Effect of Prior Focal Therapy on Perioperative, Oncologic and Functional Outcomes of Salvage Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: We assessed the impact of focal therapy on perioperative, oncologic and functional outcomes in men who underwent salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy compared to primary robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Focal therapy was performed in patients presenting with Gleason score 3 + 3 or 3 + 4, clinical stage cT2a or less, serum prostate specific antigen 15 ng/ml or less, unilateral positive biopsy, maximum length of any positive core less than 10 mm and life expectancy greater than 10 years. Focal therapy was defined as target ablation of the index lesion plus a 1 cm safety margin in the normal ipsilateral prostatic parenchyma. The salvage group included 22 men who underwent salvage prostatectomy after focal therapy failure. The primary group was defined using matched pair 1:2 selection of 44 of 2,750 patients treated with primary prostatectomy. The primary and secondary end points were the between group differences in functional and oncologic outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Complication rates were comparable (p >0.05). Pad-free probability was comparable between the groups at 1 and 2 years (p = 0.8). Recovery of erectile function was significantly lower after salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (p = 0.008), which also showed a significantly lower probability of cumulative biochemical recurrence-free survival compared to primary robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (56.3% vs 92.4% at 2 years, p = 0.001). Salvage prostatectomy demonstrated a significantly increased risk of biochemical recurrence (HR 4.8, 95% CI 1.67-13.76, p = 0.004). Study limitations included the retrospective nature, the lack of randomization and the short followup. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy after focal therapy failure is feasible with acceptable complication rates. However, patients assigned to primary focal therapy should be advised about a poorer prognosis in terms of oncologic control and lower erectile recovery rates in case of a future salvage surgery.

Evaluation of the Spies TM modalities image quality.

INTRODUCTION: The Spies™ system (Karl-Storz®) was introduced into digital ureteroscopy to improve endoscopic vision. To date, there is no data to either indicate which of the Spies modalities is better for improving diagnosis and treatment procedures, nor to compare the modalities in terms of image quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the image quality of five Spies™ modalities (SM) to the standard white light in an in-vitro model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two standardized grids and 3 stones of different composition were recorded in white light and the 5SM (Clara, Chroma, Clara+Chroma), Spectra A and B) using 4 standardized aqueous scenarios. Twelve templates were done in order to simultaneously compare the same objective in the different modalities. Six urologists, five medical students, five urology residents, and five persons not involved with urology evaluated each video on a scale of 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good). RESULTS: Comparing white light to SM, subjects scored better the quality of Clara and Clara+Chroma than white light (p=0.0139 and p<0.05) and scored worse Spectra A and B (p=0.0005 and p=0.0023). When comparing Clara to the other SM, it was ranked equivalent to Clara+Chroma (p=0.67) and obtained a higher rank than Chroma, Spectra A and B (p<0.05, p=0.0001 and p=0.0001). In the multivariate analysis mean scores were higher among urologists. CONCLUSION: In all analyzed scenarios, the subjects ranked Clara and Clara+Chroma as the modalities with better image quality compared to white light.