Retreatment rates and postprocedural complications are higher than expected after BPH surgeries: a US healthcare claims and utilization study.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of men over 50 and 80% over 80 are affected by BPH. Shared decision-making regarding BPH treatment options can benefit from an improved understanding of relative risks and benefits for various treatments. METHODS: Data for this longitudinal retrospective population-based cohort study were obtained from a random sample of US Medicare and commercial claims (IBM Watson MarketScan) and restricted to men undergoing BPH surgery (TURP, PVP, PUL, WVTT) from 2015 to 2021 across all sites of service. Retreatments included Holmium laser enucleation and index procedures. Main outcomes were rates of retreatment and procedural complications over 1 year, identified via CPT and ICD-9/10CM codes. Procedural complications that occurred at least 1 day post-index treatment were assessed, as were surgical retreatments with patients who had at least 1 and 5 year's-worth of data. Baseline phenotype characterization did not control for symptomatology and was limited to age, comorbidities, and BMI. Univariate cumulative incidence estimates, cumulative proportion and log-rank tests justified inclusion for covariate (e.g., age, comorbidities) adjustment in Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: 43,147 men diagnosed with BPH underwent 22,629 TURP, 11,392 PVP, 7,529 PUL, and 1,597 WVTT. At 1-year post-index: PUL was associated with the lowest rate of complication (PUL 15%, TURP 17%; PVP 19%, ; WVTT 26%); retreatment rates were not different (TURP 5.3%, PVP 5.3%, PUL 5.9%, WVTT 6.2%). At 5 years post-index: retreatment was lowest for TURP (7.0%) and was not significantly different between PVP and PUL (8.9% and 11.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world patients diagnosed with BPH may be selected to undergo one of the various available therapies based on patient preference or baseline phenotype. These therapies, however, are associated with different risks for complications. The results of this study suggest that within one year of BPH surgery, one-in-twenty patients may require retreatment regardless of treatment choice, and for some technologies as many as one-in-four may require treatment for a complication.

Prostatic Urethral Lift for Obstructive Median Lobes: Consistent Results Across Controlled Trial and Real-World Settings.

Introduction: The evidence for prostatic urethral lift (PUL), in treating lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in men with obstructive median lobes (OMLs), has grown. In this study, we present the first detailed comparison of outcomes between OML patients treated with PUL in controlled and real-world settings to relevant comparators (subjects treated with transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP] and sham in randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) to demonstrate similar symptom, safety, and patient experience outcomes. Materials and Methods: Symptom and safety outcomes and patient satisfaction were compared through 12 months among controlled PUL studies: BPH6 RCT (35 men randomized to TURP); L.I.F.T. pivotal RCT in subjects with lateral lobe obstruction (66 subjects randomized to sham) and MedLift, an U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) extension of the L.I.F.T. trial (45 men with OML). Symptom improvement, catheterization, and adverse event rates were compared between MedLift subjects and OML patients (n = 187) from the large real-world retrospective (RWR) study of PUL filtered on baseline characteristics to approximate the MedLift population. Results: Posttreatment, International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) improvement for MedLift subjects was 170% greater compared with sham at 3 months with significantly better quality of life (QoL), Qmax, and benign prostatic hyperplasia impact index (BPHII). Compared with TURP, MedLift IPSS and QoL improved significantly better at 1 and 3 months and with superior ejaculatory function scores at all time points after PUL. IPSS, QoL, postvoid residual (PVR), and Qmax outcomes were equivalent between MedLift and RWR OML groups at 3, 6, and 12 months. RWR OML patients did not experience higher rates of overall adverse events compared with MedLift. Conclusion: Controlled and real-world outcomes confirm PUL is a safe and effective treatment for BPH patients with and without OML.

Prostatic Urethral Lift Versus Medical Therapy: Examining the Impact on Sexual Function in Men with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction is a common side effect of medical therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), whereas prostatic urethral lift (PUL) offers safe and effective relief of lower urinary tract symptoms while preserving sexual function. OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term impact on sexual health of PUL or daily medical therapy of doxazosin or finasteride alone or in combination in BPH patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a comparative analysis of sexual function outcomes from PUL studies (L.I.F.T. [n=107], Crossover [n=42], and MedLift [n=39]) and the Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS) trial. The men included were sexually active with International Prostate Symptom Score ≥13, Qmax ≤12ml/s, and prostate volume 30-80 cm3. MTOPS subjects completed the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory, while PUL subjects completed the International Index of Erectile Function and the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire for Ejaculatory Function. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Mean percentage changes from baseline in erectile, ejaculatory, and sexual satisfaction domains were compared at 12, 24, 36, and 48 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: PUL significantly improved erectile function through 24 mo, and ejaculatory function and sexual satisfaction across all time points. Medical therapy did not improve sexual function at any time point. Finasteride significantly decreased erectile function at 48 mo, and combined therapy significantly reduced ejaculatory function at 12 and 24 mo. Comparatively, PUL was superior to finasteride in preserving erectile function at 24 and 48 mo, and superior to doxazosin and combined therapy at 12 mo. PUL outperformed all three medical therapies at all time points in improving ejaculatory function and sexual satisfaction. Limitations include the use of distinct patient-reported questionnaires and narrowed data on comorbidities that influence male sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: Indirect comparison reveals that PUL is superior to BPH medical therapy in preserving erectile and ejaculatory function and sexual satisfaction. PATIENT SUMMARY: In our non-head-to-head study, only patients undergoing PUL for an enlarged prostate experienced improvements in sexual health. Conversely, patients on medical therapy experienced worsening of erectile and ejaculatory function.

Molecular biomarkers in the context of focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations of a Delphi Consensus from the Focal Therapy Society.

BACKGROUND: Focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is promising. However, long-term oncological results are awaited and there is no consensus on follow-up strategies. Molecular biomarkers (MB) may be useful in selecting, treating and following up men undergoing FT, though there is limited evidence in this field to guide practice. We aimed to conduct a consensus meeting, endorsed by the Focal Therapy Society, amongst a large group of experts, to understand the potential utility of MB in FT for localized PCa. METHODS: A 38-item questionnaire was built following a literature search. The authors then performed three rounds of a Delphi Consensus using DelphiManager, using the GRADE grid scoring system, followed by a face-to-face expert meeting. Three areas of interest were identified and covered concerning MB for FT, 1) the current/present role; 2) the potential/future role; 3) the recommended features for future studies. Consensus was defined using a 70% agreement threshold. RESULTS: Of 95 invited experts, 42 (44.2%) completed the three Delphi rounds. Twenty-four items reached a consensus and they were then approved at the meeting involving (N.=15) experts. Fourteen items reached a consensus on uncertainty, or they did not reach a consensus. They were re-discussed, resulting in a consensus (N.=3), a consensus on a partial agreement (N.=1), and a consensus on uncertainty (N.=10). A final list of statements were derived from the approved and discussed items, with the addition of three generated statements, to provide guidance regarding MB in the context of FT for localized PCa. Research efforts in this field should be considered a priority. CONCLUSIONS: The present study detailed an initial consensus on the use of MB in FT for PCa. This is until evidence becomes available on the subject.

Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We update the prior standard operating procedure for magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate, and summarize the available data about the technique and clinical use for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. This update includes practical recommendations on the use of magnetic resonance imaging for screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment and surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of clinicians from the American Urological Association and Society of Abdominal Radiology with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and technique of magnetic resonance imaging for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus. RESULTS: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging should be performed according to technical specifications and standards, and interpreted according to standard reporting. Data support its use in men with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. Sufficient data now exist to support the recommendation of magnetic resonance imaging before prostate biopsy in all men who have no history of biopsy. Currently, the evidence is insufficient to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Use of prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification, diagnosis and treatment pathway of men with prostate cancer is expanding. When quality prostate imaging is obtained, current evidence now supports its use in men at risk of harboring prostate cancer and who have not undergone a previous biopsy, as well as in men with an increasing prostate specific antigen following an initial negative standard prostate biopsy procedure.

Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) for obstructive median lobes: 12 month results of the MedLift Study.

Evidence indicating Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) delivers significant improvement in symptomatic BPH with low morbidity is based on subjects with lateral lobe (LL) enlargement only. MedLift was an FDA IDE extension of the L.I.F.T. randomized study designed to examine safety and efficacy of PUL for treatment of obstructive middle lobes (OML). Inclusion criteria for this non-randomized cohort were identical to the L.I.F.T. randomized study, except for requiring an OML: ≥ 50 years of age, IPSS ≥ 13, and Qmax ≤ 12 ml/s. Primary endpoint analysis quantified improvement in IPSS over baseline and rate of post-procedure serious complications. Quantification of symptom relief, quality of life, flow rate, and sexual function occurred through 12 months. Outcomes were compared to historical L.I.F.T LL results and were combined to demonstrate the full effectiveness of PUL. Of the 71 screened subjects, 45 were enrolled. At 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, mean IPSS improved from baseline at least 13.5 points (p < 0.0001). Quality of life and BPHII were similarly improved (>60% and >70%, respectively at 3, 6, and 12 months, p < 0.0001). Mean Qmax improvement ranged from 90 to 129% (p < 0.0001). At 1 month, 86% (CI 73-94%) reported ≥70 on the Quality of Recovery scale, 80% (CI 66-89%) reported being "much" or "very much better," and 89% (CI 76-95%) would recommend the procedure. Compared to LL subjects, OML subjects' symptoms improved at least as much at every time point (OML range 13.5-15.9, LL range 9.9-11.1, p ≤ 0.01). On combining OML with LL data, >70% (range CI 63-81%) of subjects demonstrated ≥ 8 point improvement in IPSS through 12 months. Analysis of the combined dataset indicates ≥ 40% (CI 30-51%) of sexually active men improved the minimal clinically important difference in erectile function through 12 months. Prostates, including those with middle lobe obstruction, can be treated with the PUL procedure safely and effectively.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Urethrocavernous Fistula Presenting as Urethral Bleeding.

Urethrocavernous fistula is rarely reported, though should be considered within the differential diagnosis for men who present with urethral bleeding, particularly at time of erection. Ultrasonography with concomitant intracavernosal injection can be considered to confirm the diagnosis. Here we report a case of urethrocavernous fistula in a 48 year old man without preceding traumatic event.

Five year results of the prospective randomized controlled prostatic urethral L.I.F.T. study.

INTRODUCTION: To report the five year results of a prospective, multi-center, randomized, blinded sham control trial of the Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) in men with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: At 19 centers in North America and Australia, 206 subjects ≥ 50 years old with International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS ) > 12, peak flow rate (Qmax) ≤ 12 mL/s, and prostate volume 30 cc-80 cc were randomized 2:1 to the PUL procedure or blinded sham control. In PUL permanent UroLift implants are placed to hold open the lateral lobes of the prostate to reduce urinary obstruction. After randomized comparison at 3 months and the only opportunity to add more PUL implants, PUL patients were followed to 5 years. LUTS severity (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), BPH Impact Index (BPHII), Qmax, sexual function, and adverse events were assessed throughout follow up. RESULTS: IPSS improvement after PUL was 88% greater than that of sham at 3 months. LUTS and QOL were significantly improved by 2 weeks with return to preoperative physical activity within 8.6 days. Improvement in IPSS, QOL, BPHII, and Qmax were durable through 5 years with improvements of 36%, 50%, 52%, and 44% respectively. No difference was seen between Intent to Treat and Per Protocol populations. Surgical retreatment was 13.6% over 5 years. Adverse events were mild to moderate and transient. Sexual function was stable over 5 years with no de novo, sustained erectile or ejaculatory dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: PUL offers rapid improvement in symptoms, QOL and flow rate that is durable to 5 years. These improvements were achieved with minimal use of a postoperative urinary catheter, rapid return to normal, and preservation of both erectile and ejaculatory function. Symptom improvement was commensurate with patient satisfaction. PUL offers a minimally invasive option in the treatment of LUTS due to BPH.

AUA Policy Statement on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We summarize the available data about the clinical and economic effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer, and provide practical recommendations for its use in the screening, diagnosis, staging and surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of clinicians with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus. RESULTS: At this time the data support the use of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. The data regarding its usefulness for initial biopsy suggest a possible role for magnetic resonance imaging in some circumstances. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Although it adds cost to the management of prostate cancer, magnetic resonance imaging offers superior anatomic detail, and the ability to evaluate cellular density based on water diffusion and blood flow based on contrast enhancement. Imaging targeted biopsy may increase the diagnosis of clinically significant cancers by identifying specific lesions not visible on conventional ultrasound. The clinical indications for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of prostate cancer are rapidly evolving.

24-month durability after crossover to the prostatic urethral lift from randomised, blinded sham.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 24-month effectiveness of the prostatic urethral lift (PUL) procedure in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) assessed through a crossover study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 53 patients underwent a sham procedure as part of the blinded, randomised L.I.F.T. (Luminal Improvement Following prostatic Tissue approximation for the treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH) study at 19 centres and elected to enrol in this crossover study. The crossover procedure involved placement of permanent implants (UroLift® system) into the prostatic lateral lobes. Patients were followed for 3 months after the sham procedure and then for 24 months after crossover to PUL, with assessments of urinary symptom relief, quality of life (QoL), urinary flow rate, sexual function, and adverse events. RESULTS: At 24 months after crossover to PUL, the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), QoL, BPH Impact Index, and maximum urinary flow rate improved 36%, 40%, 54%, and 77% from baseline, respectively. Each IPSS parameter on average improved significantly from baseline (P < 0.005) and remained stable throughout follow-up. Symptom response after the sham procedure indicated initial improvement at 1 month with significant decay by 3 months. Adverse events were typically mild to moderate and patients returned rapidly to normal activity. Four patients (8%) required intervention with transurethral resection of the prostate and one patient required additional PUL implants within the 24-month period. There were no reported instances of de novo sustained erectile or ejaculatory dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: The PUL procedure is associated with rapid symptom relief, increased urinary flow rate and QoL improvement that remain stable over 24 months. Morbidity is low and sexual function is preserved.

Prostatic urethral lift: a novel approach for managing symptomatic BPH in the aging man.

INTRODUCTION: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is an obligate disorder of the aging male prostate with close associations to other metabolic conditions of aging including obesity. Clinical manifestations of this chronic disorder increase as men age suggesting that a growing number of older men will require intervention for progressive voiding symptoms or bladder dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) procedure represents a new endoscopic approach in which small permanent intraprostatic implants are positioned to correct bladder outlet obstruction without tissue destruction. An overview of the treatment modality, review of recent literature, and analysis of data in the context of cost considerations is presented. RESULTS: The mean symptom score improvement of the prospective, sham controlled, pivotal trial was 11 points, 88% greater than sham controls. Multiple studies have confirmed symptom score improvement of at least 52%. Durability has been established out to 3 years. A randomized comparison between PUL and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) established PUL as superior to TURP in terms of a composite BPH6 endpoint which incorporated symptom relief, quality of recovery, erectile function preservation, ejaculatory function preservation, continence preservation, and safety. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom conducted an analysis that found PUL is less costly than TURP. Earlier management with PUL may even reduce overall cost for those patients managed with medication. CONCLUSION: Current reports have demonstrated rapid voiding symptom improvement with a low risk of adverse events suggesting that this procedure represents a safe and cost effective new paradigm for the early therapy for BPH/ LUTS.

Three year results of the prostatic urethral L.I.F.T. study.

INTRODUCTION: To report the three year results of a multi-center, randomized, patient and outcome assessor blinded trial of the Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) in men with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: At 19 centers in North America and Australia, 206 subjects = 50 years old with International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≥ 13, peak flow rate (Qmax) ≤ 12 mL/s, and prostate volume between 30 cc-80 cc were randomized 2:1 to the PUL procedure or sham control. PUL involved placing permanent UroLift implants into the lateral lobes of the prostate to enlarge the urethral lumen. After randomized comparison at 3 months, PUL patients were followed to 3 years. LUTS severity (IPSS), quality of life, Qmax, sexual function, and adverse events were assessed throughout follow up. RESULTS: The therapeutic effect of PUL regarding IPSS was 88% greater than sham at 3 months. Average improvements from baseline through 3 years were significant for total IPSS (41.1%), quality of life (48.8%), Qmax (53.1%), and individual IPSS symptoms. Symptomatic improvement was independent of prostate size. There were no de novo, sustained ejaculatory or erectile dysfunction events and all sexual function assessments showed average stability or improvement after PUL. Fifteen of the 140 patients originally randomized to PUL required surgical reintervention for treatment failure within the first 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: PUL offers rapid improvement in voiding and storage symptoms, quality of life and flow rate that is durable to 3 years. Patients demonstrated a level of symptom relief that is associated with significant patient satisfaction. PUL, a minimally invasive procedure, is very effective in treating bothersome LUTS secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) and is unique in its ability to preserve total sexual function while offering a rapid return to normal physical activities.

Durability of the Prostatic Urethral Lift: 2-Year Results of the L.I.F.T. Study.

INTRODUCTION: For a therapy to become an important part of a provider armamentarium it must be safer or better than existing therapies and be durable. The prostatic urethral lift offers rapid improvement in lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia with minimal side effects. We report 2-year results of a multicenter, randomized, blinded trial of the prostatic urethral lift. METHODS: A total of 206 men 50 years old or older with an AUA-SI of 13 or greater, a peak flow rate of 12 ml per second or less and a 30 to 80 cc prostate were randomized 2:1 between the prostatic urethral lift and sham treatment. The prostatic urethral lift is performed by placing permanent transprostatic implants to lift apart the prostate lobes and reduce urethral obstruction. Sham treatment entailed rigid cystoscopy, a blinding screen and sounds that mimicked those of the prostatic urethral lift procedure. Patients were assessed for lower urinary tract symptoms, peak flow rate, quality of life and sexual function. RESULTS: The prostatic urethral lift reduced the AUA-SI 88% more than sham treatment (-11.1 vs -5.9, p = 0.003). Patients with the prostatic urethral lift experienced an AUA-SI reduction from 22.1 at baseline to 18.0 (-17%), 11.1 (-50%), 11.4 (-48%) and 12.5 (-42%) at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 1 and 2 years, respectively (p <0.0001). The peak flow rate was increased 4.2 ml per second at 3 months and 2 years (p <0.0001). By 2 years only 7.5% of patients required additional intervention for lower urinary tract symptoms. Adverse events were typically mild and transient. Encrustation did not develop on implants properly placed in the prostate. There was no occurrence of de novo sustained ejaculatory or erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: The prostatic urethral lift preserves sexual function and provides rapid improvement in symptoms, flow and quality of life that are sustained to 2 years.

Pelvic ultrasound evaluation for benign prostatic hyperplasia: prediction of obstruction.

Global improvements in water quality, management of infectious diseases, and other medical therapeutics have resulted in a growing population of healthy aging men. One obligate anatomic consequence of aging for these men is the development of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with secondary bladder outlet obstruction. Although the voiding symptoms associated with the change in bladder health over time predominantly impact the quality of a man's daily experience, there are also significant medical consequences of BPH that require intervention. It is a challenge to distinguish men who are at risk for these medical consequences from the much larger population of older men with voiding symptoms (lower urinary tract symptoms, LUTS). A variety of national guidelines have been developed to establish a diagnostic paradigm for meeting this challenge, but all suffer from inadequate sensitivity for the early identification of men at risk for permanent bladder injury. It is likely that the application of a thorough pelvic ultrasound designed to identify the pertinent anatomic aspects of both the bladder and prostate will improve the sensitivity of these diagnostic paradigms, with subsequent improvement in the outcomes for men with BPH/LUTS.

Treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH while preserving sexual function: randomized controlled study of prostatic urethral lift.

INTRODUCTION: We analyzed data obtained from a randomized controlled blinded study of the prostatic urethral lift (PUL) to evaluate the sexual side effects of this novel treatment. AIMS: We sought to determine whether PUL, when conducted in a randomized study, significantly improved lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and urinary flow rate while preserving sexual function. METHODS: Men ≥50 years with prostates 30-80 cc, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) >12, and peak urinary flow rate (Qmax) ≤12 ml/s were randomized 2:1 between PUL and sham. Sexual activity was not an inclusion criterion. In PUL, permanent transprostatic implants are placed to retract encroaching lateral lobes and open the prostatic fossa. Sham entailed rigid cystoscopy with sounds to mimic PUL and a blinding screen. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blinded groups were compared at 3 months and active arm then followed to 12 months for LUTS with IPSS and for sexual function with sexual health inventory for men (SHIM) and Male Sexual Health Questionnaire for Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MSHQ-EjD). Subjects were censored from primary sexual function analysis if they had baseline SHIM < 5 at enrollment. Secondary stratified analysis by erectile dysfunction (ED) severity was conducted. RESULTS: There was no evidence of degradation in erectile or ejaculatory function after PUL. SHIM and MSHQ-EjD scores were not different from control at 3 months but were modestly improved and statistically different from baseline at 1 year. Ejaculatory bother score was most improved with a 40% improvement over baseline. Twelve-month SHIM was significantly improved from baseline for men entering the study with severe ED, P = 0.016. IPSS and Qmax were significantly superior to both control at 3 months and baseline at 1 year. There was no instance of de novo sustained anejaculation or ED over the course of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The PUL improves LUTS and urinary flow while preserving erectile and ejaculatory function.

The prostatic urethral lift for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with prostate enlargement due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: the L.I.F.T. Study.

PURPOSE: We report the first multicenter randomized blinded trial of the prostatic urethral lift for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men at least 50 years old with AUASI (American Urological Association Symptom Index) 13 or greater, a maximum flow rate 12 ml per second or less and a prostate 30 to 80 cc were randomized 2:1 between prostatic urethral lift and sham. In the prostatic urethral lift group small permanent implants are placed within the prostate to retract encroaching lobes and open the prostatic urethra. Sham entailed rigid cystoscopy with sounds mimicking the prostatic urethral lift. The primary end point was comparison of AUASI reduction at 3 months. The prostatic urethral lift arm subjects were followed to 1 year and assessed for lower urinary tract symptoms, peak urinary flow rate, quality of life and sexual function. RESULTS: A total of 206 men were randomized (prostatic urethral lift 140 vs sham 66). The prostatic urethral lift and sham AUASI was reduced by 11.1±7.67 and 5.9±7.66, respectively (p=0.003), thus meeting the primary end point. Prostatic urethral lift subjects experienced AUASI reduction from 22.1 baseline to 18.0, 11.0 and 11.1 at 2 weeks, 3 months and 12 months, respectively, p<0.001. Peak urinary flow rate increased 4.4 ml per second at 3 months and was sustained at 4.0 ml per second at 12 months, p<0.001. Adverse events were typically mild and transient. There was no occurrence of de novo ejaculatory or erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: The prostatic urethral lift, reliably performed with the patient under local anesthesia, provides rapid and sustained improvement in symptoms and flow, while preserving sexual function.

Preoperative aspirin is safe in patients undergoing urologic robot-assisted surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine the impact of preoperative aspirin on bleeding and other complications in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and nephrectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy or robot-assisted nephrectomy by a single surgeon between August 2008 and August 2010. We compared patients in whom aspirin had not been administered for 7 days with those who received aspirin the morning of surgery. Patients on other antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants were excluded. RESULTS: Forty-four patients underwent prostatectomy without recent aspirin, and 51 received preoperative aspirin. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, prostate-specific antigen level, or highest Gleason score. Operative time (182 vs 174 min, P=0.19), median blood loss (175 vs 100 mL, P=0.12), and duration of hospital stay (1 vs 1 day, P=0.08) were similar between the two groups, respectively. No patient received a transfusion. Three patients who had not received aspirin and one who had were readmitted within 30 days. In the nephrectomy cohort, 12 patients had not received aspirin and 14 had. There were no differences in median blood loss (65 vs 50 mL, P=0.96), median operative time (176 vs 140 min, P=0.14), or median hospital stay (2 vs 2 days, P=0.74). No patient received a transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of aspirin to patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and nephrectomy appears to be safe. The risk of cardiovascular complications resulting from stopping aspirin may exceed the risk of perioperative bleeding and associated complications.

Atorvastatin induces autophagy in prostate cancer PC3 cells through activation of LC3 transcription.

Our previous studies have demonstrated that atorvastatin induces autophagy in the androgen receptor negative prostate cancer PC3 cells through inhibition of geranylgeranyl biosynthesis [Parikh et al., Prostate. 70(9): 971-981 (2010)]. This study attempts to elucidate the molecular mechanism underlying atorvastatin-induced autophagy in PC3 cells. PC3 cells were treated with atorvastatin, in combination with the inhibitors for transcription, protein translation, PI-3 kinase, mTOR, and MAP kinases. The atorvastatin-induced elevation of LC3-II was inhibited by both the translational and the transcriptional inhibitors, suggesting that the inhibition of geranylgeranyl biosynthesis by atorvastatin activates transcription of LC3, which results in elevation of LC3-II and activation of autophagy. RT-PCR and quantitative PCR assays showed that atorvastatin enhanced expression of LC3 mRNA, and addition of geranylgeraniol along with atorvastatin to the medium eliminated the enhancement, confirming the activation of transcription of LC3 is caused by atorvastatin-mediated inhibition of geranylgeranyl biosynthesis. Further, we found that both the MEK1/2 inhibitor U0126 and the JNK inhibitor SP600125, inhibited the atorvastatin-induced elevation of LC3-II, suggesting that the effect of atorvastatin on autophagy is mediated by the Erk and JNK pathways. Taken together, atorvastatin induces autophagy in prostate cancer PC3 cells through activation of LC3 transcription.