Is Unilateral Lymphadenectomy an Option in Selected Patients with Prostate Cancer?

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the relationship between the laterality of lymph node invasion (LNI) and the prostatic lobe affected is limited. Our aim was to review our records of patients with exclusively unilateral localised prostate cancer (PCa) with metastatic LN involvement. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2023, after radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy at our centre, thirty patients with intermediate-high risk unilateral PCa and pN1 disease were identified. To perform a retrospective study, data were obtained from a prospective collected database approved by the ethical committee at the Valencian Oncology Institute Foundation. Descriptive and comparative statistical analysis was made using software R. The Fisher's Exact test was employed to analyse the categorical variables. In terms of continuous variables, both tumour volume and number of nodes retrieved exhibited normality; Hence Student's T-test was employed. Mann-Whitney U test was utilized for the number of positive nodes. RESULTS: The median age and prostate specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis were 66 years old (interquartile range (IQR): 63.3-70.9) and 14.6 ng/mL (IQR: 7.4-21.5), respectively. Median follow-up time was 67 months (IQR: 35.9-92.9). Nineteen patients (63%) had a Gleason score of 7, and the rest had a Gleason score of 8-10. Most patients (73%) had locally advanced disease. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (p-value > 0.05). Twenty-two patients (73%) had concordance between the laterality of the PCa lesion and the LNI. All the patients with right prostatic cancer had exclusive ipsilateral LNI. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, the majority of patients with unilateral PCa had exclusively ipsilateral LNI. However, sparing contralateral LN dissection in unilateral PCa should not be an option. To date, extended pelvic LN dissection remains the gold standard for N-staging and cannot be replaced yet by unilateral pelvic LN dissection until high quality evidence supports this scenario.

Effect of Focal vs Extended Irreversible Electroporation for the Ablation of Localized Low- or Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer on Early Oncological Control: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Focal ablative irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a therapy that treats only the area of the tumor with the aim of achieving oncological control while reducing treatment-related functional detriment. Objective: To evaluate the effect of focal vs extended IRE on early oncological control for patients with localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at 5 centers in Europe, men with localized low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomized to receive either focal or extended IRE ablation. Data were collected at baseline and at regular intervals after the procedure from June 2015 to January 2020, and data were analyzed from September 2021 to July 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Oncological outcome as indicated by presence of clinically significant prostate cancer (International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2) on transperineal template-mapping prostate biopsy at 6 months after IRE. Descriptive measures of results from that biopsy included the number and location of positive cores. Results: A total of 51 and 55 patients underwent focal and extended IRE, respectively. Median (IQR) age was 64 years (58-67) in the focal ablation group and 64 years (57-68) in the extended ablation group. Median (IQR) follow-up time was 30 months (24-48). Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 9 patients (18.8%) in the focal ablation group and 7 patients (13.2%) in the extended ablation group. There was no significant difference in presence of clinically significant prostate cancer between the 2 groups. In the focal ablation group, 17 patients (35.4%) had positive cores outside of the treated area, 3 patients (6.3%) had positive cores in the treated area, and 5 patients (10.4%) had positive cores both in and outside of the treated area. In the extended group, 10 patients (18.9%) had positive cores outside of the treated area, 9 patients (17.0%) had positive cores in the treated area, and 2 patients (3.8%) had positive cores both in and outside of the treated area. Clinically significant cancer was found in the treated area in 5 of 48 patients (10.4%) in the focal ablation group and 5 of 53 patients (9.4%) in the extended ablation group. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that focal and extended IRE ablation achieved similar oncological outcomes in men with localized low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Because some patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer are still candidates for active surveillance, focal therapy may be a promising option for those patients with a high risk of cancer progression. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01835977.

A Multicenter, Randomized, Single-blind, 2-Arm Intervention Study Evaluating the Adverse Events and Quality of Life After Irreversible Electroporation for the Ablation of Localized Low-intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to evaluate the effect of focal vs extended irreversible electroporation on side effects, patient-reported quality of life, and early oncologic control for localized low-intermediate risk prostate cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with localized low-intermediate risk prostate cancer were randomized to receive focal or extended irreversible electroporation ablation. Quality of life was measured by International Index of Erectile Function, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire, and International Prostate Symptom Score. RESULTS: A total of 51 and 55 patients underwent focal and extended irreversible electroporation, respectively. The median follow-up time was 30 months. Rates of erectile dysfunction and rates of adverse events were similar between the 2 groups at 3 months. The focal ablation group seemed to have better International Index of Erectile Function scores at 3 months; it also had a better Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-sexual function score than the extended ablation group across time that was close to statistical significance (mean difference 1.4; 95% CI -0.13 to 2.9, P = .073). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in other quality-of-life measures. Upon prostate biopsy at 6 months, the rate of residual clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason ≥3 + 4) was 18.8% and 13.2% in the focal and extended irreversible electroporation groups, respectively, without significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Focal and extended irreversible electroporation ablation had similar safety profile, urinary function, and oncologic outcomes in men with localized low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. In addition, focal ablation demonstrated superior erectile function outcome over extended irreversible electroporation in the first 3-6 months.

Postprostatectomy established stress urinary incontinence treated with duloxetine.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of duloxetine to treat stress urinary incontinence, 1 of the most frequent complications after radical prostatectomy. Conservative measures and surgery are well-established treatments. However, drug treatment could be an intermediate option. METHODS: All patients had >1 year of follow-up after radical prostatectomy to avoid interfering with the natural recovery period (established stress urinary incontinence). Continence was measured by the average daily use of pads and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-short form. In Spain, it is necessary to proceed with off-label use formality, and all patients were informed and agreed. The initial dose of duloxetine was 30 mg once daily and was increased to 60 mg/d. Drug treatment was maintained for 9 months. RESULTS: From June 2006 to July 2007, 68 patients were included. The median age was 68 years (range 52-79). The median duration of duloxetine treatment was 5.56 months (range 1-18). A statistically significant decrease in the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence-short form (from 13 to 9; P < .001) and the average number of pads/d (from 2 to 1; P < .001) was observed between the initial and 3-month visit. At the end of the follow-up period, 74% and 57% of the patients had a reduced International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence-short form score and a decrease in the number of pads used daily, respectively. Of the 68 patients, 32 (47%) presented with some side effects and 17 patients stopped the treatment because of adverse effects (25%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that duloxetine is a possible alternative treatment of postprostatectomy established stress urinary incontinence. The continence improvement results were mild and conditioned in part by the frequency of the side effects. Provided that duloxetine does not preclude later continence surgery and the benefits are observed at the first visit, we believe it can be a treatment option for selected patients.