Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 9.397
Filtrar
1.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(34): e21642, 2020 Aug 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32846773

RESUMO

Currently, the standard management for locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) is still controversial. In our study, we aimed to compare the survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).We conducted analyses with a large cohort of 38,544 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2016). Propensity score matching, Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazard regression were used to reduce the influence of bias and compare the overall survival (OS) and cancer specific survival (CSS). Several different sensitivity analyses including inverse probability of treatment weighting and standardized mortality ratio weighting were used to verify the robustness of the results.Totally, 33,388 men received RP and 5,156 men received EBRT with cT3-4N0M0 PCa were included in this study. According to the Kaplan-Meier curves, RP performed better in both OS and CSS compared with EBRT (P < .0001). In the adjusted multivariate Cox regression, RP also showed better OS and CSS benefits (OS: HR=0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.54; P < .0001 and CSS: HR=0.43; 95% CI: 0.38-0.49; P < .0001). After propensity score matching, RP is still the management that can bring more survival benefits to patients. (OS: HR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.41-0.51; P < .0001 and CSS: HR = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.34-0.48; P < .0001).Our research demonstrated the significantly better survival benefits of RP over EBRT in patients with locally advanced PCa. The results of this study will provide more evidence to help clinicians choose appropriate treatment strategies.


Assuntos
Prostatectomia , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Idoso , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/mortalidade , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Radioterapia/métodos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Taxa de Sobrevida
2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 8: CD013641, 2020 08 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32813279

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is widely used to surgically treat clinically localized prostate cancer. It is typically performed using an approach (standard RALP) that mimics open retropubic prostatectomy by dissecting the so-called space of Retzius anterior to the bladder. An alternative, Retzius-sparing (or posterior approach) RALP (RS-RALP) has been described, which is reported to have better continence outcomes but may be associated with a higher risk of incomplete resection and positive surgical margins (PSM). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of RS-RALP compared to standard RALP for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to June 2020. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials where participants were randomized to RS-RALP or standard RALP for clinically localized prostate cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified and abstracted data from the included studies. Primary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery within one week after catheter removal, at three months after surgery, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery six and 12 months after surgery, potency recovery 12 months after surgery, positive surgical margins (PSM), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS), and urinary and sexual function quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified six records of five unique randomized controlled trials, of which two were published studies, one was in press, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 571 randomized participants, of whom 502 completed the trials. Mean age of participants was 64.6 years and mean prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 ng/mL. About 54.2% of participants had cT1c disease, 38.6% had cT2a-b disease, and 7.1 % had cT2c disease. Primary outcomes RS-RALP probably improves continence within one week after catheter removal (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 2.14; I2 = 0%; studies = 4; participants = 410; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 335 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 248 more men per 1000 (137 more to 382 more) reporting continence recovery. RS-RALP may increase continence at three months after surgery compared to standard RALP (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.68; I2 = 86%; studies = 5; participants = 526; low-certainty evidence). Assuming 750 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 224 more men per 1000 (41 more to 462 more) reporting continence recovery. We are very uncertain about the effects of RS-RALP on serious adverse events compared to standard RALP (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.17; studies = 2; participants = 230; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes There is probably little to no difference in continence recovery at 12 months after surgery (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; studies = 2; participants = 222; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 982 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 10 more men per 1000 (29 fewer to 39 more) reporting continence recovery.  We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on potency recovery 12 months after surgery (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.80; studies = 1; participants = 55; very low-certainty evidence).  RS-RALP may increase PSMs (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.20; I2 = 0%; studies = 3; participants = 308; low-certainty evidence) indicating a higher risk for prostate cancer recurrence. Assuming 129 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have positive margins, this corresponds to 123 more men per 1000 (25 more to 284 more) with PSMs. We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on BCRFS compared to standard RALP (hazard ratio (HR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; studies = 2; participants = 218; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this review indicate that RS-RALP may result in better continence outcomes than standard RALP up to six months after surgery. Continence outcomes at 12 months may be similar. Downsides of RS-RALP may be higher positive margin rates. We are very uncertain about the effect on BCRFS and potency outcomes. Longer-term oncologic and functional outcomes are lacking, and no preplanned subgroup analyses could be performed to explore the observed heterogeneity. Surgeons should discuss these trade-offs and the limitations of the evidence with their patients when considering this approach.


Assuntos
Tratamentos com Preservação do Órgão/métodos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/prevenção & controle , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/métodos , Incontinência Urinária/prevenção & controle , Idoso , Humanos , Calicreínas/sangue , Laparoscopia/efeitos adversos , Laparoscopia/métodos , Masculino , Margens de Excisão , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Tratamentos com Preservação do Órgão/efeitos adversos , Ereção Peniana , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangue , Prostatectomia/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias da Próstata/sangue , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/efeitos adversos , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Incontinência Urinária/epidemiologia
3.
Br J Anaesth ; 125(3): 373-382, 2020 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32665059

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy requires general anaesthesia, extreme Trendelenburg positioning and capnoperitoneum. Together these promote impaired pulmonary gas exchange caused by atelectasis and may contribute to postoperative pulmonary complications. In morbidly obese patients, a recruitment manoeuvre (RM) followed by individualised PEEP improves intraoperative oxygenation and end-expiratory lung volume (EELV). We hypothesised that individualised PEEP with initial RM similarly improves intraoperative oxygenation and EELV in non-obese individuals undergoing robot-assisted prostatectomy. METHODS: Forty males (age, 49-76 yr; BMI <30 kg m-2) undergoing prostatectomy received volume-controlled ventilation (tidal volume 8 ml kg-1 predicted body weight). Participants were randomised to either (1) RM followed by individualised PEEP (RM/PEEPIND) optimised using electrical impedance tomography or (2) no RM with 5 cm H2O PEEP. The primary outcome was the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (Pao2/Fio2) before the last RM before extubation. Secondary outcomes included regional ventilation distribution and EELV which were measured before, during, and after anaesthesia. The cardiovascular effects of RM/PEEPIND were also assessed. RESULTS: In 20 males randomised to RM/PEEPIND, the median PEEPIND was 14 cm H2O [inter-quartile range, 8-20]. The Pao2/Fio2 was 10.0 kPa higher with RM/PEEPIND before extubation (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-17.3 kPa; P=0.001). RM/PEEPIND increased end-expiratory lung volume by 1.49 L (95% CI, 1.09-1.89 L; P<0.001). RM/PEEPIND also improved the regional ventilation of dependent lung regions. Vasopressor and fluid therapy was similar between groups, although 13 patients randomised to RM/PEEPIND required pharmacological therapy for bradycardia. CONCLUSION: In non-obese males, an individualised ventilation strategy improved intraoperative oxygenation, which was associated with higher end-expiratory lung volumes during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00004199 (German clinical trials registry).


Assuntos
Impedância Elétrica , Respiração com Pressão Positiva/métodos , Prostatectomia/métodos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/métodos , Idoso , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos
4.
Prostate ; 80(12): 1024-1037, 2020 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32628792

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Dysregulation of microRNAs has performed vital gene regulatory functions in the genesis, progression, and prognosis of multiple malignant tumors. This study aimed to elucidate the regulatory mechanism of miR-196a in prostate cancer (PCa) and explore its clinical significance. METHODS: Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction was implemented to examine miR-196a and p27kip1 messenger RNA expression in PCa. Cell proliferation was evaluated via Cell Counting Kit-8, colony formation, and nude mouse tumorigenicity assays. Luciferase reporter assay was applied to identify target genes. p27kip1 protein expression in PCa was investigated using Western blot analysis and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: There was a dramatic upregulation of miR-196a in PCa. Upregulated miR-196a was related to worse Gleason score (GS), later pathological stage, and poor biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival. In vivo and in vitro experiments exhibited that miR-196a promoted PCa proliferation and expedited G1/S-phase progression through the downregulation of p27kip1 protein. Additionally, p27kip1 protein was distinctly downregulated in PCa. Low p27kip1 protein expression had a strong correlation with increased GS and was an independent predictor of BCR after radical prostatectomy (RP). CONCLUSIONS: Excessive expression of miR-196a and subsequent downregulation of p27kip1 protein play essential roles in promoting PCa proliferation and leading to BCR after RP. miR-196a and its target p27kip1 may become novel molecular biomarkers and therapeutic targets for PCa.


Assuntos
Inibidor de Quinase Dependente de Ciclina p27/metabolismo , MicroRNAs/metabolismo , Neoplasias da Próstata/metabolismo , Linhagem Celular Tumoral , Proliferação de Células/fisiologia , Inibidor de Quinase Dependente de Ciclina p27/biossíntese , Inibidor de Quinase Dependente de Ciclina p27/genética , Regulação para Baixo , Células HEK293 , Humanos , Imuno-Histoquímica , Masculino , MicroRNAs/biossíntese , MicroRNAs/genética , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/genética , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/metabolismo , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/patologia , Células PC-3 , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/genética , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia
5.
Oncology (Williston Park) ; 34(5): 156-162, 2020 05 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32644174

RESUMO

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has rapidly placed tremendous stress on health systems around the world. In response, multiple health systems have postponed elective surgeries in order to conserve hospital beds and personal protective equipment, minimize patient traffic, and prevent unnecessary utilization and exposure of healthcare workers. The American College of Surgeons released the following statement on March 13, 2020: "Each hospital, health system and surgeon should thoughtfully review all scheduled elective procedures with a plan to minimize, postpone, or cancel electively scheduled operations, endoscopes, or other invasive procedures until we have passed the predicted inflection point in the exposure graph and can be confident that our health care infrastructure can support a potentially rapid and overwhelming uptick in critical patient care needs." In our state, North Carolina, Governor Roy Cooper requested that all hospitals postpone elective and non-urgent procedures and surgeries effective March 23, 2020.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos/métodos , Excisão de Linfonodo/métodos , Serviço Hospitalar de Oncologia , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata , Risco Ajustado/métodos , Gestão de Riscos , Betacoronavirus , Gestão de Mudança , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , North Carolina , Serviço Hospitalar de Oncologia/organização & administração , Serviço Hospitalar de Oncologia/tendências , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Seleção de Pacientes , Assistência Centrada no Paciente/organização & administração , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Neoplasias da Próstata/epidemiologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Gestão de Riscos/métodos , Gestão de Riscos/tendências
6.
Asia Pac J Clin Oncol ; 16(4): 273-279, 2020 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32519506

RESUMO

AIM: We aimed to identify the optimal candidates for early salvage radiotherapy (SRT) among patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: This multi-institutional retrospective study included 371 patients treated using SRT after RP. The median (range) PSA level at BCR was 0.36 (0.10-2.00) ng/mL. The association between early SRT (ie, starting PSA level < 0.50) and BCR after SRT was tested in each subgroup according to our own risk stratification. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 51 months. By multivariate analysis, pT3b, Gleason score ≥ 8, negative surgical margins, PSA doubling time < 6 months, and non-early SRT were associated with BCR after SRT. Patients were stratified by four risk factors other than non-early SRT: (1) low risk (0 risk factor), (2) intermediate risk (1 risk factor), and (3) high risk (≥2 risk factors). The BCR-free survival was higher in the early SRT group than the nonearly SRT group in the high-risk subgroup (P = 0.020), whereas that was similar between two groups in the low-risk and intermediate-risk subgroups (P = .79 and .18, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that early SRT was beneficial for the high-risk subgroup (P = .032), whereas early SRT was not associated with improved outcomes in the low-risk and intermediate-risk subgroups (P = .92 and 1.0, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested that early SRT seemed to contribute to better biochemical control for patients with more adverse features, whereas no benefit was observed in men with no adverse features.


Assuntos
Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Terapia de Salvação/métodos , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/cirurgia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco
7.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 6: CD006590, 2020 06 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32495338

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a common cancer but is oftentimes slow growing. When confined to the prostate, radical prostatectomy (RP), which involves removal of the prostate, offers potential cure that may come at the price of adverse events. Deferred treatment, involving observation and palliative treatment only (watchful waiting (WW)) or close monitoring and delayed local treatment with curative intent as needed in the setting of disease progression (active monitoring (AM)/surveillance (AS)) might be an alternative. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of RP compared with deferred treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (including CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE, and HTA), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, and OpenGrey. Additionally, we searched two trial registries and conference abstracts of three conferences (EAU, AUA, and ASCO) until 3 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared RP versus deferred treatment in patients with localised prostate cancer, defined as T1-2, N0, M0 prostate cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of references and extracted data from included studies. The primary outcome was time to death from any cause; secondary outcomes were: time to death from prostate cancer; time to disease progression; time to metastatic disease; quality of life, including urinary and sexual function; and adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence per outcome using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 2635 participants (average age between 60 to 70 years). Three multicentre RCTs, from Europe and USA, compared RP with WW (n = 1537), and one compared RP with AM (n = 1098). Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting RP probably reduces the risk of death from any cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.90; 3 studies with 1537 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 764 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared to 839 deaths per 1000 men in the WW group. RP probably also lowers the risk of death from prostate cancer (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73; 2 studies with 1426 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 195 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 316 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the WW group. RP may reduce the risk of progression (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.54; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 54%; low-certainty evidence); at 19.5 years, this corresponds to 391 progressions per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 684 progressions per 1000 men for the WW group) and probably reduces the risk of developing metastatic disease (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.70; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence); at 29 years, this corresponds to 271 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for RP compared with 431 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for WW. General quality of life at 12 years' follow-up is probably similar for both groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.85-1.16; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 344  patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 344 patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the WW group. Rates of urinary incontinence may be considerably higher (RR 3.97, 95% CI 2.34-6.74; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 173 incontinent men per 1000 in the RP group compared with 44 incontinent men per 1000 in the WW group, as are rates of erectile dysfunction (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.63-4.38; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 389 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the RP group compared with 146 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the WW group, both at 10 years' follow-up. Radical prostatectomy versus active monitoring Based on one study including 1098 participants with 10 years' follow-up, there are probably no differences between RP and AM in time to death from any cause (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.33; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to 101 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 108 deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. Similarly, risk of death from prostate cancer probably is not different between the two groups (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21-1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to nine prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 15 prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. RP probably reduces the risk of progression (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27-0.56; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 86 progressions per 1000 men for RP compared with 206 progressions per 1000 men for AM) and the risk of developing metastatic disease (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 24 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 61 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the AM group).The general quality of life during follow-up was not different between the treatment groups. However, urinary function (mean difference (MD) 8.60 points lower, 95% CI 11.2-6.0 lower) and sexual function (MD 14.9 points lower, 95% CI 18.5-11.3 lower) on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) instrument, were worse in the RP group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on long-term follow-up, RP compared with WW probably results in substantially improved oncological outcomes in men with localised prostate cancer but also markedly increases rates of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. These findings are largely based on men diagnosed before widespread PSA screening, thereby limiting generalisability. Compared to AM, based on follow-up to 10 years, RP probably has similar outcomes with regard to overall and disease-specific survival yet probably reduces the risks of disease progression and metastatic disease. Urinary function and sexual function are probably decreased for the patients treated with RP.


Assuntos
Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Conduta Expectante , Idoso , Causas de Morte , Progressão da Doença , Disfunção Erétil/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Cuidados Paliativos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Prostatectomia/efeitos adversos , Prostatectomia/mortalidade , Neoplasias da Próstata/mortalidade , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Incontinência Urinária/epidemiologia
8.
Rev Col Bras Cir ; 47: e20202469, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês, Português | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32491031

RESUMO

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of penile rehabilitation in restoring erectile function in patients submitted to anterior resection of the rectum (ARR) or radical prostatectomy (RP), comparing the results between these two groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a unicenter retrospective cohort study, on patients evaluated in our multidisciplinary oncosexology consultation, between January 2015 and January 2018, submitted to RP or ARR (males) and presenting sexual dysfunction. We evaluate the patient and oncologic characteristics, the type of sexual dysfunction, marital status, assessed the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) on the first and last consultation and the therapeutic approach. A statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were included, 60% (33) performed ARR and 40% (22) RP. Regarding the sexual dysfunction after surgery, erectile dysfunction (ED) was found in the majority of patients (>95%). On the initial IIEF-5 scoring, ARR and RP patients had, most frequently, severe or moderate ED (score 5-11), 78.8% and 59.1% respectively. When reassessed the IIEF-5 scoring of each patient during follow-up, there was an improvement in 69.7% of ARR patients and 72.7% of RP patients (p=0.81). Regarding the therapeutic approach, 84.8% of ARR patients used phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5I) exclusively, 3% used Alprostadil injection, while RP patients used 63.6% and 31.8%, respectively (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the technical differences of these surgeries, from the sexual point of view these patients benefit with a penile rehabilitation.


Assuntos
Alprostadil/uso terapêutico , Disfunção Erétil/reabilitação , Inibidores da Fosfodiesterase 5/uso terapêutico , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Agentes Urológicos/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Idoso , Disfunção Erétil/etiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ereção Peniana/efeitos dos fármacos , Prostatectomia/efeitos adversos , Reto , Estudos Retrospectivos
9.
Jpn J Clin Oncol ; 50(9): 963-969, 2020 Sep 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32580211

RESUMO

Radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy are recognized as comparable treatment options for localized prostate cancer. Previous studies of oncological outcomes of surgery versus radiotherapy have reported their comparability or possible superiority of surgery. However, the issue of which treatment is better remains controversial. Several factors make fair comparison of their outcomes difficult: different patient backgrounds caused by selection bias, different definitions of biochemical recurrence and different complication profiles between the treatment modalities. In 2016, the first large randomized controlled trial was published, which compared radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and active monitoring in localized prostate cancer. More recently, another study has reported comparative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and volumetric modulated arc therapy, as the leading surgery and radiotherapy techniques, respectively. Furthermore, there has been a trend toward combining external beam radiotherapy with brachytherapy boost, especially in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. This review summarizes the updated evidence on oncological outcomes of surgery versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.


Assuntos
Braquiterapia/métodos , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias da Próstata/mortalidade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Análise de Sobrevida
10.
Curr Urol Rep ; 21(8): 30, 2020 Jun 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32506179

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the evidence regarding the usage of suprapubic tube (SPT) versus indwelling urethral catheter (IUC) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). RECENT FINDINGS: Available data on the use of SPT for urinary drainage after RARP is somewhat limited mostly because of the variations of study designs and non-standardized outcomes. Although it may provide some mild benefit in terms of catheter-related pain and discomfort, the benefit seems not to be clinically significant. The evidence in the literature so far does not support routine usage of SPT as the primary urinary drainage method after RARP. Further higher-quality studies that can show clinically significant advantages over IUC are still needed to justify its usage.


Assuntos
Drenagem/métodos , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/métodos , Cateterismo Urinário/métodos , Humanos , Masculino , Complicações Pós-Operatórias , Prostatectomia/efeitos adversos , Uretra , Cateterismo Urinário/efeitos adversos , Cateteres Urinários/efeitos adversos
11.
Arch. esp. urol. (Ed. impr.) ; 73(4): 268-273, mayo 2020. tab
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-192986

RESUMO

INTRODUCCIÓN: Los avances en la cirugía laparoscópica urológica han permitido la realización de la adenomectomía simple laparoscópica (ASL) en adenomas prostáticos voluminosos. OBJETIVO: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar los resultados de la ASL y compararlos con la adenomectomía simple abierta (ASA). MATERIAL Y METODOS: Se realizó un estudio comparativo de 41 pacientes sometidos a ASL [23 ASL con técnica de Millin (ASL-TM) y 21 con técnica transvesical (ASL-TV)] con 44 pacientes sometidos a ASA en adenomasde próstata > 100 gramos. Los datos se registraron de modo prospectivo, en tres centros diferentes. Se evaluaron los resultados preoperatorios, operatorios, postoperatorios y complicaciones según escala de Clavien. RESULTADOS: El volumen prostático fue 165 (100-345) gr para ASL contra 170 (100-328) gr para ASA (p = 0,669). IPSS preoperatorio 3 (0-3) y Q máx. 7 (0-15) para ASL contra 2 (0-3) y 7 (0-15,3) para ASA (p = 0,296; p = 0,316). No hubo diferencia tiempo quirúrgico (p = 0,069). ASL tuvo menos sangrado operatorio100 (10-1000) ml que la ASA 500 (100-1000) ml (p = 0,0001) y una menor estadía hospitalaria 3 (1-8) días contra 3,5 (3-10) días (p = 0,0001), IPSS postoperatorio1 (1-2) y Q máx. 25 (17-45) para ASL contra 1(1-3) y 25,5 (12-44) para ASA (p = 0889; p = 836). No hubo diferencias en el requerimiento de transfusiones ni complicaciones. CONCLUSIÓN: La ASL presentó similares resultados funcionales a corto plazo con un menor sangrado operatorio y tiempo de hospitalización que la ASA y una baja tasa de complicaciones a similares volúmenes prostáticos resecados


INTRODUCTION: The improvements in laparoscopic urological surgery have made laparoscopic adenomectomy (LA) possible in voluminous prostatic adenomas. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the results of the LA and compared them with results of the open adenomectomy (OA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative study of 41 patients undergoing LA [23 LA with Millin technique (LA-MT) and 21 with transvesical technique (LA-TV)] was conducted with 44 patients undergoing OL in prostate adenomas > 100 grams. Data were recorded prospectively, at three different institutions. Preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative and complications results were evaluated. RESULTS: Prostate volume was 165 (100-345) gr for LA versus 170 (100-328) gr for OA (p = 0.669). Preoperative IPSS was 3 (0-3) and Q max. 7 (0-15) for LA against 2 (0-3) and 7 (0-15.3) for OA (p = 0.296; p = 0.316). There was no difference in surgical time (p = 0.069) between both techniques. LA had less operative bleeding, 100 (10-1000) ml than OA, 500 (100-1000) ml (p = 0.0001) and a shorter hospital stay, 3 (1-8) days against 3.5 (3-10) days (p = 0.0001), postoperative IPSS was 1 (1-2) and Q max. 25 (17-45) for LA against 1 (1-3) and 25.5 (12-44) for OA (p = 0889; p = 836). There were no differences neither in transfusions requirements' nor complications. CONCLUSION: LA presented similar short-term functional results with less operative bleeding and shorter hospitalization time than OA with similar prostate volumes resected


Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Adenoma/cirurgia , Laparoscopia/métodos , Prostatectomia/métodos , Hiperplasia Prostática/cirurgia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Tempo de Internação
13.
Dtsch Arztebl Int ; 117(14): 243-250, 2020 04 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32449896

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Lymphocele is the most common complication arising after pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in the setting of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). The only data available until now on the utility of a peritoneal flap to prevent lymphocele were retrospectively acquired. METHODS: A randomized, controlled, multi-center trial with blinded assessment of endpoints was carried out on 232 patients with prostate cancer who underwent RARP with PLND. The patients in the intervention group were given a peritoneal flap; in the control group, surgery was performed without this modification. The two joint primary endpoints were the rates of symptomatic lymphocele during the same hospitalization as the operative procedure (iT1) and within 90 days of surgery (iT2). The secondary endpoints were lymphocele volume, the need for treatment of lymphocele, complications requiring an intervention, and the degree of postoperative stress incontinence. German Clinical Trials Register number: DRKS00011115. RESULTS: The data were evaluated in an intention-to-treat analysis, which, in this trial, was identical to an as-treated analysis. 108 patients (46.6%) were allotted to the intervention group. There were no statistically significant intergroup differences with respect to any clinical or histopathological criteria. A median of 16 lymph nodes were removed (interquartile range, 11-21). A symptomatic lymphocele arose in 1.3% (iT1) and 9.1% (iT2) of the patients, without any statistically significant difference between the two trial groups (p = 0.599 and p = 0.820, respectively). Nor did the groups differ significantly with respect to lymphocele volume (p = 0.670 on hospital discharge [T1], p = 0.650 90 days after surgery [T2]) or the type and frequency of need for subsequent surgical intervention (p = 0.535; iT2). 81.5% of all patients (n = 189) had no complications at all in the first three months after surgery. Nor were there any intergroup differences at 90 days with respect to the degree of stress urinary incontinence (p = 0.306) or complications (p = 0.486). CONCLUSION: A peritoneal flap after RARP was not found to influence the rate of postoperative lymphocele, whether asymptomatic or requiring treatment.


Assuntos
Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos , Retalhos Cirúrgicos , Idoso , Humanos , Linfocele/epidemiologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Peritônio/cirurgia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento
14.
Actas urol. esp ; 44(3): 131-138, abr. 2020. graf, tab, ilus
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-192961

RESUMO

OBJETIVO: Hemos realizado una revisión sistemática sobre la relación entre la hernia inguinal y la cirugía para el cáncer de próstata. Contexto: El diagnóstico de defectos de la pared abdominal y el cáncer de próstata puede suceder de manera sincrónica o metacrónica. La utilidad y seguridad de la cirugía combinada, la incidencia de hernias tras la cirugía prostática y la viabilidad de la prostatectomía en pacientes con hernioplastia laparoscópica previa siguen siendo debatidas hoy en día. MÉTODOS: Se consultaron PubMed y Embase con los textos de búsqueda correspondientes. De manera independiente, 2 investigadores revisaron las referencias bibliográficas y seleccionaron los artículos de interés, incluyendo revisiones. RESULTADOS: Se evaluaron 65 estudios, 22 de los cuales analizan la viabilidad y los resultados de una cirugía combinada (prostatectomía radical y herniorrafia o hernioplastia en un mismo acto quirúrgico). La bibliografía respalda la intervención combinada en pacientes que padecen una hernia inguinal y un cáncer de próstata subsidiario de prostatectomía radical. Se evaluaron 16 estudios que abordan el potencial incremento de las hernias inguinales tras una prostatectomía radical. Aproximadamente un 15% de los pacientes que reciben prostatectomía radical retropúbica clásica desarrollarán hernias inguinales. Es posible que esta incidencia se vea reducida en la prostatectomía laparoscópica, y probablemente sea menor aún con el abordaje transperitoneal. El tiempo medio hasta la aparición de la hernia es de alrededor de 6 meses. Tras la evaluación de 14 estudios, se concluye que la hernioplastia laparoscópica no imposibilita la prostatectomía, pero dificulta la cirugía pélvica ulterior. CONCLUSIONES: La hernioplastia y la prostatectomía radical combinadas en un mismo acto quirúrgico son aceptables, excepto en el caso de estar indicada la linfadenectomía o si la anastomosis uretrovesical no queda estanca a la hidrodistensión intraoperatoria. El asesoramiento adecuado del paciente y el formulario de consentimiento informado son obligatorios en el marco de un equipo multidisciplinario experimentado


OBJECTIVE: We aimed to perform a systematic review about the relationship between inguinal hernia and surgery for prostate cancer. BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of abdominal wall defects and prostate cancer may be either synchronous or metachronous. The convenience and safety of combined prostatectomy and hernioplasty, the incidence of hernias after prostatectomy and the feasibility of prostatectomy in patients with previous laparoscopic hernioplasty are still debated. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were queried by dedicated search strings. Two researchers independently reviewed the pooled references and selected the articles of interest, including reviews. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies were evaluated, 22 of them analysed the feasibility and the outcomes of a combined surgery, namely one-stage radical prostatectomy and herniorrhaphy or hernioplasty. Literature evidences support the combined intervention to patients suffering from an inguinal hernia and a prostate cancer amenable of radical prostatectomy. Sixteen studies addressing the potential increase in the occurrence of inguinal hernia after radical prostatectomy were evaluated. Approximately 15% of patients who undergo retro-pubic radical prostatectomy will develop inguinal hernia. It is suggested that the incidence might be lower in laparoscopic prostatectomy series, particularly in case of transperitoneal approach. The median time to the appearance of the hernia is around 6 months. After evaluation of 14 studies, it is concluded that laparoscopic hernioplasty does not preclude prostatectomy but hinders further pelvic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: One-stage combined hernioplasty and radical prostatectomy may be accepted except in cases of lymph-nodes dissection and/or positive hydro-distress test of the urethro-vesical anastomosis. Accurate patient's counselling and dedicated consent form are mandatory, in the setting of an experienced multidisciplinary team


Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Minimamente Invasivos , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Prostatectomia/métodos , Hérnia Inguinal/cirurgia , Herniorrafia/métodos
15.
Actas urol. esp ; 44(3): 179-186, abr. 2020. tab, graf
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-192967

RESUMO

El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar las características generales y los resultados oncológicos en una cohorte de 408 casos de prostatectomía radical asistida por robot da Vinci Standard de 4 brazos, realizadas entre octubre del 2006 y febrero del 2015. El análisis estadístico se realizó con el programa SPSS 20.0. Las variables cualitativas se presentan con su distribución de frecuencias y las cuantitativas con su media y desviación estándar o mediana y rango intercuartil. La asociación entre variables cualitativas se analizó con el test de la χ2. La variable de resultado de la supervivencia libre de enfermedad se evaluó con un análisis de curvas de Kaplan-Meier y se contrastaron las diferencias con el test de Breslow. Se ajustó un modelo de regresión de Cox. Entre los resultados destacamos un seguimiento 47 meses (32-68,75 meses), supervivencia libre de recurrencia 90 meses (IC del 95%, 86-94), mediana de tiempo a recurrencia de 23 meses (10,5-37 meses), recurrencia del 16,6% (68/408), recidiva bioquímica (62/498, 15,2%) y un 22% de complicaciones, la mayoría Clavien I-II. Los resultados se resumen en las tablas 1 a 7 y en la figura 1. CONCLUSIONES: 1) la prostatectomía radical robótica es una técnica segura con un porcentaje asumible de complicaciones, en su mayoría menores (grados I y II de Clavien); 2) encontramos mayor probabilidad de permanecer libre de recidiva en los grados más bajos de la clasificación de ISUP y mayor probabilidad de recidiva en casos de alto riesgo, y 3) en el modelo multivariante comprobamos que el grado ISUP se relacionó de forma significativa con la supervivencia y fueron variables pronosticas independientes los grados de la clasificación ISUP y los márgenes quirúrgicos positivos


The objective of this study is to evaluate the general characteristics and oncological results in a cohort of 408 cases submitted to da Vinci Standard 4-armed robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), performed between October 2006 and February 2015 at Clínico San Carlos hospital. Statistical analysis was performed with the SPSS 20.0 program. Qualitative variables are presented with their frequency distribution and quantitative variables with their mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range. The χ2 test was used to analyze the association of qualitative variables. The disease-free survival outcome variable was evaluated with a Kaplan-Meier curve analysis, and the differences were contrasted with the Breslow test. A Cox regression model was adjusted. Among the results, we highlight the follow-up of 47 months (32-68.75 m), recurrence-free survival of 90 months (95% CI, 86-94), median time to recurrence of 23 months (10.5-37 m), recurrence 16'6% (68/408), biochemical recurrence (62/498, 15'2 %) and 22% of complications, mostly Clavien I-II. The results are summarized in Tables 1 to 7 and Figure 1


Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Prostatectomia/métodos , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Resultado do Tratamento , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estudos de Coortes
16.
Actas urol. esp ; 44(3): 187-195, abr. 2020. tab, graf
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-192968

RESUMO

INTRODUCCIÓN: La infragradación del grado de Gleason de la biopsia (IGGB) puede impactar en el manejo y pronóstico de los pacientes con cáncer de próstata. Se analiza el posible impacto del tiempo y otros factores clínico-analíticos y la aparición de IGBB en nuestra serie. PACIENTES Y MÉTODO: Estudio multicéntrico ambispectivo de 1.955 pacientes con cáncer de próstata localizado intervenidos mediante prostatectomía radical entre 2005 y 2018. Se utiliza estadística descriptiva y pruebas de contraste de hipótesis con análisis uni- y multivariado para comunicar los RESULTADOS: RESULTADOS: Edad media 63,69 años (44-80), mediana de PSA 8,70 ng/ml (1,23-99). Se observa IGGB en el 34,7% de toda la muestra. En el 72,8% de los casos la IGGB fue en un único punto consecutivo del grado de Gleason: el paso de 3 + 3 a 3 + 4 fue el más frecuente (289 pacientes, 47,6%). La realización de prostatectomía radical antes o después de 90-180 días desde la biopsia no impactó en su infragradación en ninguno de los grupos. En los análisis uni- y multivariante, la presencia de tumor o tacto rectal patológico en ambos lóbulos, la carga tumoral ≥ 50% de los cilindros totales y una DPSA ≥ 0,20 mostraron capacidad discriminativa independiente para seleccionar pacientes que presentaron IGGB. CONCLUSIONES: El tiempo desde la biopsia hasta la prostatectomía radical no mostró impacto en IGGB. El número de cilindros afectados, la DPSA y presentar tumor bilateral fueron parámetros de fácil acceso que pueden ayudarnos a seleccionar pacientes con mayor probabilidad de presentar IGGB


INTRODUCTION: Gleason score biopsy undergrading (GSBU) can have an impact on the management and prognosis of patients with prostate cancer. We analyze the possible impact of time and other clinical and analytical factors in the appearance of GSBU in our series. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Ambispective, multicenter study of 1955 patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy between 2005 and 2018. Descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing are reported by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Mean age 63.69 (44-80) years, median PSA 8.70 ng / ml (1.23-99). GSBU was observed in 34.7% of the entire cohort. In 72.8% of the cases, the GSBU occurred in one consecutive Gleason score, with the progression from 3 + 3 to 3 + 4 being the most frequent (289 patients, 47.6%). Performing radical prostatectomy 90-180 days before or after the biopsy does not have an impact on its undergrading in any of the groups. In the univariate and multivariate analysis, the presence of tumor or pathological rectal examination in both lobes, the tumor load ≥ 50% of cylinders and a DPSA ≥ 0.20, showed independent discriminative capacity to select patients who presented GSBU. CONCLUSIONS: The time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy did not show impact on GSBU. The number of affected cylinders, bilateral tumor and DPSA are easily accessible parameters that can help us select patients with greater probability of presenting GSBU


Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Prostatectomia/métodos , Biópsia , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Fatores de Tempo , Prognóstico
17.
Int J Clin Oncol ; 25(7): 1393-1397, 2020 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32285217

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is most commonly diagnosed by detecting an increase in asymptomatic prostate-specific antigen (PSA). We previously reported the "optimal PSA follow-up schedule after RP". The aim of this study was to confirm the usefulness and safety of that follow-up schedule in another cohort. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinicopathological data of 798 consecutive patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2009 and 2017. We examined all PSA values measured during follow-up. Furthermore, we estimated the PSA value when we observed the "optimal PSA follow-up schedule" at each timing in the virtual follow-up. BCR was defined as an elevation of PSA to greater than 0.2 ng/ml, and the ideal PSA range for detection of BCR was regarded to be 0.2-0.4 ng/ml. RESULTS: During the mean follow-up period of 5.8 years, BCR occurred in 115 (14.9%) patients and the frequency of virtual follow-up was significantly lower than the actual frequency. However, overlooking of BCR (detecting BCR when PSA exceeded 0.4 ng/ml) was observed in 17 patients, which is higher than the actual frequency of overlooking (12 patients). Therefore, we modified the follow-up schedule, which could achieve the lower follow-up frequency and a limited number of overlooking of BCR (7 patients). CONCLUSION: This external validation study revealed that the "modified optimal PSA follow-up schedule after RP" can reduce the frequency of PSA measurement with a limited risk of overlooking BCR.


Assuntos
Calicreínas/sangue , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangue , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Biomarcadores Tumorais/sangue , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/patologia , Estudos Retrospectivos
18.
Int J Clin Oncol ; 25(7): 1398-1404, 2020 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32333202

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: We investigated prognostic factors for biochemical recurrence (BCR) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with extended pelvic lymph node (LN) dissection. METHODS: We included 173 patients who underwent RARP with extended pelvic LN dissection without neoadjuvant therapy at our hospital between October 2010 and April 2018. BCR was defined as prostate serum antigen (PSA) levels ≥ 0.2 ng/mL; BCR-free survival rates were determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis. We used Cox regression analysis to evaluate effects of PSA and pathologic variables on BCR. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 27.9 (range 6.1-86.9) months. Five-year BCR-free survival was 89.5%. In multivariate analysis, positive LNs (HR 7.117; 95% CI 2.826-17.925; P < 0.001) and Gleason score (GS) ≥ 8 (HR 2.612; 95% CI 1.051-6.489; P = 0.039) were significant predictors of BCR. Patients with 1 or 2 positive LNs (n = 10) had significantly higher BCR-free survival rates than patients with ≥ 3 positive LNs (n = 5). We, therefore, stratified the patients as low-risk (GS < 8 and no positive LNs), intermediate-risk: (either GS ≥ 8 or positive LNs) and high-risk (both GS ≥ 8 and positive LNs). Their 1-year BCR-free survival rates were low-risk: 94.6%, intermediate-risk: 88.5%, and high-risk: 33.3% (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with 1-2 positive LNs and GS < 8 have low risk for BCR; close observation without immediate adjuvant hormonal therapy can be considered for these patients.


Assuntos
Excisão de Linfonodo/métodos , Linfonodos/patologia , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Idoso , Humanos , Calicreínas/sangue , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Linfonodos/cirurgia , Metástase Linfática/patologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Gradação de Tumores , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/patologia , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangue , Neoplasias da Próstata/mortalidade , Análise de Regressão , Estudos Retrospectivos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos
19.
Anticancer Res ; 40(4): 2323-2329, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32234933

RESUMO

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the association between total triiodothyronine (T3), free fraction of thyroxin (FT4), and thyrotropin (TSH) levels with prostate cancer histopathological features. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Blood samples from 140 patients with prostate cancer were analyzed preoperatively and stratified according to postoperative histopathological differentiation. The first group (N=62) included patients with prostate cancer Grade Groups (GG) 1-2, while the second group (N=63) included patients with prostate cancer GG 3-5. RESULTS: T3 levels were significantly higher in patients with prostate cancer GG 3-5 (p=0.047). There was no significant difference in the FT4 and TSH levels between the two groups (p=0.680 and 0.801, respectively). T3 levels were positively correlated with tumor percentage involvement (TPI) (p=0.002), and pT stage (p=0.047) on definitive pathology. CONCLUSION: Higher T3 levels are associated with several indicators of prostate cancer histopathological aggressiveness.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Tireotropina/sangue , Tiroxina/sangue , Tri-Iodotironina/sangue , Idoso , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Gradação de Tumores , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Período Pré-Operatório , Estudos Prospectivos , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangue , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/sangue , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia
20.
Urologe A ; 59(6): 659-664, 2020 Jun.
Artigo em Alemão | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32274541

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: About 5% of prostate cancer patients have distant metastases at diagnosis. In these metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancers (mHSPC), systemic therapy is recommended, according to the guidelines. Moreover, metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) is discussed to prolong survival. OBJECTIVES: The contemporary literature concerning local therapy and MDT in patients with mHSPC is summarized. METHODS: Selective literature search. RESULTS: In 2018, randomized controlled data on local therapy in mHSPC patients were published by the authors of the STAMPEDE study. Here, patients were randomized between standard of care (SOC) ± radiotherapy to the prostate (RT). Within the overall cohort, no difference regarding 3­year overall survival (OS) was observed. Within a prespecified subgroup of patients with low metastatic burden. Similar results were observed in numerous retrospective studies analyzing radical prostatectomy; prospective randomized studies are pending. For MDT, there are no sufficient data in mHSPC patients yet. CONCLUSIONS: In the current guidelines, systematic therapy is standard of care in mHSPC patients. In patients with low metastatic burden, a survival benefit was observed when adding percutaneous RT to the prostate. Retrospective studies also suggest a benefit when adding RP. However, whether MDT prolongs survival is still unknown.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos Hormonais/uso terapêutico , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Antagonistas de Androgênios/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Masculino , Metástase Neoplásica , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/secundário , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA