Preprostatic lymph nodes in prostate cancer hot or not? Impact on oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of preprostatic lymph node invasion on prostate cancer patients' outcome after radical prostatectomy. It is known that invasion of pelvic lymph nodes is associated with worse oncological outcome, but little is known about invasion of preprostatic lymph nodes. We hypothesized that positive preprostatic lymph nodes may not be as harmful as positive pelvic lymph nodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 11,107 consecutive patients treated for prostate cancer with radical prostatectomy between 2013 and 2017 were evaluated. 1575 (14.2%) had some type of lymph node invasion, 53 (0.5%) had only one positive preprostatic lymph node and 705 (6.3%) had only one positive pelvic lymph node. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 37.7 months (interquartile range: 24.6-58.7 months). Baseline characteristics of the overall cohort were not statistically significant between the preprostatic vs. pelvic lymph node invasion groups, except for robot-assisted operation (64.2 vs. 32.3%, p < 0.001) and count of removed lymph nodes (16 vs. 19, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in 3-years biochemical recurrence rate (56.2 vs. 65.8%, p = 0.5), 3-years metastases free survival rate (87.4 vs. 95.5%, p = 0.5) and overall cancer-specific mortality (1.9 vs 1.0%) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preprostatic lymph node invasion seems to have a similar harmful effect as pelvic lymph node invasion and thus, if detected, may alter treatment and follow-up strategy. Therefore, it is important to perform a histological analysis when removing the preprostatic tissue.

Long-term outcome of patients with moderate and severe prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Recently, moderate and severe postprocedure aortic regurgitations (ARs) have been identified as independent risk factors for short- and midterm mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, very few data exist on the long-term outcome of postprocedure AR. From 2008 to 2011, 198 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis successfully underwent TAVI with the CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic CV, Minneapolis, Minnesota). After the procedure, patients were subdivided into groups depending on the presence of moderate/severe AR. The primary study end point was death from any cause after TAVI. The secondary end point was defined as cardiovascular death. In study patients (80 ± 6 years old, logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation 22 ± 16%, left ventricular ejection fraction 53 ± 13%), moderate/severe AR occurred in 28 patients (14%). Despite similar baseline characteristics, patients with moderate/severe AR had higher 30-day and 1-year mortality rates than patients with none/mild AR (21% vs 6%, p = 0.019; 57% vs 16%, p <0.001, respectively). During a mean follow-up of 535 ± 333 days, the primary end point was reached in 54 and the secondary end point in 33 patients. Moderate/severe AR was the strongest independent risk factor of all-cause-mortality (hazard ratio 4.89, 95% confidence interval 2.78 to 8.56, p <0.001) and the strongest independent risk factor of cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio 7.90, 95% confidence interval 3.95 to 15.81, p <0.001). In conclusion, moderate and severe postprocedure ARs are not uncommon complications after TAVI. Although long-term outcome of patients with none/mild AR is favorable, outcome of patients with moderate/severe AR is dismal.