Efficacy and safety profile of GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate in ≥ 75 years old patients: results from the Italian GreenLight Laser Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) is the most common non-malignant urological condition among men and its incidence rise with age. Among prostate treatments, GreenLight laser seems to reduce bleeding and would be safer in the aging population. AIMS: We aimed to compare the functional outcomes and safety profile of < 75 years old (Group A) and ≥ 75 years old (Group B) patients. METHODS: In a multicenter setting, we retrospectively analyzed all the patients treated with GreenLight Laser vaporization of the prostate (PVP). RESULTS: 1077 patients were eligible for this study. 757 belonged to Group A (median age 66 years) and 320 to Group B (median age 78 years). No differences were present between the two groups in terms of prostate volume, operative time, hospital stay, PSA decrease over time after surgery, complications and re-intervention rate with a median follow-up period of 18 months (IQR 12-26). Nevertheless, focusing on complications, GreenLight laser PVP demonstrated an excellent safety profile in terms of hospital stay, re-intervention and complications, with an overall 29.6% complication rate in older patients and only two cases of Clavien III. Functional outcomes were similar at 12 month and became in favor of Group A over time. These data are satisfactory with a Qmax improvement of 111.7% and an IPSS reduction of 69.5% in older patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate is a safe and efficient procedure for all patients, despite their age, with comparable outcomes and an equal safety profile.

Patient and Context Factors in the Adoption of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Although active surveillance for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) has been recommended for years, its adoption at the population level is often limited. Objective: To make active surveillance available for patients with LRPC using a research framework and to compare patient characteristics and clinical outcomes between those who receive active surveillance vs radical treatments at diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, prospective cohort study was designed by a large multidisciplinary group of specialists and patients' representatives. The study was conducted within all 18 urology centers and 7 radiation oncology centers in the Piemonte and Valle d'Aosta Regional Oncology Network in Northwest Italy (approximate population, 4.5 million). Participants included patients with a new diagnosis of LRPC from June 2015 to December 2021. Data were analyzed from January to May 2023. Exposure: At diagnosis, all patients were informed of the available treatment options by the urologist and received an information leaflet describing the benefits and risks of active surveillance compared with active treatments, either radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation treatment (RT). Patients choosing active surveillance were actively monitored with regular prostate-specific antigen testing, clinical examinations, and a rebiopsy at 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were proportion of patients choosing active surveillance or radical treatments, overall survival, and, for patients in active surveillance, treatment-free survival. Comparisons were analyzed with multivariable logistic or Cox models, considering centers as clusters. Results: A total of 852 male patients (median [IQR] age, 70 [64-74] years) were included, and 706 patients (82.9%) chose active surveillance, with an increasing trend over time; 109 patients (12.8%) chose RP, and 37 patients (4.3%) chose RT. Median (IQR) follow-up was 57 (41-76) months. Worse prostate cancer prognostic factors were negatively associated with choosing active surveillance (eg, stage T2a vs T1c: odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.93), while patients who were older (eg, age ≥75 vs <65 years: OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 1.98-9.22), had higher comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2 vs 0: OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.02-3.85), underwent an independent revision of the first prostate biopsy (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.26-4.38) or underwent a multidisciplinary assessment (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.38-5.11) were more likely to choose active surveillance vs active treatment. After adjustment, center at which a patient was treated continued to be an important factor in the choice of treatment (intraclass correlation coefficient, 18.6%). No differences were detected in overall survival between active treatment and active surveillance. Treatment-free survival in the active surveillance cohort was 59.0% (95% CI, 54.8%-62.9%) at 24 months, 54.5% (95% CI, 50.2%-58.6%) at 36 months, and 47.0% (95% CI, 42.2%-51.7%) at 48 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study of patients with LRPC, a research framework at system level as well as favorable prognostic factors, a multidisciplinary approach, and an independent review of the first prostate biopsy at patient-level were positively associated with high uptake of active surveillance, a practice largely underused before this study.

Post-Operative Acute Urinary Retention After Greenlight Laser. Analysis of Risk Factors from A Multicentric Database.

PURPOSE: Greenlight laser is a mini-invasive technique used to treat Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO). Some of the advantages of GreenLight photoselective vaporization (PVP) are shorter catheterization time and hospital stay compared to TURP. Post-operative acute urinary retention (pAUR) leads to patients' discomfort, prolonged hospital stay and increased health care costs. We analyzed risk factors for urinary retention after GreenLight laser PVP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter experience, we retrospectively analyzed the onset of early and late post-operative acute urinary retention in patients undergoing standard or anatomical PVP. The pre-, intra- and post-operative characteristics were compared betweene patients who started to void and the patients who developed post-operative urinary retention. RESULTS: The study included 434 patients suitable for the study. Post-operative acute urinary retention occurred in 39 (9%). Patients with a lower prostate volume (P < .001), an adenoma volume lower than 40 mL (P < .001), and lower lasing time (P = .013) had a higher probability to develop pAUR at the univariate analysis. The multivariate logistic regression confirmed that lower lasing time (95% CI: 0.86-0.99, OR = 0.93, P = .046) and adenoma volume (95% CI: 0.89-0.98, OR = 0.94, P = .006) are correlated to pAUR. Furthermore IPSS ≥ 19 (95% CI: 1.19- 10.75, OR = 2.27, P = .023) and treatment with 5-ARI (95% CI: 1.05-15.03, OR = 3.98, P = .042) are risk factors for pAUR. CONCLUSION: In our series, post-operative acute urinary retention was related to low adenoma volume and lasing time, pre-operative IPSS ≥ 19 and 5-ARI intake. These data should be considered in deciding the best timing for urethral catheters removal.

Operative profile, safety and functional outcomes after GreenLight laser prostate surgery: results from a 12 months follow-up multicenter Italian cohort analyses.

BACKGROUND: Over the two past decades, GreenLight laser therapy has been considered a valid alternative for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia/benign prostatic obstruction (BPH/BPO). However, the debate on the effectiveness of laser therapy compared to conventional techniques is still open. The aim of our study is to analyze and describe the use of GreenLight laser prostate surgery in Italy, with regard to the surgical techniques performed and the surgical and functional outcomes at mid-term follow-up. METHODS: From March 2012 to July 2018, patients who underwent GreenLight laser prostate surgery for LUTS due to BPH/BPO from 19 Italian centers were included. The following parameters were evaluated in the population: age, prostate volume, prostate adenoma volume, PSA tot, Qmax at uroflowmetry (UFM), International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS), previous therapy for LUTS, use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs. We recorded also the kind of anesthesia, mean laser time (min), mean irradiation time (min), TURP conversion/completion rate, postoperative day of catheter removal, postoperative acute urinary retention (AUR), hospital stay, variation of hematocrit (Ht) and hemoglobin levels (Hb). Early complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, the re-operation rate within 30 days and after 30 days, the late complications and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement were also collected. Changes over time in terms of blood loss and functional outcomes (IPSS and Qmax at the UFM at 6 and 12 months) were tested with Student's test for paired samples. We assumed P≤0.05 as level of statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 1077 were enrolled in the study, 554 (56.4%) were treated with standard vaporization and 523 (48.6%) with anatomical vaporization. Student's t-test for paired samples showed no statistically significant differences in terms of reduction of Ht preoperative vs. Ht postoperative (42.80±3.91 vs. 39.93±5.35 95% CI P=0.3) and preintervention and postintervention Hb levels (14.28±1.46 vs. 13.72 P=0.35). Compared with the preoperative Qmax (8.60±2.64), the 6- and 12-month UFM showed a significant improvement [19.56±6.29, P<0.01 and 19.99±5.92 P<0.01]. In terms of IPSS variation, compared to the baseline level (22±5.51) the 6- and 12-month follow-up confirmed a significant reduction (8.01±4.41 P<0.01 and 5.81±4.12 P<0.01 respectively). Postoperative complications were CD0, CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4 in 33.0%,35.3%, 2.9%, 0.3%, and 0.6%. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the most numerous surgical series of GreenLight laser vaporization and with the longest follow-up. This technique should be considered as a safe and effective alternative in the treatment of secondary LUTS to BPH.

GreenLight Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate: One Laser for Different Prostate Sizes.

Introduction: GreenLight laser vaporization of the prostate (photoselective vaporization of the prostate [PVP]) is a safe and effective procedure for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Long-term results and advantages of PVP in patients with large and symptomatic prostate are still under evaluation. Materials and Methods: In a multicenter experience, patients who underwent standard or anatomical PVP were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with follow-up >12 months were divided into two groups based on prostate volume (<100 cc vs ≥100 cc). Pre- and perioperative data, as well as postoperative results and complications, were recorded after 3, 6, and 12 months and then annually. Results: One thousand and thirty-one patients were eligible, 916 of these had a prostate volume of <100 cc and 115 ≥ 100 cc. Median follow-up period was 25.0 months (interquartile range [IQR] 16.5-35.0) and 16.0 months (IQR 12.0-24.0) in ≥100 and <100 groups, respectively. No difference was found in terms of catheterization time, postoperative stay, and postoperative acute urine retention. Patients with prostate ≥100 required longer operative time (75 vs 55 minutes), lasing time (41.7 vs 24.9 minutes), and higher energy used but lower energy density. Patients with prostate ≥100 had a higher incidence of early (50.4% vs 35.7%) and late complications (21.7% vs 12.8%) and early urge/incontinence symptoms (40.9% vs 29.3%). No statistically significant differences were found for the maximum urinary flow (Qmax) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) results between the two groups. The reintervention rate in ≥100 group was 3.5% vs 2.3% in <100. Conclusions: In the midterm follow-up, GreenLight PVP guarantees the same results in different prostate volume groups. Early and late complications are more frequent in large prostates.

A case of concomitant occurrence of solitary fibrous tumor and urothelial high-grade invasive carcinoma of the urinary bladder.

Solitary fibrous tumor (SFT) is a rare mesenchymal neoplasm, most commonly arising from the pleura. It has also been recently described to occur in extrapleural sites. To our knowledge, only 16 cases of SFT have been reported in the urinary bladder to date. We report the clinicopathological features of a vesical SFT occurring in a 60-year-old man who presented a concomitant invasive high-grade urothelial cell carcinoma. No similar association has been found in the accessible literature. The morphologic and immunohistochemical clues leading to the correct diagnosis of SFT have been correlated with the data of the literature, and the differential diagnosis is briefly discussed.

Osteopontin plasma level does not detect prostate cancer in patients referred for diagnostic prostate biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the second most frequent cause of tumor-related deaths in men in Western countries. The selection and evaluation of new markers might help to overcome the limits of the most widely used diagnostic tool, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, often combined with digital rectal examination (DRE). Osteopontin (OPN) is an integrin-binding glycoprotein that has recently been shown to be related to tumor development, progression and metastasis in both experimental and clinical studies. The present study compares plasma OPN levels and tumor presence and grade in a group of PSA/DRE-positive patients referred for diagnostic prostate biopsy. METHODS: Plasma OPN levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in blood samples of 194 PSA/DRE-positive patients referred for diagnostic prostate biopsy. OPN measurements were compared with PSA levels and tumor presence and grade as established by needle biopsy. RESULTS: Plasma OPN levels were not increased in patients with prostate cancer, and in patients with high-grade prostate cancer the plasma OPN levels were not different from those in patients with low-grade or no prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In PSA/DRE-positive patients referred for diagnostic prostate biopsy, OPN does not appear to be a plasma marker able to detect prostate cancer or high-grade prostate cancer.

Bicalutamide monotherapy versus flutamide plus goserelin in prostate cancer: updated results of a multicentric trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of bicalutamide monotherapy to maximal androgen blockade in advanced prostatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with histologically proven stage C or D (American Urological Association Staging System) disease were randomly allocated to either bicalutamide (B) or goserelin plus flutamide (G+F). After disease progression, patients treated with B were assigned to castration. The primary endpoint for this trial was overall survival. Prostate cancer-specific survival and progression were included among secondary endpoints. RESULTS: In total 108 patients received B and 112 received G+F. At a median follow-up time of 54 months (range 1-89), 151 patients progressed and 113 died. There was no significant difference in the duration of either progression-free or overall survival. Hazards of progression, death and cancer-specific death, corrected by disease stage, tumor grade and baseline PSA level, showed that patients initially assigned to B had a higher risk of progression but a comparable risk of death and cancer-specific death with the exception of patients with G3 tumors who had an increased risk of death). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with well or moderately well differentiated tumors, B monotherapy followed by castration may offer the same survival chance as maximal androgen deprivation. In those patients it thus represents a reasonable choice that can avoid the side effects of androgen deprivation for considerable periods of time.