ObjectiveTo analyse the functional and oncological outcome of consecutive renal-transplant recipients (RTRs) with clinically localised prostate cancer who underwent radical retropubic (RRP) or perineal (RPP) prostatectomy.Patients and methodsBetween January 2000 and July 2011 16 patients underwent RRP (group 1) and seven RPP (group 2). In all, 200 consecutive non-RTRs served as the control group, of whom 100 each underwent RRP and RPP, respectively. The mean (range) interval between renal transplantation and RP was 95 (24–206) months, the PSA at the time of diagnosis was 4.5 (3.0–17.5) ng/mL, and the mean patient age was 64 (59–67) years.ResultsThe mean follow-up was 39 (RRP) and 48 months (RPP). There was no deterioration in graft function. In group 1, 13 and three patients had pT2a-cpN0 and pT3a-bpN0 prostate cancer, respectively, with a Gleason score of 6, 7 and 8 in 11, three and one patients, respectively. In group 2, three and four patients had pT2a-c and pT3a-b disease, respectively, with a Gleason score of 6 and 7 in two and five, respectively. In both groups one patient had a positive surgical margin and was followed expectantly, and all patients have no evidence of disease. Wound infections developed more often in the RPP group (29% vs. 7%), but there were no Clavien grade III–V complications. All patients achieved good continence, and two need one pad/day.ConclusionsRRP and RPP are suitable surgical treatments for prostate cancer in RTRs. RRP might be preferable, as it has the advantage of simultaneous pelvic lymphadenectomy and a lower risk of infectious complications.
sLND can be performed without significant complications and achieves an immediate BR, thus allowing a significant postponement of systemic therapy in selected patients with BCR and nodal recurrence of PCa. Therefore, sLND following Ga-PSMA PET/CT should be considered as part of a multimodal diagnostic and treatment concept for selective patients.
272 Background: Androgen deprivation (ADT) represents the standard treatment in men with prostate cancer (PCA) and osseous metastases. Unlike therapeutic approaches in other solid tumors, RP is usually ignored due to the common view that the biology of the disease is attributed to preexisting metastases. Recently, it has been shown that potentially lethal cancers persist even after neoadjuvant ADT and chemotherapy. We explored the outcome of patients with PCA and low volume skeletal metastases who were subjected to ADT and cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (CRP). Methods: Eighteen patients with biopsy proven, completely resectable PCA, minimal osseous metastases (equal to or less than three hot spots on bone scan), absence of visceral or extensive lymph node metastases were included in the pilot study. All patients (pts) underwent neoadjuvant ADT with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues for 6 months. If the PSA serum level decreased to less than 0.4 ng/ml and osseous lesions disappeared on control scan, pts were considered suitable for extended RP followed by 2 years adjuvant ADT. Results: Mean age was 61 (42 to 69), the mean PSA was 96.3 (72 to 139) ng/ml and 0.29 (0 to 0.39) ng/ml at recruitment and at 6 months, respectively. Mean number of bone lesions was 1.9 (1 to 3) and all lesions disappeared after 6 months of ADT. Pathohistology revealed pT2c in 4 (22.2%), pT3a and pT3b in 3 (16.7%) and 11 (61.11%) pts, respectively. Seven (38.9%) pts and three (16.7%) pts had lymph node metastases or positive surgical margins (PSM). PSM were treated with adjuvant radiation therapy ad 66.6Gy. No Clavien grade 3 to 5 complications occurred. The mean follow-up is 29 (3 to 52) months, three (16.7%) pts relapsed. The remainder is without evidence of disease. Conclusions: CRP is feasible in well selected men with low volume osseous metastases who respond well to neoadjuvant ADT. These men have a life expectancy of around 7 years and CRP reduces the risk of locally recurrent PCA and local complications. CRP might be a new treatment option in the multimodality management of PCA and minimal metastatic disease.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.