No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Focal therapy is a modern alternative to selectively treat a specific part of the prostate harboring clinically significant disease while preserving the rest of the gland. The aim of this therapeutic approach is to retain the oncological benefit of active treatment and to minimize the side-effects of common radical treatments. The oncological effectiveness of focal therapy is yet to be proven in long-term robust trials. In contrast, the toxicity profile is well-established in randomized controlled trials and multiple robust prospective cohort studies. This narrative review summarizes the relevant evidence on complications and their management after focal therapy. When compared to whole gland treatments, focal therapy provides a substantial benefit in terms of adverse events reduction and preservation of genito-urinary function. The most common complications occur in the peri-operative period. Urinary tract infection and acute urinary retention can occur in up to 17% of patients, while dysuria and haematuria are more common. Urinary incontinence following focal therapy is very rare (0–5%), and the vast majority of patients recover in few weeks. Erectile dysfunction can occur after focal therapy in 0–46%: the baseline function and the ablation template are the most important factors predicting post-operative erectile dysfunction. Focal therapy in the salvage setting after external beam radiotherapy has a significantly higher rate of complications. Up to one man in 10 will present a severe complication.

Purpose To compare the clinical outcome of males with low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed within a standardized modern protocol of active surveillance. Materials and Methods This was a prospective cohort study with strict and expanded active surveillance criteria in males with prostate cancer. Baseline assessment included multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), extended systematic biopsy, and software-based MR-targeted biopsy. Follow-up included biannual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) check, mpMRI, and control biopsy once a year for the first 2 years, and afterward mpMRI every 2 years with additional tests as clinically indicated. The primary outcome was the transition rate to active treatment. Results A total of 51 patients were included: 17 (33%) and 34 (67%) followed protocols of strict (study arm 1) and expanded (study arm 2) active surveillance criteria, respectively. Median age and PSA were 65 years (IQR, 60–69 years) and 5.3 ng/mL (IQR, 4.5–7.7 ng/mL), respectively. At baseline, a median of 2 (IQR, 1–3) cores were positive out of 13 (IQR, 12–14) cores; 22 males (43%) had visible mpMRI lesions. Eight males (24%) in study arm 2 had Gleason score 3+4. After a median follow-up of 36 months (IQR, 24–48 mo), no patient in study arm 1 compared with 17 patients (33%) in arm 2 underwent active treatment (p<0.0005). Conclusions Although expanding eligibility criteria leads to a greater transition rate to active treatment, active surveillance should be contemplated in well-selected males with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer as the curability window seems to be maintained.

No abstract

Purpose:Bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of radical prostatectomy is the current standard of care if pelvic lymph node dissection is indicated; often, however, pelvic lymph node dissection is performed in pN0 disease. With the more accurate staging achieved with magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis, the indication for bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection may be revised. We aimed to assess the feasibility of unilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection in the era of modern prostate cancer imaging.Materials and Methods:We analyzed a multi-institutional data set of men with cN0 disease diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy who underwent prostatectomy and bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection. The outcome of the study was lymph node invasion contralateral to the prostatic lobe with worse disease features, ie, dominant lobe. Logistic regression to predict lymph node invasion contralateral to the dominant lobe was generated and internally validated.Results:Overall, data from 2,253 patients were considered. Lymph node invasion was documented in 302 (13%) patients; 83 (4%) patients had lymph node invasion contralateral to the dominant prostatic lobe. A model including prostate-specific antigen, maximum diameter of the index lesion, seminal vesicle invasion on magnetic resonance imaging, International Society of Urological Pathology grade in the nondominant side, and percentage of positive cores in the nondominant side achieved an area under the curve of 84% after internal validation. With a cutoff of contralateral lymph node invasion of 1%, 602 (27%) contralateral pelvic lymph node dissections would be omitted with only 1 (1.2%) lymph node invasion missed.Conclusions:Pelvic lymph node dissection could be omitted contralateral to the prostate lobe with worse disease features in selected patients. We propose a model that can help avoid contralateral pelvic lymph node dissection in almost one-third of cases.