We aimed to assess whether the ongoing course of the COVID-19 epidemic has been associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology (AP) findings in prostate cancer (PC) patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). We performed a retrospective data analysis which included 408 consecutive, non-metastatic, previously untreated PC patients who underwent RP in our institution between March 2020 and September 2021. Patients were divided into two equally numbered groups in regard to the median surgery date (Early Epidemic [EE] and Late Epidemic [LE]) and compared. Adverse pathology was defined as either grade group (GG) ≥ 4, pT ≥ 3a or pN+ at RP. Patients in the LE group demonstrated significantly higher rates of AP than in the EE group (61 vs. 43% overall and 50 vs. 27% in preoperative non-high-risk subgroup, both p < 0.001), mainly due to higher rates of upgrading. On multivariable analysis, consecutive epidemic week (odds ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.00–1.03, p = 0.009) as well as biopsy GG ≥ 2 and a larger prostate volume (mL) were associated with AP in non-high-risk patients. The study serves as a warning call for increased awareness of risk underassessment in contemporarily treated PC patients.
To compare oncological and functional outcomes of high-intensity focused-ultrasound (HIFU) focal therapy (FT) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in patients treated for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa), we retrospectively analyzed data of consecutive patients comprising 30 men, who underwent HIFU-FT, and 96 men who underwent LRP, in an academic center. Oncological outcomes were assessed based on the follow-up prostate-specific antigen values. We used the International Index of Erectile Function short form score to assess erectile function (EF). Urinary continence status was defined based on the number of pads used per day. Median follow-up was 12.5 and 19.1 months in the LRP and HIFU-FT groups, respectively. The effects were computed after propensity score matching and expressed as average treatment effect (ATE). Compared to LRP, HIFU-FT was associated with increased risk of treatment failure (ATE 0.103–0.164, depending on definition, p < 0.01) and lower risk of urinary incontinence (ATE −0.808 at 12 months, p < 0.01). Risk of erectile dysfunction was higher in the LRP group (ATE 5.092, p < 0.01). Our results demonstrate that HIFU-FT may be a reasonable treatment option in selected PCa patients, willing to preserve their EF and urinary continence yet accepting a higher risk of treatment failure.
A 64-year-old woman presented with contralateral right adrenal metastasis with adrenal vein thrombus, which was diagnosed many years after left nephrectomy with adrenalectomy due to renal cell cancer. The patient underwent right adrenalectomy with adrenal vein tumor thrombectomy for treatment. The pathologic examination confirmed metastatic clear cell carcinoma. The remote but existing risk of developing contralateral adrenal metastasis (CAM) after primary radical nephrectomy supports the idea of sparing the adrenal gland in suitable patients who undergo radical nephrectomy. Contralateral adrenal metastasis from RCC is a rare finding with the potential benefit of cure after resection. Care must be taken in preoperative diagnostics, as this metastasis is capable of causing inferior vena cava tumor thrombus via the suprarenal venous route. According to our knowledge, our case is the second similar entity described in literature so far.
Despite complete resection, non-muscle invasive bladder cancers tend to recur. Therefore, their risk stratification was implemented to select adjuvant therapy. Immediate intravesical chemotherapeutic instillations were shown to decrease the risk of recurrence in those with low-risk disease. The purpose of the study was to determine the role of endoscopic assessment in the management of patients subjected to transurethral resection of the bladder tumour (TURBT). In 262 patients submitted to TURBT due to primary bladder tumour, the size and the number of the lesion(s) were noted and the stage as well as the grade of the tumour(s) were typed. The individual features were then scored according to the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer 'Bladder Calculator' and the lesions were classified into the low, intermediate and high risk of recurrence group. Clinical evaluation was then compared with pathological report and final triage. Based on the clinical data, 95 (36.25%), 105 (40.07%) and 3 (1.14%) patients were endoscopically assigned to the groups of low, intermediate and high risk of recurrence respectively. After pathological report, correct risk stratification was confirmed in 86 (90.5%), 95 (90.5%) and 3 (100%) patients respectively. Endoscopic assessment of bladder cancers allows to accurately establish the risk of recurrence and may facilitate implementation of adjuvant therapy before histological evaluation.
Background To investigate the role of mpMRI and high PIRADS score as independent triggers in the qualification of patients with ISUP 1 prostate cancer on biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Methods Between January 2017 and June 2019, 494 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies were performed in our institution, including 203 patients (41.1%) with ISUP 1 cT1c-2c PCa on biopsy. Data regarding biopsy results, digital rectal examination, PSA, mpMRI and postoperative pathological report have been retrospectively analysed. Results In 183 cases (90.1%) mpMRI has been performed at least 6 weeks after biopsy. Final pathology revealed ISUP Gleason Grade Group upgrade in 62.6% of cases. PIRADS 5, PIRADS 4 and PIRADS 3 were associated with Gleason Grade Group upgrade in 70.5%, 62.8%, 48.3% of patients on final pathology, respectively. Within PIRADS 5 group, the number of upgraded cases was statistically significant. Conclusions PIRADS score correlates with an upgrade on final pathology and may justify shared decision of radical treatment in patients unwilling to repeated biopsies. However, the use of PIRADS 5 score as a sole indicator for prostatectomy may result in nonnegligible overtreatment rate.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.