IntroductionLife expectancy in developed countries is continuously increasing. Hence elderly patients are becoming more common in our clinical practice. Currently, one of the greatest challenges of medicine is balancing the life expectancy of elderly patients against aggressive treatments that carry significant risks. ObjectiveTo outline the complications and survival in surgical patients 80 years and over undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Patients and MethodsA review of a radical cystectomy in elderly recorded in four different institutional prospective databases during the period between 1991 and 2014. Clinical and pathologic features, complications and survival were evaluated. ResultsA total of 111 patients were available. Median (range) age 82.2 (80-89) years. Seventeen women and 94 men. Regarding the ASA score, 6 patients were ASA I, 47 patients were ASA II, 49 patients ASA III and 9 ASA IV. Prior to surgery, 48 patients had hydronephrosis. The median (range) creatinine series was 1.1 (0.71-11.1) ng/dL. In 88 cases an ileal conduit was performed, 17 a cutaneous ureterostomy diversion, 5 neobladders and 1 ureterosigmoidostomy case. The median (range) operative time was 230 (120-420) min and a total of 97 patients required blood transfusion. The median (range) hospital stay was 14 (7-126) days. The early and late complication rates were 50.4% and 32%, respectively. A total of 14 patients (12.6%) required surgical reintervention. Eight patients (7.2%) died in the immediate postoperative period. The readmission rate of the series was 27.2%. The mean follow-up of the series was 18 (0.27-134.73) months. During this period 66 patients died, 52 of them due to the tumor. Twelve month tumour progression free survival was 83.9% for ≤pT1, 70.2% for pT2 and 36% for ≥pT3, respectively. Twelve month cancer specific survival was 85.6% for ≤pT1, 75.1% for pT2 and 42.5% for ≥pT3, respectively. ConclusionRadical cystectomy in elderly population is an aggressive surgical treatment with a significant complication rate, hospital readmission and perioperative mortality rate. Careful selection of patients is essential in order to minimize the complications of this surgery and balance benefits against risks in the elderly population. Tumour progression and cancer specific survival are poor for patients with ≥pT3 disease. Alternatives such as tri-modality therapy need to be considered within a multidisciplinary approach. More data is required to determine which sub-groups of elderly patients would benefit from a complication, survival and quality of life perspective.

PurposeTo report the 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS), overall survival (OS), and long-term toxicity outcomes of patients treated with low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy as monotherapy for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Material and methodsBetween 2004 and 2011, 371 patients were treated with LDR brachytherapy as monotherapy. Of these, 102 patients (27%) underwent transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) prior to implantation. Follow-up was performed every 3 months for 12 months, then every 6 months over 4 years and included prostate specific antigen evaluation. The biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) was defined according to the Phoenix criteria. Acute and late toxicities were documented using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The BRFS and OS estimates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier plots. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate outcomes by pre-treatment clinical prognostic factors and radiation dosimetry.ResultsThe median follow-up of all patients was 5.45 years. The 5-year BRFS and OS rates were 95% and 96%, respectively. The BRFS rates for patients with Gleason score (GS) > 7 and GS ≤ 6 were 96% and 91% respectively (p = 0.06). On univariate analysis, T1 and T2 staging, risk-group classification, and prostate volumes had no impact on survival at 5 years (p > 0.1). Late grade 2 and 3 genitourinary (GU) toxicities were observed in 10% and 5% of patients respectively. Additionally, patients with prior TURP had a greater incidence of late grade 2 or 3 urinary retention (p = 0.001). There were 14 deaths in total; however, none were attributed to prostate cancer.ConclusionsLDR brachytherapy is an effective treatment option in low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. We observed low biochemical relapse rates and minimal GU toxicities several years after treatment in patients with or without TURP. However, a small risk of urinary retention was observed in some patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: To assess current treatment trends and perioperative outcomes of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) in a tertiary institution. Methods: We prospectively collected a database of all patients undergoing TURP and PVP for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) at a tertiary hospital between January 2011 and December 2013. Patient characteristics such as length of stay, readmission, anticoagulation status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and need for blood transfusion were recorded and analysed. Results: In total, 560 cases were included: 204 (36.4%) underwent TURP and 356 (63.6%) PVP. Patients undergoing PVP had higher ASA scores (P < 0.001) and were more frequently on continuing anticoagulant therapy (P < 0.001). With regards to non-aspirin/asasantin coagulation therapy, 61 (17.1%) patients underwent PVP with their anticoagulants continued while no patients who received TURP continued anticoagulation. Blood transfusion percentages were similar at 1.0% for TURP and 1.7% for PVP but readmission proportions were higher after PVP (32 patients, 9.0%) compared to TURP (10 patients, 4.9%). These differences were attenuated when excluding patients continuing anticoagulation during the procedure. Conclusion: At our institution, the use of PVP has been increasing on a year-by-year basis. The results of the current study demonstrated that PVP is safe in patients with increased anaesthetic risk or on active anticoagulation when compared to traditional TURP. While this makes PVP an attractive alternative to TURP in high-risk anticoagulated patients, these patients may have complex post-discharge issues that should be addressed during the informed consent process.