Refine
Document Type
- Article (48)
Has Fulltext
- yes (48)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (48)
Keywords
- prostate cancer (12)
- radical prostatectomy (11)
- Prostate cancer (5)
- metastatic prostate cancer (4)
- FFLU (3)
- bladder cancer (3)
- chemotherapy (3)
- mortality (3)
- survival (3)
- systematic biopsy (3)
- Gleason score (2)
- HoLEP (2)
- NCCN (2)
- PSA (2)
- concordance (2)
- contemporary (2)
- functional outcome (2)
- fusion biopsy (2)
- intermediate risk (2)
- kidney cancer (2)
- lymph node dissection (2)
- overall survival (2)
- primary prostate cancer (2)
- upgrading (2)
- urological cancer (2)
- very high risk (2)
- 177Lu-PSMA-617 (1)
- ASAP (1)
- Anticoagulation (1)
- Artificial intelligence (1)
- Awareness campaign (1)
- BMI (1)
- BPH (1)
- BPO (1)
- Bleeding (1)
- CRPC (1)
- Cancer check up (1)
- Cancer therapy (1)
- Clavien–Dindo classification (1)
- Complications (1)
- Cytoreductive nephrectomy (1)
- Downgrading (1)
- D’Amico classification (1)
- EBRT (1)
- Extraprostatic (1)
- Functional outcomes (1)
- Gleason Grade group (1)
- Gleason Score (1)
- Gleason grade group (1)
- Gleason upgrading (1)
- HOLEP (1)
- Hematologic adverse events (1)
- Hematotoxicity (1)
- Histology (1)
- Holmium laser enucleation (1)
- IHC (1)
- IPSS (1)
- Incidence rate (1)
- Incidental prostate cancer (1)
- Inferior vena cava thrombus (1)
- Intermediate-risk (1)
- Lee type, functional outcome (1)
- Lee-type (1)
- Local therapy (1)
- Long-term continence (1)
- Machine learning (1)
- Metastasis-directed therapy (1)
- Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (1)
- Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (1)
- Multiparametric MRI (1)
- NIS (1)
- NVBP (1)
- NeuroSAFE (1)
- OR time (1)
- ORP (1)
- Oligometastatic (1)
- Organ-confined (1)
- PAD-test (1)
- PROM (1)
- PSA screening (1)
- PSA-Screening (1)
- PSMA (1)
- Positron-emission tomography (1)
- Preventive medicine (1)
- Prostata-specific antigen (1)
- Prostataspezifisches Antigen (1)
- Prostate-specific membrane antigen (1)
- Prostatic neoplasms (1)
- Prävention (1)
- QOL (1)
- RARP (1)
- Race (1)
- Radical prostatectomy (1)
- Radiomics (1)
- Region (1)
- Renal vein thrombus (1)
- Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (1)
- SEER (1)
- Salvage therapy (1)
- Single positive core biopsy (1)
- Systemic therapy (1)
- TUR-P (1)
- Time trend (1)
- Transfusion (1)
- Transurethral resection of the prostate (1)
- Upgrading (1)
- Urethral cancer (1)
- Urinary continence (1)
- Urinary incontinence (1)
- Vorsorgeuntersuchung (1)
- antibiotic treatment (1)
- apex (1)
- biopsy (1)
- biopsy cores (1)
- biopsy naïve (1)
- blood loss (1)
- bone barrow (1)
- buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty (1)
- cancer specific survival (1)
- cancer-specific survival (1)
- castration resistance (1)
- catheter (1)
- catheter removal (1)
- complications (1)
- correlation (1)
- cost analysis (1)
- deferred treatment (1)
- delayed treatment (1)
- downgrading (1)
- early continence (1)
- elderly (1)
- epididymitis (1)
- external beam radiotherapy (1)
- heart (1)
- high risk (1)
- high-risk (1)
- histological outcomes (1)
- human (1)
- immunohistochemistry (1)
- incontinence (1)
- infection (1)
- inverse stage migration (1)
- kidney (1)
- length of stay (1)
- liver (1)
- local treatment (1)
- low risk (1)
- lymph node metastases (1)
- membranous urethra (1)
- mid-term urinary continence (1)
- mpMRI (1)
- multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (1)
- neoadjuvant chemotherapy (1)
- nerve-sparing (1)
- nerve-sparing surgery (1)
- neurovascular bundle preservation (1)
- non-organ confined stage (1)
- other cause mortality (1)
- outcomes (1)
- overtreatment (1)
- pad-test (1)
- patient-reported outcome measure (1)
- perioperative outcome (1)
- predictor (1)
- prognosis (1)
- prostate neoplasm (1)
- prostate volume (1)
- prostate-specific antigen (1)
- race/ethnicity disparities (1)
- radiation (1)
- radical cystectomy (1)
- radical prostatecomy (1)
- repeat biopsy (1)
- risk score (1)
- salvage radical prostatectomy (1)
- stage (1)
- suprapubic catheter (1)
- surgical complications (1)
- surgical margin (1)
- targeted biopsy (1)
- transrectal prostate biopsy (1)
- transurethral catheter (1)
- tumor weight (1)
- upstaging (1)
- urethral stricture (1)
- urethroplasty (1)
- urinary incontinence (1)
- very high-risk (1)
- waiting time (1)
- Öffentlichkeit (1)
Institute
- Medizin (48) (remove)
Background: To test the impact of urethral sphincter length (USL) and anatomic variants of prostatic apex (Lee-type classification) in preoperative multiparametric magnet resonance imaging (mpMRI) on mid-term continence in prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: We relied on an institutional tertiary-care database to identify patients who underwent RP between 03/2018 and 12/2019 with preoperative mpMRI and data available on mid-term (>6 months post-surgery) urinary continence, defined as usage 0/1 (-safety) pad/24 h. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to test for predictor status of USL and prostatic apex variants, defined in mpMRI measurements. Results: Of 68 eligible patients, rate of mid-term urinary continence was 81% (n = 55). Median coronal (15.1 vs. 12.5 mm) and sagittal (15.4 vs. 11.1 mm) USL were longer in patients reporting urinary continence in mid-term follow-up (both p < 0.01). No difference was recorded for prostatic apex variants distribution (Lee-type) between continent vs. incontinent patients (p = 0.4). In separate multivariable logistic regression models, coronal (odds ratio (OR): 1.35) and sagittal (OR: 1.67) USL, but not Lee-type, were independent predictors for mid-term continence. Conclusion: USL, but not apex anatomy, in preoperative mpMRI was associated with higher rates of urinary continence at mid-term follow-up.
Probably, patients with de novo (synchronous) and recurrent (metachronous) oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer have different oncologic outcomes. Thus, we are challenged with different scenarios in clinical practice, where different treatment options may apply. In the last years, several prospective studies have focused on the treatment of patients with de novo oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Not only the addition of systemic therapeutic treatments, such as chemotherapy with docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, next to androgen deprivation therapy, demonstrated to improve outcomes in these patients but also local therapy of the primary has been demonstrated to improve outcomes of low-volume metastatic disease. Next to radiotherapy, also radical prostatectomy has been reported as a feasible and safe treatment option. Additional metastasis-directed therapy in de novo metastatic disease is currently examined by four trials. In the recurrent metastatic setting, less data are available, and it remains uncertain if patients can be treated in the same way as synchronous oligometastatic disease. Metastasis-directed therapy has demonstrated to prolong outcomes, while data on survival are still missing.
Background: Since January 2018 performance of urethroplasties is done on regular basis at the University Hospital Frankfurt (UKF). We aimed to implement and transfer an institutional standardized perioperative algorithm for urethral surgery (established at the University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf—UKE) using a validated Urethral Stricture Surgery Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (USS-PROM) in patients undergoing urethroplasty at UKF. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent urethroplasty for urethral stricture disease between January 2018 and January 2020 at UKF. All patients were offered to revisit for clinical follow-up (FU) and completion of USS-PROM. Primary end point was stricture recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints were functional outcomes, quality of life (QoL), and patient satisfaction. Results: In total, 50 patients underwent urethroplasty and 74 and 24% had a history of previous urethrotomy or urethroplasty, respectively. A buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty was performed in 86% (n = 43). After patient's exclusion due to lost of FU, FU <3 months, and/or a pending second stage procedure, 40 patients were eligible for final analysis. At median FU of 10 months (interquartile-range 5.0–18.0), RFS was 83%. After successful voiding trial, the postoperative median Qmax significantly improved (24.0 vs. 7.0 mL/s; p < 0.01). Conversely, median residual urine decreased significantly (78 vs. 10 mL; p < 0.01). Overall, 95% of patients stated that QoL improved and 90% were satisfied by the surgical outcome. Conclusions: We demonstrated a successful implementation and transfer of an institutional standardized perioperative algorithm for urethral surgery from one location (UKE) to another (UKF). In our short-term FU, urethroplasty showed excellent RFS, low complication rates, good functional results, improvement of QoL and high patient satisfaction. PROMs allow an objective comparison between different centers.
Objectives: To analyze the performance of radiological assessment categories and quantitative computational analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps using variant machine learning algorithms to differentiate clinically significant versus insignificant prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Retrospectively, 73 patients were included in the study. The patients (mean age, 66.3 ± 7.6 years) were examined with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) prior to radical prostatectomy (n = 33) or targeted biopsy (n = 40). The index lesion was annotated in MRI ADC and the equivalent histologic slides according to the highest Gleason Grade Group (GrG). Volumes of interest (VOIs) were determined for each lesion and normal-appearing peripheral zone. VOIs were processed by radiomic analysis. For the classification of lesions according to their clinical significance (GrG ≥ 3), principal component (PC) analysis, univariate analysis (UA) with consecutive support vector machines, neural networks, and random forest analysis were performed. Results: PC analysis discriminated between benign and malignant prostate tissue. PC evaluation yielded no stratification of PCa lesions according to their clinical significance, but UA revealed differences in clinical assessment categories and radiomic features. We trained three classification models with fifteen feature subsets. We identified a subset of shape features which improved the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical assessment categories (maximum increase in diagnostic accuracy ΔAUC = + 0.05, p < 0.001) while also identifying combinations of features and models which reduced overall accuracy. Conclusions: The impact of radiomic features to differentiate PCa lesions according to their clinical significance remains controversial. It depends on feature selection and the employed machine learning algorithms. It can result in improvement or reduction of diagnostic performance.
Non-organ confined stage and upgrading rates in exclusive PSA high-risk prostate cancer patients
(2022)
Background: The pathological stage of prostate cancer with high-risk prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but otherwise favorable and/or intermediate risk characteristics (clinical T-stage, Gleason Grade group at biopsy [B-GGG]) is unknown. We hypothesized that a considerable proportion of such patients will exhibit clinically meaningful GGG upgrading or non-organ confined (NOC) stage at radical prostatectomy (RP).
Materials and methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010–2015) we identified RP-patients with cT1c-stage and B-GGG1, B-GGG2, or B-GGG3 and PSA 20–50 ng/ml. Rates of GGG4 or GGG5 and/or rates of NOC stage (≥ pT3 and/or pN1) were analyzed. Subsequently, separate univariable and multivariable logistic regression models tested for predictors of NOC stage and upgrading at RP.
Results: Of 486 assessable patients, 134 (28%) exhibited B-GGG1, 209 (43%) B-GGG2, and 143 (29%) B-GGG3, respectively. The overall upgrading and NOC rates were 11% and 51% for a combined rate of upgrading and/or NOC stage of 53%. In multivariable logistic regression models predicting upgrading, only B-GGG3 was an independent predictor (odds ratio [OR]: 5.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.21–14.19; p < 0.001). Conversely, 33%–66% (OR: 2.36; 95% CI: 1.42–3.95; p = 0.001) and >66% of positive biopsy cores (OR: 4.85; 95% CI: 2.84–8.42; p < 0.001), as well as B-GGG2 and B-GGG3 were independent predictors for NOC stage (all p ≤ 0.001).
Conclusions: In cT1c-stage patients with high-risk PSA baseline, but low- to intermediate risk B-GGG, the rate of upgrading to GGG4 or GGG5 is low (11%). However, NOC stage is found in the majority (51%) and can be independently predicted with percentage of positive cores at biopsy and B-GGG.
Background: Up- and/or downgrading rates in single intermediate-risk positive biopsy core are unknown.
Methods: We identified single intermediate-risk (Gleason grade group (GGG) 2/GGG3) positive biopsy core prostate cancer patients (≤ cT2c and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL) within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010–2015). Subsequently, separate uni- and multivariable logistic regression models tested for independent predictors of up- and downgrading.
Results: Of 1,328 assessable patients with single core positive intermediate-risk prostate cancer at biopsy, 972 (73%) harbored GGG2 versus 356 (27%) harbored GGG3. Median PSA (5.5 vs 5.7; p = 0.3), median age (62 vs 63 years; p = 0.07) and cT1-stage (77 vs 75%; p = 0.3) did not differ between GGG2 and GGG3 patients. Of individuals with single GGG2 positive biopsy core, 191 (20%) showed downgrading to GGG1 versus 35 (4%) upgrading to GGG4 or GGG5 at RP. Of individuals with single GGG3 positive biopsy core, 36 (10%) showed downgrading to GGG1 versus 42 (12%) significant upgrading to GGG4 or GGG5 at RP. In multivariable logistic regression models, elevated PSA (10–20 ng/mL) was an independent predictor of upgrading to GGG4/GGG5 in single GGG3 positive biopsy core patients (OR:2.89; 95%-CI: 1.31–6.11; p = 0.007).
Conclusion: In single GGG2 positive biopsy core patients, downgrading was four times more often recorded compared to upgrading. Conversely, in single GGG3 positive biopsy core patients, up- and downgrading rates were comparable and should be expected in one out of ten patients.
Purpose: We evaluated efficacy and safety profile of patients with anticoagulation therapy (AT) undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).
Methods: Within our prospective institutional database (11/2017 to 11/2019), we analyzed functional outcomes and 30-day complication rates of HoLEP patients according to Clavien–Dindo classification (CLD), stratified according to specific AT vs. no AT. Further analyses consisted of uni- and multivariate logistic regression models (LRM) predicting complications.
Results: Of 268 patients undergoing HoLEP, 104 (38.8%) received AT: 25.7% were treated with platelet aggregation inhibitors (PAI), 8.2% with new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) and 4.9% with AT-combinations or coumarins bridged with low molecular weight heparins (LMWH/combination). Patients receiving AT were significantly more comorbid (p < 0.01). Pre- and postoperative maximal flow rates, residual void urine and IPSS at 3 months after surgery were invariably improved after HoLEP for patients with/ without AT. Overall complication rate was 19.5% in patients with no AT vs. 26.1% vs. 27.3 vs. 46.2%, respectively, in patients with PAI, NOAC and LMWH/combination (p < 0.01). Major complications (CLD ≥ 3b) occurred in 6.1% of no AT patients vs. 4.3% vs. 4.5 vs. 0% in patients with PAI, NOAC and LMWH/combination, respectively (p < 0.01). In multivariate LRM, AT was not significantly associated with higher complication rates, whereas high ASA status (OR 2.2, p = 0.04), age (OR 1.04, p = 0.02) and bioptical or incidental prostate cancer (OR 2.5, p = 0.01) represented independent risk factors.
Conclusion: Despite higher overall complication rates in AT patients, major complications were not more frequent in AT patients. HoLEP is safe and effective in anticoagulated patients.
Background: To compare severe infectious complication rates after transrectal prostate biopsies between cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones for antibiotic monoprophylaxis.
Material and Methods: In the multi-institutional cohort, between November 2014 and July 2020 patients received either cefotaxime (single dose intravenously), cefpodoxime (multiple doses orally) or fluoroquinolones (multiple-doses orally or single dose intravenously) for transrectal prostate biopsy prophylaxis. Data were prospectively acquired and retrospectively analyzed. Severe infectious complications were evaluated within 30 days after biopsy. Logistic regression models predicted biopsy-related infectious complications according to antibiotic prophylaxis, application type and patient- and procedure-related risk factors.
Results: Of 793 patients, 132 (16.6%) received a single dose of intravenous cefotaxime and were compared to 119 (15%) who received multiple doses of oral cefpodoxime and 542 (68.3%) who received fluoroquinolones as monoprophylaxis. The overall incidence of severe infectious complications was 1.0% (n=8). No significant differences were observed between the three compared groups (0.8% vs. 0.8% vs. 1.1%, p=0.9). The overall rate of urosepsis was 0.3% and did not significantly differ between the three compared groups as well.
Conclusion: Monoprophylaxis with third generation cephalosporins was efficient in preventing severe infectious complications after prostate biopsy. Single intravenous dose of cefotaxime and multiday regimen of oral cefpodoxime showed a low incidence of infectious complications <1%. No differences were observed in comparison to fluoroquinolones.
Refers to Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Without Histological Proof: A Possibility in the Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Era? European Urology Open Science, Volume 44, October 2022, Pages 30-32. Joris G. Heetman, Lieke Wever, Leonor J. Paulino Pereira, Roderick C.N. van den Bergh https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.06.013
Background: To test the effect of urological primary cancers (bladder, kidney, testis, upper tract, penile, urethral) on overall mortality (OM) after secondary prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, patients with urological primary cancers and concomitant secondary PCa (diagnosed 2004-2016) were identified and were matched in 1:4 fashion with primary PCa controls. OM was compared between secondary and primary PCa patients and stratified according to primary urological cancer type, as well as to time interval between primary urological cancer versus secondary PCa diagnoses. Results: We identified 5,987 patients with primary urological and secondary PCa (bladder, n = 3,287; kidney, n = 2,127; testis, n = 391; upper tract, n = 125; penile, n = 47; urethral, n = 10) versus 531,732 primary PCa patients. Except for small proportions of Gleason grade group and age at diagnosis, PCa characteristics between secondary and primary PCa were comparable. Conversely, proportions of secondary PCa patients which received radical prostatectomy were smaller (29.0 vs. 33.5%), while no local treatment rates were higher (34.2 vs. 26.3%). After 1:4 matching, secondary PCa patients exhibited worse OM than primary PCa patients, except for primary testis cancer. Here, no OM differences were recorded. Finally, subgroup analyses showed that the survival disadvantage of secondary PCa patients decreased with longer time interval since primary cancer diagnosis. Conclusions: After detailed matching for PCa characteristics, secondary PCa patients exhibit worse survival, except for testis cancer patients. The survival disadvantage is attenuated, when secondary PCa diagnosis is made after longer time interval, since primary urological cancer diagnosis.