Open Access

Objective: Many patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) do not immediately undergo radical prostatectomy (RP) after biopsy confirmation. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of “time-from-biopsy-to- prostatectomy” on adverse pathological outcomes. Materials and Methods: Between January 2014 and December 2019, 437 patients with intermediate- and high risk PCa who underwent RP were retrospectively identified within our prospective institutional database. For the aim of our study, we focused on patients with intermediate- (n = 285) and high-risk (n = 151) PCa using D'Amico risk stratification. Endpoints were adverse pathological outcomes and proportion of nerve-sparing procedures after RP stratified by “time-from-biopsy-to-prostatectomy”: ≤3 months vs. >3 and < 6 months. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) were reported for continuously coded variables. The chi-square test examined the statistical significance of the differences in proportions while the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to examine differences in medians. Multivariable (ordered) logistic regressions, analyzing the impact of time between diagnosis and prostatectomy, were separately run for all relevant outcome variables (ISUP specimen, margin status, pathological stage, pathological nodal status, LVI, perineural invasion, nerve-sparing). Results: We observed no difference between patients undergoing RP ≤3 months vs. >3 and <6 months after diagnosis for the following oncological endpoints: pT-stage, ISUP grading, probability of a positive surgical margin, probability of lymph node invasion (LNI), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and perineural invasion (pn) in patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa. Likewise, the rates of nerve sparing procedures were 84.3 vs. 87.4% (p = 0.778) and 61.0% vs. 78.8% (p = 0.211), for intermediate- and high-risk PCa patients undergoing surgery after ≤3 months vs. >3 and <6 months, respectively. In multivariable adjusted analyses, a time to surgery >3 months did not significantly worsen any of the outcome variables in patients with intermediate- or high-risk PCa (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: A “time-from-biopsy-to-prostatectomy” of >3 and <6 months is neither associated with adverse pathological outcomes nor poorer chances of nerve sparing RP in intermediate- and high-risk PCa patients.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Capnography enables the measurement of end-tidal CO2 and thereby the early detection of apnea, prompting immediate intervention to restore ventilation. Studies have shown that capnographic monitoring is associated with a reduction of hypoxemia during sedation for endoscopy and early detection of apnea during sedation for colonoscopy. The primary aim of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate whether capnographic monitoring without tracheal intubation reduces hypoxemia during propofol-based sedation in patients undergoing colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 533 patients presenting for colonoscopy at two study sites were randomized to either standard monitoring (n = 266) or to standard monitoring with capnography (n = 267). The incidence of hypoxemia (SO2 < 90 %) and severe hypoxemia (SO2 < 85 %) were compared between the groups. Furthermore, risk factors for hypoxemia were evaluated, and sedation performed by anesthesiologists was compared with nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) or endoscopist-directed sedation (EDS). RESULTS: The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly lower in patients with capnography monitoring compared with those receiving standard monitoring (18 % vs. 32 %; P  = 0.00091). Independent risk factors for hypoxemia were age (P = 0.00015), high body mass index (P = 0.0044), history of sleep apnea (P = 0.025), standard monitoring group (P = 0.000069), total dose of propofol (P = 0.031), and dose of ketamine (P < 0.000001). Patients receiving anesthesiologist-administered sedation developed hypoxemic events more often than those receiving NAPS or EDS. In patients with anesthesiologist-administered sedation, sedation was deeper, a combination of sedative medication (propofol, midazolam and/or ketamine) was administered significantly more often, and sedative doses were significantly higher compared with patients receiving NAPS or EDS.  CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing colonoscopy during propofol-based sedation capnography monitoring with a simple and inexpensive device reduced the incidence of hypoxemia.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate catheter management in acute epididymitis (AE) patients requiring inpatient treatment and risk factors predicting severity of disease. Material and Methods: Patients with diagnosed AE and inpatient treatment between 2004 and 2019 at the University Hospital Frankfurt were analyzed. A risk score, rating severity of AE, including residual urine > 100 ml, fever > 38.0°C, C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/dl, and white blood count (WBC) > 10/nl was introduced. Results: Of 334 patients, 107 (32%) received a catheter (transurethral (TC): n = 53, 16%, suprapubic (SPC): n = 54, 16%). Catheter patients were older, exhibited more comorbidities, and had higher CRP and WBC compared with the non-catheter group (NC). Median length of stay (LOS) was longer in the catheter group (7 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001), whereas necessity of abscess surgery and recurrent epididymitis did not differ. No differences in those parameters were recorded between TC and SPC. According to our established risk score, 147 (44%) patients exhibited 0–1 (low-risk) and 187 (56%) 2–4 risk factors (high-risk). In the high-risk group, patients received a catheter significantly more often than with low-risk (TC: 22 vs. 9%; SPC: 19 vs. 12%, both p ≤ 0.01). Catheter or high-risk patients exhibited positive urine cultures more frequently than NC or low-risk patients. LOS was comparable between high-risk patients with catheter and low-risk NC patients. Conclusion: Patients with AE who received a catheter at admission were older, multimorbid, and exhibited more severe symptoms of disease compared with the NC patients. A protective effect of catheters might be attributable to patients with adverse risk constellations or high burden of comorbidities. The introduced risk score indicates a possibility for risk stratification.

Objective: We aimed to assess the correlation between serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and tumor burden in prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), because estimation of tumor burden is of high value, e.g., in men undergoing RP or with biochemical recurrence after RP. Patients and Methods: From January 2019 to June 2020, 179 consecutive PCa patients after RP with information on tumor and prostate weight were retrospectively identified from our prospective institutional RP database. Patients with preoperative systemic therapy (n=19), metastases (cM1, n=5), and locally progressed PCa (pT4 or pN1, n=50) were excluded from analyses. Histopathological features, including total weight of the prostate and specific tumor weight, were recorded by specialized uro-pathologists. Linear regression models were performed to evaluate the effect of PSA on tumor burden, measured by tumor weight after adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics. Results: Overall, median preoperative PSA was 7.0 ng/ml (interquartile range [IQR]: 5.41–10) and median age at surgery was 66 years (IQR: 61-71). Median prostate weight was 34 g (IQR: 26–46) and median tumor weight was 3.7 g (IQR: 1.8–7.1), respectively. In multivariable linear regression analysis after adjustment for patients and tumor characteristics, a significant, positive correlation could be detected between preoperative PSA and tumor weight (coefficient [coef.]: 0.37, CI: 0.15–0.6, p=0.001), indicating a robust increase in PSA of almost 0.4 ng/ml per 1g tumor weight. Conclusion: Preoperative PSA was significantly correlated with tumor weight in PCa patients undergoing RP, with an increase in PSA of almost 0.4 ng/ml per 1 g tumor weight. This might help to estimate both tumor burden before undergoing RP and in case of biochemical recurrence.

Objective: To investigate the value of standard [digital rectal examination (DRE), PSA] and advanced (mpMRI, prostate biopsy) clinical evaluation for prostate cancer (PCa) detection in contemporary patients with clinical bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) scheduled for Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). Material and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 397 patients, who were referred to our tertiary care laser center for HoLEP due to BOO between 11/2017 and 07/2020. Of those, 83 (20.7%) underwent further advanced clinical PCa evaluation with mpMRI and/or prostate biopsy due to elevated PSA and/or lowered PSA ratio and/or suspicious DRE. Logistic regression and binary regression tree models were applied to identify PCa in BOO patients. Results: An mpMRI was conducted in 56 (66%) of 83 patients and revealed PIRADS 4/5 lesions in 14 (25%) patients. Subsequently, a combined systematic randomized and MRI-fusion biopsy was performed in 19 (23%) patients and revealed in PCa detection in four patients (5%). A randomized prostate biopsy was performed in 31 (37%) patients and revealed in PCa detection in three patients (4%). All seven patients (9%) with PCa detection underwent radical prostatectomy with 29% exhibiting non-organ confined disease. Incidental PCa after HoLEP (n = 76) was found in nine patients (12%) with advanced clinical PCa evaluation preoperatively. In univariable logistic regression analyses, PSA, fPSA ratio, and PSA density failed to identify patients with PCa detection. Conversely, patients with a lower International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and PIRADs 4/5 lesion in mpMRI were at higher risk for PCa detection. In multivariable adjusted analyses, PIRADS 4/5 lesions were confirmed as an independent risk factor (OR 9.91, p = 0.04), while IPSS did not reach significance (p = 0.052). Conclusion: In advanced clinical PCa evaluation mpMRI should be considered in patients with elevated total PSA or low fPSA ratio scheduled for BOO treatment with HoLEP. Patients with low IPSS or PIRADS 4/5 lesions in mpMRI are at highest risk for PCa detection. In patients with a history of two or more sets of negative prostate biopsies, advanced clinical PCa evaluation might be omitted.