Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2021
Does prior surgical interventional therapy for BPH affect the oncological or functional outcomes after primary whole-gland prostate cryoablation for localized prostate cancer?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
ElShafei Ahmed, DeWitt-Foy Molly, Calaway Adam, Fernstrum Austin J, Hijaz Adonis, Muncey Wade, Alfahmy Anood, Mahran Amr, Mishra Kirtishri, Stephen Jones J, Polascik Thomas J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To assess whether prior interventional treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) influences oncologic or functional outcomes following primary whole-gland prostate cryoablation.
METHODS: Among 3831 men with prostate cancer who underwent primary whole-gland prostate cryoablation, we identified 160 with a history of prior BPH interventional therapy including transurethral needle ablation (n = 6), transurethral microwave thermotherapy (n = 9), or transurethral resection of the prostate (n = 145). Patients with a history of medically treated or unspecified BPH therapy were excluded from the study. Oncological and functional outcomes were compared between men with and without prior BPH interventional therapy.
RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, prior interventional BPH therapy was associated with higher risks of postoperative urinary retention (17.5% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.001) and new-onset urinary incontinence (39.9% vs. 19.4%, p > 0.001) compared with no prior therapy. Interventional BPH therapy was not correlated with the risk of developing a rectourethral fistula (p = 0.84) or new-onset erectile dysfunction (ED) at 12 months (p = 0.08) following surgery. On multivariable regression, prior interventional BPH therapy was associated with increased risk of urinary retention (OR 1.9, 95%, p = 0.015) and new-onset urinary incontinence (OR 2.13, p < 0.001). The estimated 5 years Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.3) in biochemical progression free survival between those who underwent interventional BPH therapy compared with those who did not. Local disease recurrence assessed by post cryoablation positive for-cause prostate biopsy showed no significant difference between the two groups (25.4% vs. 28.7%, p = 0.59).
CONCLUSIONS: Prior interventional BPH therapy did not affect the oncologic outcomes nor did it increase the risk of rectourethral fistula or ED in sexually performing patients prior to cryosurgery. Prior interventional BPH therapy was associated with increased risk of urinary retention and incontinence after primary whole-gland prostate cryoablation for prostate cancer.
METHODS: Among 3831 men with prostate cancer who underwent primary whole-gland prostate cryoablation, we identified 160 with a history of prior BPH interventional therapy including transurethral needle ablation (n = 6), transurethral microwave thermotherapy (n = 9), or transurethral resection of the prostate (n = 145). Patients with a history of medically treated or unspecified BPH therapy were excluded from the study. Oncological and functional outcomes were compared between men with and without prior BPH interventional therapy.
RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, prior interventional BPH therapy was associated with higher risks of postoperative urinary retention (17.5% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.001) and new-onset urinary incontinence (39.9% vs. 19.4%, p > 0.001) compared with no prior therapy. Interventional BPH therapy was not correlated with the risk of developing a rectourethral fistula (p = 0.84) or new-onset erectile dysfunction (ED) at 12 months (p = 0.08) following surgery. On multivariable regression, prior interventional BPH therapy was associated with increased risk of urinary retention (OR 1.9, 95%, p = 0.015) and new-onset urinary incontinence (OR 2.13, p < 0.001). The estimated 5 years Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.3) in biochemical progression free survival between those who underwent interventional BPH therapy compared with those who did not. Local disease recurrence assessed by post cryoablation positive for-cause prostate biopsy showed no significant difference between the two groups (25.4% vs. 28.7%, p = 0.59).
CONCLUSIONS: Prior interventional BPH therapy did not affect the oncologic outcomes nor did it increase the risk of rectourethral fistula or ED in sexually performing patients prior to cryosurgery. Prior interventional BPH therapy was associated with increased risk of urinary retention and incontinence after primary whole-gland prostate cryoablation for prostate cancer.