Omer Acar1, Tarık Esen2, Sevil Bavbek3, Onder Peker4, Ahmet Musaoğlu5. 1. Department of Urology, VKF American Hospital, Nisantasi, 34365 Istanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: omer_acar_@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, VKF American Hospital, Nisantasi, 34365 Istanbul, Turkey; School of Medicine, Koc University, Rumelifeneri Yolu, 34450 Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, VKF American Hospital, Nisantasi, 34365 Istanbul, Turkey. 4. Department of Pathology, VKF American Hospital, Nisantasi, 34365 Istanbul, Turkey. 5. Department of Urology, VKF American Hospital, Nisantasi, 34365 Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Port site metastasis after minimally invasive urologic surgery is a rare event despite the widespread utility of laparoscopic techniques in the management of urologic malignancies. Herein, we report a case of port site metastasis after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A currently 77-year-old male patient, who was diagnosed with cT2c, Gleason 7 (4+3) prostate adenocarcinoma in our clinic back in 2009, had undergone robot-assisted radical prostatectomy elsewhere. Histopathological examination revealed pT3a, Gleason 9 (4+5) disease. Lymph nodes were negative, however surgical margins were positive on the right side. PSA recurred after 9 months and maximal androgen blockade was initiated. Despite antiandrogenic manipulations, PSA reached 0.83ng/ml, 33 months postoperatively. Concurrently, we noticed a palpable anterior abdominal mass which demonstrated metabolic hyperactivity on PET scanning. Percutaneous biopsy of the lesion confirmed the presence of metastatic adenocarcinoma. PSA did not normalize after the complete excision of the metastatic focus. Repeated PET scan revealed multiple implants on the peritoneal surfaces of various organs. DISCUSSION: Port site and peritoneal metastasis of prostate cancer after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has not been reported so far. This peculiar dissemination pattern is most probably the result of tumor biology and perioperative factors. CONCLUSION: Although encountered extremely rarely, surgeons should be aware of the possibility of port site and/or peritoneal metastases after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.
INTRODUCTION: Port site metastasis after minimally invasive urologic surgery is a rare event despite the widespread utility of laparoscopic techniques in the management of urologic malignancies. Herein, we report a case of port site metastasis after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A currently 77-year-old male patient, who was diagnosed with cT2c, Gleason 7 (4+3) prostate adenocarcinoma in our clinic back in 2009, had undergone robot-assisted radical prostatectomy elsewhere. Histopathological examination revealed pT3a, Gleason 9 (4+5) disease. Lymph nodes were negative, however surgical margins were positive on the right side. PSA recurred after 9 months and maximal androgen blockade was initiated. Despite antiandrogenic manipulations, PSA reached 0.83ng/ml, 33 months postoperatively. Concurrently, we noticed a palpable anterior abdominal mass which demonstrated metabolic hyperactivity on PET scanning. Percutaneous biopsy of the lesion confirmed the presence of metastatic adenocarcinoma. PSA did not normalize after the complete excision of the metastatic focus. Repeated PET scan revealed multiple implants on the peritoneal surfaces of various organs. DISCUSSION: Port site and peritoneal metastasis of prostate cancer after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has not been reported so far. This peculiar dissemination pattern is most probably the result of tumor biology and perioperative factors. CONCLUSION: Although encountered extremely rarely, surgeons should be aware of the possibility of port site and/or peritoneal metastases after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.
Authors: Jens Rassweiler; Alexander Tsivian; A V Ravi Kumar; Christos Lymberakis; Micheal Schulze; Othmar Seeman; Thomas Frede Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Peter De Bruyne; Peter Schatteman; Geert De Naeyer; Paul Carpentier; Alex Mottrie Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.862