Literature DB >> 26826590

Intravesical Prostatic Protrusion as a Predicting Factor for the Adverse Clinical Outcome in Patients With Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Enlargement Treated With Dutasteride.

Takashi Yoshida1, Hidefumi Kinoshita2, Kenji Yoshida1, Takao Mishima1, Hisanori Taniguchi1, Masaaki Yanishi1, Yoshihiro Komai1, Kaneki Yasuda1, Motohiko Sugi1, Tadashi Matsuda1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) as a predictive factor for adverse clinical outcomes in patients treated with dutasteride for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE).
METHODS: In total, 111 patients treated with dutasteride for symptomatic BPE were analyzed. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression was applied to evaluate predictors for acute urinary retention (AUR) or benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-related surgery. We applied an IPP cutoff value of 10 mm. The clinical variables were assessed using univariate analysis.
RESULTS: Of 111 patients, 27 (24.3%) developed AUR or required surgical intervention. On multivariate analysis, IPP remained as the independent predictor for AUR and need for BPH-related surgery (odds ratio, 1.27; P < .001). Both international prostate symptom score and maximum urinary flow rate significantly improved in patients with low IPP (P  =  .03 and P  <  .001, respectively), but not in those with high IPP. No significant reduction was found in the degree of IPP despite the significant reduction in prostate volume after dutasteride treatment (P  =  .84 and P  <  .001, respectively). The 3-year cumulative incidence of AUR or BPH-related surgery in the low IPP group vs the high IPP group was 9.9% vs 71.5%, respectively (P  <  .001).
CONCLUSION: High IPP is associated with a higher risk of treatment resistance, AUR, or the need for prostatic surgery in patients receiving dutasteride treatment for symptomatic BPE. Dutasteride might not be effective for IPP reduction.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26826590     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.01.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  5 in total

Review 1.  Current consensus and controversy on the diagnosis of male lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Authors:  Cheng-Ling Lee; Hann-Chorng Kuo
Journal:  Ci Ji Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2017 Jan-Mar

Review 2.  Clinical predictive factors in prostatic artery embolization for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Fei Sun; Vanesa Lucas-Cava; Francisco Miguel Sánchez-Margallo
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-08

3.  Impact of the presence of a median lobe on functional outcomes of greenlight photovaporization of the prostate (PVP): an analysis of the Global Greenlight Group (GGG) Database.

Authors:  David-Dan Nguyen; Iman Sadri; Kyle Law; Naeem Bhojani; Dean S Elterman; Ahmed S Zakaria; Adel Arezki; Franck Bruyère; Luca Cindolo; Giovanni Ferrari; Carlos Vasquez-Lastra; Tiago Borelli-Bovo; Edgardo F Becher; Hannes Cash; Maximillian Reimann; Enrique Rijo; Vincent Misrai; Kevin C Zorn
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-01-03       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Commentary on "Solving the benign prostatic hyperplasia puzzle".

Authors:  Dominique Thomas; Bilal Chughtai; Steven Kaplan
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2016-09-20

Review 5.  Clinical Considerations for Intravesical Prostatic Protrusion in the Evaluation and Management of Bladder Outlet Obstruction Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

Authors:  Jason Gandhi; Steven J Weissbart; Albert N Kim; Gunjan Joshi; Steven A Kaplan; Sardar Ali Khan
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2018-06-30
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.