PURPOSE: To evaluate oncologic parameters of men with bothersome LUTS undergoing surgical treatment with HoLEP or TURP. METHODS: Five hundred and eighteen patients undergoing HoLEP (n = 289) or TURP (n = 229) were retrospectively analyzed for total PSA, prostate volume, PSA density, history of prostate biopsy, resected prostate weight, and histopathological features. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors of incidental PCa (iPCa). RESULTS: Men undergoing HoLEP had a significantly higher total PSA (median 5.5 vs. 2.3 ng/mL) and prostate volume (median 80 vs. 41 cc), and displayed a greater reduction of prostate volume after surgery compared to TURP patients (median 71 vs. 50%; all p < 0.001). With a prevalence of incidental PCa (iPCa) of 15 and 17% for HoLEP and TURP, respectively, the choice of procedure had no influence on the detection of iPCa (p = 0.593). However, a higher rate of false-negative preoperative prostate biopsies was noted among iPCa patients in the HoLEP arm (40 vs. 8%, p = 0.007). In multivariate logistic regression, we identified patient age (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07, p = 0.013) and PSA density (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.09-4.18, p = 0.028) as independent predictors for the detection of iPCa. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in oncologic parameters, the choice of technique had no influence on the detection of iPCa. Increased patient age and higher PSA density were associated with iPCa. A higher rate of false-negative preoperative prostate biopsies was noted in HoLEP patients. Therefore, diagnostic assessment of LUTS patients requires a more adapted approach to exclude malignancy, especially in those with larger prostates.
PURPOSE: To evaluate oncologic parameters of men with bothersome LUTS undergoing surgical treatment with HoLEP or TURP. METHODS: Five hundred and eighteen patients undergoing HoLEP (n = 289) or TURP (n = 229) were retrospectively analyzed for total PSA, prostate volume, PSA density, history of prostate biopsy, resected prostate weight, and histopathological features. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors of incidental PCa (iPCa). RESULTS:Men undergoing HoLEP had a significantly higher total PSA (median 5.5 vs. 2.3 ng/mL) and prostate volume (median 80 vs. 41 cc), and displayed a greater reduction of prostate volume after surgery compared to TURP patients (median 71 vs. 50%; all p < 0.001). With a prevalence of incidental PCa (iPCa) of 15 and 17% for HoLEP and TURP, respectively, the choice of procedure had no influence on the detection of iPCa (p = 0.593). However, a higher rate of false-negative preoperative prostate biopsies was noted among iPCa patients in the HoLEP arm (40 vs. 8%, p = 0.007). In multivariate logistic regression, we identified patient age (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07, p = 0.013) and PSA density (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.09-4.18, p = 0.028) as independent predictors for the detection of iPCa. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in oncologic parameters, the choice of technique had no influence on the detection of iPCa. Increased patient age and higher PSA density were associated with iPCa. A higher rate of false-negative preoperative prostate biopsies was noted in HoLEP patients. Therefore, diagnostic assessment of LUTS patients requires a more adapted approach to exclude malignancy, especially in those with larger prostates.
Entities:
Keywords:
Benign prostatic hyperplasia; Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; Incidental prostate cancer; PSA density; Transurethral resection of the prostate
Authors: Peter J Gilling; Liam C Wilson; Colleen J King; Andre M Westenberg; Christopher M Frampton; Mark R Fraundorfer Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-08-23 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Christian Gratzke; Alexander Bachmann; Aurelien Descazeaud; Marcus J Drake; Stephan Madersbacher; Charalampos Mamoulakis; Matthias Oelke; Kari A O Tikkinen; Stavros Gravas Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sebastian Melchior; Boris Hadaschik; Sebastian Thüroff; Christian Thomas; Rolf Gillitzer; Joachim Thüroff Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-12-08 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Luigi Ferrucci; Anna Kettermann; Patricia Landis; E James Wright; Jonathan I Epstein; Bruce J Trock; E Jeffrey Metter Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Carsten Stephan; Henning Cammann; Axel Semjonow; Eleftherios P Diamandis; Leon F A Wymenga; Michael Lein; Pranav Sinha; Stefan A Loening; Klaus Jung Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: S Ciatto; R Bonardi; C Lombardi; G Cappelli; A Castagnoli; A D'Agata; M Zappa; G Gervasi Journal: Int J Biol Markers Date: 2001 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 3.248
Authors: Brandon Otto; Christopher Barbieri; Richard Lee; Alexis E Te; Steven A Kaplan; Brian Robinson; Bilal Chughtai Journal: Adv Urol Date: 2014-04-29
Authors: Bernd Rosenhammer; Eva M Lausenmeyer; Roman Mayr; Maximilian Burger; Christian Eichelberg Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Sercan Yılmaz; Engin Kaya; Eymen Gazel; Serdar Yalcın; Halil Cagrı Aybal; Mehmet Yılmaz; Onur Açıkgöz; Hakan Özdemir; Lutfi Tunc Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jens Köllermann; Benedikt Hoeh; Daniel Ruppel; Kevin Smith; Henning Reis; Mike Wenzel; Felix Preisser; Marina Kosiba; Philipp Mandel; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Andreas Becker; Felix K H Chun; Peter Wild; Luis A Kluth Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 4.535