Se Young Choi1, Jeman Ryu1, Dalsan You1, In Gab Jeong1, Jun Hyuk Hong1, Hanjong Ahn1, Choung-Soo Kim2. 1. Department of Urology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea. 2. Department of Urology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea. cskim37345806@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the oncologic effect of palliative transurethral resection of the prostate (pTURP) in patients with prostate cancer who received primary androgen deprivation therapy. METHODS: We reviewed 614 patients, including 83 who underwent pTURP; those with incidental prostate cancer were excluded. Patients were divided into the TURP group and non-TURP group. Propensity score matching was performed for comorbidity, initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA), TNM stage, and Gleason score (GS). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to confirm castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Cox regression was performed to confirm factors affecting CSS. RESULTS: Before matching, the TURP group had a worse TNM stage (p < 0.01) and GS (p = 0.028) and larger prostate volume (50.1 vs. 39.0 cc, p = 0.005) than the non-TURP group. The most common reason for pTURP was acute urinary retention. After matching, the TURP group showed worse outcomes in CRPC (p = 0.003), CSS (p = 0.003), and OS (p = 0.026). In multivariate analysis, factors for predicting CSS were a positive core percent [hazard ratio (HR) 1.015, p = 0.0272], GS (10 vs. ≤8; HR 6.716, p = 0.0008), and TURP within 3 months after biopsy (HR 2.543, p = 0.0482). The resection weight (HR 1.000, p = 0.9730), resection time (HR 1.000, p = 0.3670), and blood transfusion (HR 0.630, p = 0.1860) were not associated with CSS. CONCLUSIONS: The oncologic effect of pTURP as cytoreductive operation seems to be limited. Patients who had to receive pTURP due to cancer-related symptoms, especially early necessity of pTURP (within 3 months after biopsy), showed worse clinical courses; therefore, they should be treated more carefully and actively.
PURPOSE: We investigated the oncologic effect of palliative transurethral resection of the prostate (pTURP) in patients with prostate cancer who received primary androgen deprivation therapy. METHODS: We reviewed 614 patients, including 83 who underwent pTURP; those with incidental prostate cancer were excluded. Patients were divided into the TURP group and non-TURP group. Propensity score matching was performed for comorbidity, initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA), TNM stage, and Gleason score (GS). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to confirm castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Cox regression was performed to confirm factors affecting CSS. RESULTS: Before matching, the TURP group had a worse TNM stage (p < 0.01) and GS (p = 0.028) and larger prostate volume (50.1 vs. 39.0 cc, p = 0.005) than the non-TURP group. The most common reason for pTURP was acute urinary retention. After matching, the TURP group showed worse outcomes in CRPC (p = 0.003), CSS (p = 0.003), and OS (p = 0.026). In multivariate analysis, factors for predicting CSS were a positive core percent [hazard ratio (HR) 1.015, p = 0.0272], GS (10 vs. ≤8; HR 6.716, p = 0.0008), and TURP within 3 months after biopsy (HR 2.543, p = 0.0482). The resection weight (HR 1.000, p = 0.9730), resection time (HR 1.000, p = 0.3670), and blood transfusion (HR 0.630, p = 0.1860) were not associated with CSS. CONCLUSIONS: The oncologic effect of pTURP as cytoreductive operation seems to be limited. Patients who had to receive pTURP due to cancer-related symptoms, especially early necessity of pTURP (within 3 months after biopsy), showed worse clinical courses; therefore, they should be treated more carefully and actively.
Authors: Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Jeffrey Karnes; Christian Stief; Bethan Copsey; Francesco Montorsi; Peter Hammerer; Burkhard Beyer; Marco Moschini; Christian Gratzke; Thomas Steuber; Nazareno Suardi; Alberto Briganti; Lukas Manka; Tommy Nyberg; Susan J Dutton; Peter Wiklund; Markus Graefen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel Y C Heng; J Connor Wells; Brian I Rini; Benoit Beuselinck; Jae-Lyun Lee; Jennifer J Knox; Georg A Bjarnason; Sumanta Kumar Pal; Christian K Kollmannsberger; Takeshi Yuasa; Sandy Srinivas; Frede Donskov; Aristotelis Bamias; Lori A Wood; D Scott Ernst; Neeraj Agarwal; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Sun Young Rha; Jenny J Kim; Toni K Choueiri Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Howard I Scher; Susan Halabi; Ian Tannock; Michael Morris; Cora N Sternberg; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Celestia Higano; Glenn J Bubley; Robert Dreicer; Daniel Petrylak; Philip Kantoff; Ethan Basch; William Kevin Kelly; William D Figg; Eric J Small; Tomasz M Beer; George Wilding; Alison Martin; Maha Hussain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Choung-Soo Kim; Ad Theeuwes; Dong Deuk Kwon; Young Deuk Choi; Byung Ha Chung; Hyun Moo Lee; Kang Hyun Lee; Sang Eun Lee Journal: Investig Clin Urol Date: 2016-05-10
Authors: Juan P Rojas-Manrique; Angie Ramírez Ramírez; Luis Miguel Becerra Méndez; Jose G Ramos Ulloa; Carlos Riveros; Rodolfo Varela Ramirez Journal: Cureus Date: 2019-09-24