E Lambert1, M Goossens2, E Palagonia2, J Vollemaere2, E Mazzone3,4, P Dell'Oglio3,5, E Pauwels2, R De Groote2, F D'Hondt2, A Mottrie2,3, G De Naeyer2, P Schatteman2. 1. Deparment of Urology, Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Ziekenhuis Aalst, Aalst, Belgium. Edward.lambert@ugent.be. 2. Deparment of Urology, Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Ziekenhuis Aalst, Aalst, Belgium. 3. ORSI Acadamy, Melle, Belgium. 4. Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: After Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate (EEP) for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), men remain at risk for prostate cancer (PCa). Significant PSA changes occur after enucleation, which interfere with later screening for PCa. It remains unclear which patients need further diagnostic investigations for PCa after EEP. The goal of this study was to identify an independent predictor for PCa diagnosis after Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) in patients whose HoLEP resection specimen did not show PCa. METHODS: Data of 773 patients who underwent HoLEP for BPO between 2010 and 2018 in a referral center were analyzed. Exclusion criteria were PCa detection in the HoLEP specimen or absence of post-operative PSA values. Patients were divided in a PCa group and Control group depending on whether or not PCa was detected during follow-up after HoLEP. The predictive value for future diagnosis of PCa of different forms of PSA-change after HoLEP was analyzed by multivariate Cox regression and ROC analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 24 (4.2%) patients developed PCa after HoLEP. At 5 year follow-up, the PCa-free survival rate was 85%. First post-operative PSA was an independent predictor of PCa diagnosis after HoLEP (HR 1.106, 95% CI 1.074-1.139, p < 0.001, ROC AUC 0.903) with an optimal cut-off value of 1.73 ng/ml (sensitivity 83.3%, specificity 82.3%). CONCLUSIONS: For patients who underwent HoLEP for BPO, post-operative PSA after HoLEP is an independent predictor for future PCa diagnosis. When PSA is > 1.73 ng/ml within the first year after HoLEP, rigorous follow-up and diagnostic investigations for PCa are indicated.
PURPOSE: After Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate (EEP) for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), men remain at risk for prostate cancer (PCa). Significant PSA changes occur after enucleation, which interfere with later screening for PCa. It remains unclear which patients need further diagnostic investigations for PCa after EEP. The goal of this study was to identify an independent predictor for PCa diagnosis after Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) in patients whose HoLEP resection specimen did not show PCa. METHODS: Data of 773 patients who underwent HoLEP for BPO between 2010 and 2018 in a referral center were analyzed. Exclusion criteria were PCa detection in the HoLEP specimen or absence of post-operative PSA values. Patients were divided in a PCa group and Control group depending on whether or not PCa was detected during follow-up after HoLEP. The predictive value for future diagnosis of PCa of different forms of PSA-change after HoLEP was analyzed by multivariate Cox regression and ROC analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 24 (4.2%) patients developed PCa after HoLEP. At 5 year follow-up, the PCa-free survival rate was 85%. First post-operative PSA was an independent predictor of PCa diagnosis after HoLEP (HR 1.106, 95% CI 1.074-1.139, p < 0.001, ROC AUC 0.903) with an optimal cut-off value of 1.73 ng/ml (sensitivity 83.3%, specificity 82.3%). CONCLUSIONS: For patients who underwent HoLEP for BPO, post-operative PSA after HoLEP is an independent predictor for future PCa diagnosis. When PSA is > 1.73 ng/ml within the first year after HoLEP, rigorous follow-up and diagnostic investigations for PCa are indicated.
Authors: Stefano Tappero; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Mattia Longoni; Carlo Buratto; Erika Palagonia; Pietro Scilipoti; Enrico Vecchio; Marco Martiriggiano; Silvia Secco; Alberto Olivero; Michele Barbieri; Giancarlo Napoli; Elena Strada; Giovanni Petralia; Dario Di Trapani; Aldo Massimo Bocciardi; Antonio Galfano Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 3.661