Clément Klein1,2, Thibault Marquette1,2, Grégoire Capon1,2, Mokrane Yacoub3,2, Eric Alezra1,2, Jean-Christophe Bernhard1,2, Franck Bladou1,2, Grégoire Robert4,5. 1. Department of Urology, Bordeaux Pellegrin University Hospital, CHU du Bordeaux, Université de Bordeaux, Place Amélie Raba Léon, 33000, Bordeaux, France. 2. University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. 3. Department of Pathology, Bordeaux Pellegrin University Hospital, Bordeaux, France. 4. Department of Urology, Bordeaux Pellegrin University Hospital, CHU du Bordeaux, Université de Bordeaux, Place Amélie Raba Léon, 33000, Bordeaux, France. gregoire.robert@chu-bordeaux.fr. 5. University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. gregoire.robert@chu-bordeaux.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) rate and identify predictive factors for PCa progression after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). METHODS: A retrospective review of all iPCa cases diagnosed after HoLEP procedures between April 2012 and May 2020 was conducted. iPCa was defined as a symptom-free cancer diagnosed after HoLEP in patients without any diagnosis or suspicion of PCa before surgical treatment. PCa progression was suspected by rise in PSA from baseline after HoLEP and confirmed by progressive disease detected on transrectal needle biopsy or by the appearance of metastatic disease. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify predictive factors for cancer progression. RESULTS: The iPCa rate in our cohort was 10.7% (n = 134). Among patients with iPCa, 25 (18.6%) progressed with a mean follow-up of 32 months. Regarding predictive factors, post-operative PSA (OR 2.35, p < 0.001) was significantly associated with PCa progression in multivariate analysis. The cutoff value for post-operative PSA was determined at 2 ng/mL. Among iPCa cases, 14 patients (10.4%) had both T1b stage disease and PSA ≥ 2 ng/mL, while 68 (50.7%) had neither of these factors. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that patients with both factors had the highest risk of progression (OR 49.4; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this study, post-operative PSA above 2 ng/mL was the only independent risk factor for iPCa progression after HoLEP. Patients with post-operative PSA ≥ 2 ng/mL must be considered to be at risk of progression and may require early curative treatment or closer follow-up in the post-operative period, especially when this is associated with T1b stage disease.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) rate and identify predictive factors for PCa progression after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). METHODS: A retrospective review of all iPCa cases diagnosed after HoLEP procedures between April 2012 and May 2020 was conducted. iPCa was defined as a symptom-free cancer diagnosed after HoLEP in patients without any diagnosis or suspicion of PCa before surgical treatment. PCa progression was suspected by rise in PSA from baseline after HoLEP and confirmed by progressive disease detected on transrectal needle biopsy or by the appearance of metastatic disease. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify predictive factors for cancer progression. RESULTS: The iPCa rate in our cohort was 10.7% (n = 134). Among patients with iPCa, 25 (18.6%) progressed with a mean follow-up of 32 months. Regarding predictive factors, post-operative PSA (OR 2.35, p < 0.001) was significantly associated with PCa progression in multivariate analysis. The cutoff value for post-operative PSA was determined at 2 ng/mL. Among iPCa cases, 14 patients (10.4%) had both T1b stage disease and PSA ≥ 2 ng/mL, while 68 (50.7%) had neither of these factors. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that patients with both factors had the highest risk of progression (OR 49.4; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this study, post-operative PSA above 2 ng/mL was the only independent risk factor for iPCa progression after HoLEP. Patients with post-operative PSA ≥ 2 ng/mL must be considered to be at risk of progression and may require early curative treatment or closer follow-up in the post-operative period, especially when this is associated with T1b stage disease.
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: Axel Heidenreich; Gunnar Aus; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Vsevolod B Matveev; Hans Peter Schmid; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-09-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Rafael Nunez; Kimberly J Hurd; Brie N Noble; Erik P Castle; Paul E Andrews; Mitchell R Humphreys Journal: Int J Urol Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 3.369
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: David Robinson; Gunnar Aus; Julia Bak; Tomasz Gorecki; Anders Herder; Johan Rosell; Eberhard Varenhorst Journal: Scand J Urol Nephrol Date: 2007
Authors: Richard E Zigeuner; Katja Lipsky; Ildikò Riedler; Marco Auprich; Luigi Schips; Michael Salfellner; Karl Pummer; Gerhart Hubmer Journal: Urology Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 2.649