Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: Outcomes for a Large Contemporary Cohort and a Matched Comparison to Patients Without a Transplant.

Complications Prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy Renal transplant Survival Urinary continence

Journal

European urology focus
ISSN: 2405-4569
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Focus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101665661

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 04 12 2023
revised: 29 01 2024
accepted: 20 02 2024
medline: 8 3 2024
pubmed: 8 3 2024
entrez: 7 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

It is unknown whether renal transplant receipt (RTR) status can affect perioperative and oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). Our aim was to evaluate oncological and functional outcomes of RTR patients treated with RP for cN0M0 prostate cancer (PCa) via comparison with a no-RTR cohort. RTR patients who had undergone RP at seven European institutions during 2001-2022 were identified. A multi-institutional cohort of no-RTR patients treated with RP during 2004-2022 served as the comparator group. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:4 was used to match no-RTR patients to the RTR cohort according to age, prostate-specific antigen, and final pathology features. We used Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox, logistic, and Poisson log-linear regression models to test the outcomes of interest. After PSM, we analyzed data for 102 RTR and 408 no-RTR patients. RTR patients experienced higher estimated blood loss (EBL), longer length of hospital stay (LOS) and time to catheter removal, higher postoperative complication rates, and a lower continence recovery rate (all p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, RTR independently predicted unfavorable operative time (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.25), LOS (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32-1.86), EBL (OR 2.24, 95% CI 2.18-2.30), and time to catheter removal (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.68-2.21), but not complications or continence recovery. There were no significant differences for any oncological outcomes (biochemical recurrence, local or systemic progression) between the RTR and no-RTR groups. While no PCa deaths were recorded, the overall mortality rate was significantly higher in the RTR group (17% vs 0.5%, p < 0.001). Although RP is feasible for RTR patients, the procedure poses non-negligible surgical challenges, with longer operative time and LOS and higher EBL, but no major differences in terms of complications and continence recovery. The RTR group had similar oncological outcomes to the no-RTR group but significantly higher overall mortality related to causes other than PCa. Therefore, careful selection for RP is required among candidates with previous RTR. Removal of the prostate for prostate cancer is possible in patients who have had a kidney transplant, and cancer control outcomes are comparable to those for the general population. However, transplant patients have a higher risk of death from causes other than prostate cancer and the prostate surgery is likely to be more challenging.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
It is unknown whether renal transplant receipt (RTR) status can affect perioperative and oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). Our aim was to evaluate oncological and functional outcomes of RTR patients treated with RP for cN0M0 prostate cancer (PCa) via comparison with a no-RTR cohort.
METHODS METHODS
RTR patients who had undergone RP at seven European institutions during 2001-2022 were identified. A multi-institutional cohort of no-RTR patients treated with RP during 2004-2022 served as the comparator group. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:4 was used to match no-RTR patients to the RTR cohort according to age, prostate-specific antigen, and final pathology features. We used Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox, logistic, and Poisson log-linear regression models to test the outcomes of interest.
KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS UNASSIGNED
After PSM, we analyzed data for 102 RTR and 408 no-RTR patients. RTR patients experienced higher estimated blood loss (EBL), longer length of hospital stay (LOS) and time to catheter removal, higher postoperative complication rates, and a lower continence recovery rate (all p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, RTR independently predicted unfavorable operative time (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.25), LOS (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32-1.86), EBL (OR 2.24, 95% CI 2.18-2.30), and time to catheter removal (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.68-2.21), but not complications or continence recovery. There were no significant differences for any oncological outcomes (biochemical recurrence, local or systemic progression) between the RTR and no-RTR groups. While no PCa deaths were recorded, the overall mortality rate was significantly higher in the RTR group (17% vs 0.5%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSIONS
Although RP is feasible for RTR patients, the procedure poses non-negligible surgical challenges, with longer operative time and LOS and higher EBL, but no major differences in terms of complications and continence recovery. The RTR group had similar oncological outcomes to the no-RTR group but significantly higher overall mortality related to causes other than PCa. Therefore, careful selection for RP is required among candidates with previous RTR.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
Removal of the prostate for prostate cancer is possible in patients who have had a kidney transplant, and cancer control outcomes are comparable to those for the general population. However, transplant patients have a higher risk of death from causes other than prostate cancer and the prostate surgery is likely to be more challenging.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38453584
pii: S2405-4569(24)00042-7
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2024.02.008
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Giancarlo Marra (G)

Department of Surgical Sciences, Division of Urology, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy. Electronic address: giancarlo.marra@unito.it.

Stefano Tappero (S)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy; IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, University of Genova, Genova, Italy; Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

Francesco Barletta (F)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Alessandro Marquis (A)

Department of Surgical Sciences, Division of Urology, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Marco Allasia (M)

Department of Surgical Sciences, Division of Urology, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Marco Oderda (M)

Department of Surgical Sciences, Division of Urology, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Charles Dariane (C)

Department of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France.

Marc-Olivier Timsit (MO)

Department of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France.

Julien Branchereau (J)

Institut de Transplantation Urologie Néphrologie, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France.

Benoit Mesnard (B)

Institut de Transplantation Urologie Néphrologie, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France.

Derya Tilki (D)

Department of Urology, Martini Klinik, Hamburg, Germany.

Jonathon Olsburgh (J)

Department of Urology, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.

Meghana Kulkarni (M)

Department of Urology, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.

Veeru Kasivisvanathan (V)

Department of Urology, University College London, London, UK.

Cedric Lebacle (C)

Department of Urology, Kremlin-Bicêtre Hospital, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, Paris, France.

Alberto Breda (A)

Department of Urology, Fundacio Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain.

Antonio Galfano (A)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Giorgio Gandaglia (G)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Alberto Briganti (A)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Francesco Montorsi (F)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Luigi Biancone (L)

Department of Nephrology, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Paolo Gontero (P)

Department of Surgical Sciences, Division of Urology, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Classifications MeSH