Radical Prostatectomy in Kidney Transplant Recipients-A Multicenter Experience.

Kidney transplantation Open surgery Prostate cancer Prostatectomy Robot-assisted surgery

Journal

European urology open science
ISSN: 2666-1683
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Open Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101771568

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2024
Historique:
accepted: 16 07 2024
medline: 23 8 2024
pubmed: 23 8 2024
entrez: 23 8 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have an increased risk of developing genitourinary cancers, including prostate cancer (PCa), which is expected to become more prevalent due to an aging KTR population. Thus, knowledge of surgical outcomes, including treatment of PCa, within this unique cohort is required. Data of 62 KTRs undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2006 and 2023 at nine urologic transplant centers were analyzed. Complications were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated, and a follow-up was conducted. Overall survival (OS), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), and death-censored graft survival were determined via the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank testing. Overall, 50 open radical retropubic RPs and 12 robot-assisted RPs (RARPs) were included. The intraoperative blood loss was lower after RARP, but operative time was longer. Of the patients, 50% experienced no postoperative complication, and grade ≥3 complications were observed in 14.5%. There was no graft loss related to RP. A histopathologic analysis revealed pN1 in 8.1% and positive surgical margins in 25.8% of the cases. At a median follow-up of 48.5 mo, the median OS was 128 (95% confidence interval [CI] 71.2-184.8) mo, BRFS was 106 (95% CI 55.8; 156.2) mo, and graft survival was 127 (95% CI 66.7-187.3) mo. Limitations include the retrospective design, and variations between groups and centers. Our findings support RP as a feasible and safe treatment option for localized PCa in KTRs with acceptable oncologic outcome. Special care is required in screening and awareness for the risk of understaging. This study analyzed the safety and effectiveness of two prostate cancer surgery methods-open and robot-assisted surgery-in the special group of kidney transplant recipients. Both surgical methods were performed safely with acceptable oncologic outcomes; however, sample size was too small to draw definite conclusions between the two operative methods.

Sections du résumé

Background and objective UNASSIGNED
Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have an increased risk of developing genitourinary cancers, including prostate cancer (PCa), which is expected to become more prevalent due to an aging KTR population. Thus, knowledge of surgical outcomes, including treatment of PCa, within this unique cohort is required.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Data of 62 KTRs undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2006 and 2023 at nine urologic transplant centers were analyzed. Complications were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated, and a follow-up was conducted. Overall survival (OS), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), and death-censored graft survival were determined via the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank testing.
Key findings and limitations UNASSIGNED
Overall, 50 open radical retropubic RPs and 12 robot-assisted RPs (RARPs) were included. The intraoperative blood loss was lower after RARP, but operative time was longer. Of the patients, 50% experienced no postoperative complication, and grade ≥3 complications were observed in 14.5%. There was no graft loss related to RP. A histopathologic analysis revealed pN1 in 8.1% and positive surgical margins in 25.8% of the cases. At a median follow-up of 48.5 mo, the median OS was 128 (95% confidence interval [CI] 71.2-184.8) mo, BRFS was 106 (95% CI 55.8; 156.2) mo, and graft survival was 127 (95% CI 66.7-187.3) mo. Limitations include the retrospective design, and variations between groups and centers.
Conclusions and clinical implications UNASSIGNED
Our findings support RP as a feasible and safe treatment option for localized PCa in KTRs with acceptable oncologic outcome. Special care is required in screening and awareness for the risk of understaging.
Patient summary UNASSIGNED
This study analyzed the safety and effectiveness of two prostate cancer surgery methods-open and robot-assisted surgery-in the special group of kidney transplant recipients. Both surgical methods were performed safely with acceptable oncologic outcomes; however, sample size was too small to draw definite conclusions between the two operative methods.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39175845
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.07.111
pii: S2666-1683(24)00612-8
pmc: PMC11339048
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

45-53

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s).

Auteurs

Jacob Schmidt (J)

Department of Urology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Abdulbaki Yakac (A)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.

Robert Peters (R)

Department of Urology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Frank Friedersdorff (F)

Department of Urology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Karoline Kernig (K)

Department of Urology, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.

Anna Kienel (A)

Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.

Franziska I Winterhagen (FI)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Bonn, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany.

Friedrich Köpp (F)

Department of Urology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.

Susan Foller (S)

Department of Urology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.

Francesca DiQuilio (F)

Department of Urology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.

Karl Weigand (K)

Department of Urology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.

Luka Flegar (L)

Department of Urology, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

Philipp Reimold (P)

Department of Urology, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

Michael Stöckle (M)

Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, Germany.

Juliane Putz (J)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.

Philip Zeuschner (P)

Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, Germany.

Classifications MeSH