• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Thu, 18.04.24

Search results


December 2021
Yuval Avda MD, Jonathan Modai MD, Igal Shpunt MD, Michael Dinerman MD, Yaniv Shilo MD, Roy Croock MD, Morad Jaber MD, Uri Lindner MD, and Dan Leibovici MD

Background: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer are at higher risk of treatment failure, development of metastatic disease, and mortality. There is no consensus on the treatment of choice for these patients, and either radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is recommended. Surgery is less common as the initial treatment for high-risk patients, possibly reflecting the concerns regarding morbidity as well as oncological and functional outcomes. Another high-risk group includes patients with failure of previous EBRT or focal treatment. For these patients, salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP) can be offered.

Objectives: To describe our experience with surgery of high-risk patients and SRP.

Methods: This cohort included all high-risk patients undergoing RP or SRP at our institution between January 2012 and December 2019. We reviewed the electronic medical charts and collected pathological, functional, and oncological outcomes.

Results: Our cohort included 39 patients; average age was 67.8 years, and average follow-up duration was 40.9 months. The most common postoperative morbidity was transfusion of packed cells. There were no life-threatening events or postoperative mortality. Continence was preserved (zero to one pad) in 76% of the patients. Twenty-three patients (59%) had undetectable prostate specific antigen levels following the surgery, 11 (30%) were treated with either adjuvant or salvage EBRT, and 12 patients (31%) were found with no evidence of disease and no additional treatment was needed.

Conclusions: Radical prostatectomy and SRP are safe options for patients presenting with high-risk prostate cancer, with good functional and oncological outcomes.

February 2021
Dorit E. Zilberman MD, Yasmin Abu-Ghanem MD, Gil Raviv MD, Barak Rosenzweig MD, Eddie Fridman MD, Orith Portnoy MD, and Zohar A Dotan MD PhD

Background: Little is known about oncologic outcomes following robot-assisted-radical-prostatectomy (RALP) for clinical T3 (cT3) prostate cancer.

Objectives: To investigate oncologic outcomes of patients with cT3 prostate cancer treated by RALP.

Methods: Medical records of patients who underwent RALP from 2010 to 2018 were retrieved. cT3 cases were reviewed. Demographic and pre/postoperative pathology data were analyzed. Patients were followed in 3–6 month intervals with repeat PSA analyses. Adjuvant/salvage treatments were monitored. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) meant PSA levels of ≥ 0.2 ng/ml.

Results: Seventy-nine patients met inclusion criteria. Median age at surgery was 64 years. Preoperative PSA level was 7.14 ng/dl, median prostate weight was 54 grams, and 23 cases (29.1%) were down-staged to pathological stage T2. Positive surgical margin rate was 42%. Five patients were lost to follow-up. Median follow-up time for the remaining 74 patients was 24 months. Postoperative relapse in PSA levels occurred in 31 patients (42%), and BCR in 28 (38%). Median time to BCR was 9 months. The overall 5-year BCR-free survival rate was 61%. Predicting factors for BCR were age (hazard-ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.74–0.97, P = 0.017) and prostate weight (HR 1.04, 95%CI 1.01–1.08, P = 0.021). Twenty-six patients (35%) received adjuvant/salvage treatments. Three patients died from metastatic prostate cancer 31, 52, and 78 months post-surgery. Another patient died 6 months post-surgery of unknown reasons. The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 92%.

Conclusions: RALP is an oncologic effective procedure for cT3 prostate cancer. Adjuvant/salvage treatment is needed to achieve optimal disease-control

January 2017
Benjamin Spieler BA, Jeffrey Goldstein MD, Yaacov R. Lawrence MD, Akram Saad MD, Raanan Berger MD PhD, Jacob Ramon MD, Zohar Dotan MD, Menachem Laufer MD, Ilana Weiss MA, Lev Tzvang MS, Philip Poortmans MD PhD and Zvi Symon MD

Background: Radiotherapy to the prostate bed is used to eradicate residual microscopic disease following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Recommendations are based on historical series. 

Objectives: To determine outcomes and toxicity of contemporary salvage radiation therapy (SRT) to the prostate bed. 

Methods: We reviewed a prospective ethics committee-approved database of 229 patients referred for SRT. Median pre-radiation prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 0.5 ng/ml and median follow-up was 50.4 months (range 13.7–128). Treatment was planned and delivered using modern three-dimensional radiation techniques. Mean bioequivalent dose was 71 Gy (range 64–83 Gy). Progression was defined as two consecutive increases in PSA level > 0.2 ng/ml, metastases on follow-up imaging, commencement of anti-androgen treatment for any reason, or death from prostate cancer. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and multivariate analysis was performed using STATA. 

Results: Five year progression-free survival was 68% (95%CI 59.8–74.8%), and stratified by PSA was 87%, 70% and 47% for PSA < 0.3, 0.3–0.7, and > 0.7 ng/ml (P < 0.001). Metastasis-free survival was 92.5%, prostate cancer-specific survival 96.4%, and overall survival 94.9%. Low pre-radiation PSA value was the most important predictor of progression-free survival (HR 2.76, P < 0.001). Daily image guidance was associated with reduced risk of gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity (P < 0.005). 

Conclusions: Contemporary SRT is associated with favorable outcomes. Early initiation of SRT at PSA < 0.3 ng/ml improves progression-free survival. Daily image guidance with online correction is associated with a decreased incidence of late toxicity.

 

March 2013
S. Eilat-Tsanani, H. Tabenkin, J. Shental, I. Elmaleh and D. Steinmtz
 Background: Radical prostatectomy is one option for treating localized prostate cancer, but it can cause functional impairment of the urogenital system.

Objectives: To describe the outcomes of radical prostatectomy as perceived by the patients, and their ways of coping with them.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative study of 22 men with localized prostatic cancer 1 year after surgery. The key questions related to the effect of the disease and the surgery on their lives and their view on the value of the surgery.

Results: The surgery was perceived as a necessary solution for the diagnosed cancer. All the participants suffered from varying degrees of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Urinary incontinence caused severe suffering. The impaired sexual ability affected relations with partners and led to feelings of shame and guilt and a decreased sense of self-esteem. In retrospect, the participants still viewed the surgery as a life-saving procedure. Faith in the surgeon contributed to their affirmation of the decision to undergo surgery despite the difficulties.

Conclusions: Patients were prepared to suffer the inevitable physical and psychological sequelae of radical prostatectomy because they believed the surgery to be a definitive solution for cancer. Surgeons advising patients with localized prostatic cancer on treatment options should address these difficult issues and provide psychological support, either themselves or in collaboration with professionals.

 

February 2005
K. Stav, N. Rahimi-Levene, A. Lindner, Y.I. Siegel and A. Zisman
 Bleeding during retropubic radical prostatectomy arises from venous structures in the majority of cases. Since its introduction two decades ago, the nerve-sparing procedure with surgical control of the dorsal venous complex has led to a reduction in blood loss and blood transfusion rate. The reduction in blood loss is a result of better understanding of the prostatic blood vessel anatomy, extensive surgical experience over time, and reduction in transfusion triggers with an acceptance of lower postoperative hemoglobin values. Increased blood loss during RRP[1] is associated with poorer outcomes most probably due to surgical difficulties. But as for now, there are no decisive risk factors for clinically significant bleeding during RRP although newer technologies for hemostasis of the dorsal vein complex are being utilized.

__________________

[1] RRP = retropubic radical prostatectomy
June 2004
J. Kundel, R. Pfeffer, M. Lauffer, J. Ramon, R. Catane and Z. Symone

Background: The role of prostatic fossa radiation as salvage therapy in the setting of a rising prostate-specific antigen following radical prostatectomy is not well defined.

Objectives: To study the efficacy and safety of pelvic and prostatic fossa radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma.

Methods: A retrospective review of 1,050 patient charts treated at the Sheba Medical Center for prostate cancer between 1990 and 2002 identified 48 patients who received post-prostatectomy pelvic and prostatic fossa radiotherapy for biochemical failure. Two patients were classified as T-1, T2A-9, T2B-19, T3A-7 and T3B-11. Gleason score was 2–4 in 9 patients, 5–6 in 22 patients, 7 in 10 patients and 8–10 in 7 patients. Positive surgical margins were noted in 28 patients (58%) of whom 18 had single and 10 had multiple positive margins. Radiation was delivered with 6 mV photons using a four-field box to the pelvis followed by two lateral arcs to the prostatic fossa.

Results: At a median follow-up of 34.3 months (25th, 75th) (14.7, 51,3) since radiation therapy, 32 patients (66%) are free of disease or biochemical failure. Exploratory analysis revealed that a pre-radiation PSA[1] less than 2 ng/ml was associated with a failure rate of 24% compared with 66% in patients with a pre-radiation PSA greater than 2 ng/ml (chi-square P < 0.006).

Conclusions: For patients with biochemical failure following radical prostatectomy early salvage radiation therapy is an effective and safe treatment option.






[1] PSA = prostate-specific antigen


Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel