Radical retropubic and perineal prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients - Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the functional and oncological outcome of consecutive renal-transplant recipients (RTRs) with clinically localised prostate cancer who underwent radical retropubic (RRP) or perineal (RPP) prostatectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2000 and July 2011 16 patients underwent RRP (group 1) and seven RPP (group 2). In all, 200 consecutive non-RTRs served as the control group, of whom 100 each underwent RRP and RPP, respectively. The mean (range) interval between renal transplantation and RP was 95 (24-206) months, the PSA at the time of diagnosis was 4.5 (3.0-17.5) ng/mL, and the mean patient age was 64 (59-67) years.

RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 39 (RRP) and 48 months (RPP). There was no deterioration in graft function. In group 1, 13 and three patients had pT2a-cpN0 and pT3a-bpN0 prostate cancer, respectively, with a Gleason score of 6, 7 and 8 in 11, three and one patients, respectively. In group 2, three and four patients had pT2a-c and pT3a-b disease, respectively, with a Gleason score of 6 and 7 in two and five, respectively. In both groups one patient had a positive surgical margin and was followed expectantly, and all patients have no evidence of disease. Wound infections developed more often in the RPP group (29% vs. 7%), but there were no Clavien grade III-V complications. All patients achieved good continence, and two need one pad/day.

CONCLUSIONS: RRP and RPP are suitable surgical treatments for prostate cancer in RTRs. RRP might be preferable, as it has the advantage of simultaneous pelvic lymphadenectomy and a lower risk of infectious complications.

Written by:
Heidenreich A, Pfister D, Thissen A, Piper C, Porres D.   Are you the author?
Department of Urology, RWTH University Aachen, Germany.


Reference: Arab J Urol. 2014 Jun;12(2):142-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2014.01.004

PubMed Abstract
PMID: 26019939

UroToday.com Prostate Cancer Section