Preventative Function-sparing Radical Prostatectomy: Experience in a Tertiary Referral Centre.

IF 8.3 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Alexander Haese, Markus Graefen, Aliaksandra Pott, Felix Preisser
{"title":"Preventative Function-sparing Radical Prostatectomy: Experience in a Tertiary Referral Centre.","authors":"Alexander Haese, Markus Graefen, Aliaksandra Pott, Felix Preisser","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2025.02.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>The oncological and functional outcomes after preventative radical prostatectomy (pRP) are unknown. Our aim was to assess functional and oncological outcomes and the patient perspective, motivation, and postprocedural experiences of a highly selected pRP cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified patients who underwent pRP between 2012 and 2021 in a single high-volume centre without a prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis before surgery. Functional and oncological outcomes were assessed via validated questionnaires. In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with the patients about their pRP experience.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>Seven patients who ranged in age from 37 to 57 yr underwent pRP. Final pathology revealed PCa in 71% of cases, which was International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 1 in two patients, and grade group 2 in three. The mean distress score was 7.7 points before pRP versus 1.3 points after surgery. At ≥12 mo after pRP, all the patients had erections firm enough for intercourse and were fully continent. A significant improvement in quality of life was reported because of mental relief and maintenance of physical functioning. The interviewees emphasised the importance of patient-centred medicine. Limitations include the small sample size, lack of a control cohort, and the single-centre setting.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>No patient regretted his decision after pRP and all patients were free of recurrence. For men with a serious fear of PCa that causes them distress and affects their quality of life, pRP could be a good option outside of guideline recommendations if performed by experts for well-informed patients. Improvements in the legal foundation for this approach are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European urology oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2025.02.005","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: The oncological and functional outcomes after preventative radical prostatectomy (pRP) are unknown. Our aim was to assess functional and oncological outcomes and the patient perspective, motivation, and postprocedural experiences of a highly selected pRP cohort.

Methods: We identified patients who underwent pRP between 2012 and 2021 in a single high-volume centre without a prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis before surgery. Functional and oncological outcomes were assessed via validated questionnaires. In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with the patients about their pRP experience.

Key findings and limitations: Seven patients who ranged in age from 37 to 57 yr underwent pRP. Final pathology revealed PCa in 71% of cases, which was International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 1 in two patients, and grade group 2 in three. The mean distress score was 7.7 points before pRP versus 1.3 points after surgery. At ≥12 mo after pRP, all the patients had erections firm enough for intercourse and were fully continent. A significant improvement in quality of life was reported because of mental relief and maintenance of physical functioning. The interviewees emphasised the importance of patient-centred medicine. Limitations include the small sample size, lack of a control cohort, and the single-centre setting.

Conclusions and clinical implications: No patient regretted his decision after pRP and all patients were free of recurrence. For men with a serious fear of PCa that causes them distress and affects their quality of life, pRP could be a good option outside of guideline recommendations if performed by experts for well-informed patients. Improvements in the legal foundation for this approach are needed.

保留功能的预防性根治性前列腺切除术:三级转诊中心的经验。
背景与目的:预防性根治性前列腺切除术(pRP)后的肿瘤和功能预后尚不清楚。我们的目的是评估一个精心挑选的pRP队列的功能和肿瘤结果以及患者的观点、动机和术后经验。方法:我们确定了2012年至2021年间在单个大容量中心接受pRP的患者,术前没有前列腺癌(PCa)诊断。功能和肿瘤结果通过有效的问卷进行评估。对患者的pRP经历进行了深入的半结构化访谈。主要发现和局限性:7例年龄在37至57岁之间的患者接受了pRP。最终病理显示71%的病例为PCa,其中2例为国际泌尿外科病理学会1级组,3例为2级组。pRP前的平均窘迫评分为7.7分,手术后为1.3分。在pRP后≥12个月,所有患者的勃起都足够坚固,可以进行性交,并且完全勃起。据报道,由于精神上的缓解和身体功能的维持,生活质量有了显著改善。受访者强调了以病人为中心的医学的重要性。局限性包括样本量小、缺乏对照队列和单中心设置。结论及临床意义:无患者在pRP术后后悔,所有患者均无复发。对于那些对前列腺癌有严重恐惧的男性来说,如果专家对消息灵通的患者进行pRP治疗,pRP可能是指南建议之外的一个很好的选择。需要改进这种做法的法律基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
128
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: Journal Name: European Urology Oncology Affiliation: Official Journal of the European Association of Urology Focus: First official publication of the EAU fully devoted to the study of genitourinary malignancies Aims to deliver high-quality research Content: Includes original articles, opinion piece editorials, and invited reviews Covers clinical, basic, and translational research Publication Frequency: Six times a year in electronic format
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信