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.
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