C. Blázquez

GreenLight HPS 120-W Laser Vaporization versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms due to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Randomized Clinical Trial with 2-year Follow-up

BACKGROUND High-level evidence to support the use of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) is limited. OBJECTIVE Assess the efficacy and safety of GreenLight HPS 120-W laser PVP compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized clinical trial was performed with 50 patients having lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia in each treatment arm. INTERVENTION Random allocation to PVP or TURP. MEASUREMENTS International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), and changes in maximum flow rate (Qmax) were the main end points. Patients were evaluated at a follow-up time of 2 yr. Five patients were lost to follow-up. A last observation carried forward analysis was done. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Both laser PVP and TURP resulted in the same IPPS reduction at 2 yr (-15.7 and -14.9, respectively; p=0.48) and in the same gain in Qmax (+14.5 ml/s and +13.1 ml/s, respectively; p=0.65). QoL was equivalent for both treatment modalities. These results were independent of prostate size, American Society of Anesthesiologists risk category, and prior indwelling catheter. No statistically significant differences were detected between arms in terms of complication rates. In the laser PVP group, three patients were readmitted to the hospital and two developed a urethral stricture. In the TURP group, two patients were readmitted, six developed a urethral stricture, and two developed bladder neck sclerosis. In-hospital stay and time to catheter removal were significantly shorter with PVP. Limitations are the potential lack of power to detect differences in the complications between groups and the lack of blindness due to the nature of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS GreenLight HPS 120-W laser PVP is as effective as TURP for symptom reduction and improvement of QoL. No differences were seen in the response of storage and voiding symptoms. Laser PVP and TURP have the same complication rate. Length of stay is shorter for laser PVP group.

Vigilancia activa en cáncer de próstata de bajo riesgo. Aceptación por el paciente y resultados

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the acceptance of active monitoring by patients treated in our healthcare community and to report the clinical results of an active surveillance program in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS Prospective study of patients enrolled in an active surveillance programme at our centre between 2004 and 2012. The inclusion criteria were PSA <10 ng/ml, Gleason score ≤6, clinical stage T1c/T2a, ≤2 positive cores, and no more than 50% of the core being affected. Curative treatment was proposed when faced with pathological progression over the course of the monitoring. RESULTS In 2011, only 17% of the total number of potential candidate patients rejected their inclusion in a surveillance programme and were treated actively. We analysed a series of 144 patients included in our active surveillance protocol. The mean follow-up time was 3.22 years (SD 2.08). A total of 110 patients (76.3%) remained under active monitoring, with an estimated median treatment-free survival after diagnosis of 6.9 years (95% CI: 6.2-7.6). The percentage of patients who remained free of treatment at 2 and 5 years was 96.3% (95% CI: 92.8%-99.8%) and 70.9% (95% CI: 59.3%-85.5%), respectively. Thirty four patients (23.6%) required curative treatment. The mean time to treatment was 4.6 years (SD 2.3). CONCLUSIONS Active surveillance of highly selected patients with low-risk prostate cancer is a valid alternative therapy that is accepted by patients in our community.

Resultados oncológicos en pacientes potencialmente candidatos a vigilancia activa sometidos a prostatectomía radical

OBJECTIVE To determine whether there are differences in the oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy (adverse pathology and biochemical recurrence) based on clinical selection criteria used in two active surveillance (AS) protocols. MATERIAL AND METHODS 442 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (CP) underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution between August 2003 and December 2009. We selected patients with low-risk CP, which could have been included in an AS program. Patients were divided into two groups: group i, those who met the most strict surveillance criteria described by Epstein (PSAD<.15; T1/T2a;<2 positive core, Gleason≤6,<50% involvement of the core) and group ii, those meeting the more open criteria described by Klotz (PSA≤10 or<15 at age 70, Gleason≤6 or<7 [3+4] in over 70 years). We compared both groups to determine differences in pathological stage, positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. RESULTS Of the 442 patients 48% (213 patients) had low-risk PC, and become potential candidates for an AS program. Of the patients operated on 17% (76 patients) met the criteria for AS as of Epsteins and 48% (213 patients) according to Klotz. Comparing patients in both groups there were no statistically significant differences in the presence of pT3 (7.9% vs 10.8%) P=.55, positive margins (22.4% vs. 28.3%) P=.41, nor in biochemical recurrence at 3 years (5.3% vs 5.6%) P=.86. CONCLUSIONS In our series of patients theoretically candidates for inclusion in a program of active surveillance, we found no differences in the percentage of patients with pathological stage pT3, positive margins and biochemical recurrence according to clinical inclusion criteria currently used.

1037 EXTERNAL VALIDATION AND APPLICABILITY OF THE EORTC RISK TABLES FOR NON MUSCLE-INVASIVE BLADDER CANCER

Purpose To perform an external validation of the EORTC risk tables and to evaluate their applicability in the patients of our institution by comparing the actual risk of recurrence and progression in our series to those obtained through the application of the EORTC tables.

Weight of the resected specimen after transurethral resection as a new predictive variable for recurrence of non-muscle-invasive bladder tumour: TUR SPECIMEN WEIGHT AS PREDICTOR FOR BLADDER CANCER RECURRENCE

Whats known on the subject? and What does the study add?