RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To analyze pathological data of the radical prostatectomy specimen in patients operated for clinically-localized prostate cancer and who meet strict criteria for active surveillance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The data of patients who underwent a radical prostatectomy by a single surgeon between 2002 and 2007 were reviewed. We only included the patients that met the usual criteria for active surveillance: clinical stage T1-2a tumor, PSA< or =10 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason sum inferior or equal to 6 with no pattern of grade 4 or 5, cancer involvement inferior or equal to two biopsy cores, inferior to 50% of malignant tissue in each positive biopsy core and a PSA density inferior or equal to 0.15 ng/ml/cc. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-three patients were operated, including 25 (9.2%) who met all the criteria for active surveillance. Mean age was 61 years (55-68). The mean preoperative PSA was 6.6 ng/mL (2.5-10). Clinical stage of the tumor was T1c in 84% of patients and T2a in 16%. Biopsy Gleason score was 3+3 in 92%, 2+3 in 4% and 2+2 in 4%. Pathological study of the surgical specimen showed that 28% of the tumors were pT2a, 8% pT2b, 40% pT2c and 20% pT3a. One tumor was pT0. The pathological Gleason score was 3+3 in 68% of patients and 3+4 in 28%. Surgical specimen showed a higher Gleason score in 44% of cases, but there were no cases of predominant grade 4. After a mean follow-up of 19.2 months, there was no clinical or biological recurrence. CONCLUSION: In our experience, 20% of patients who meet the criteria for active surveillance show an extracapsular extent of the tumor on pathological analysis. Active surveillance is still under evaluation. Its main risk is to underestimate the aggressiveness of the tumor at the time of diagnosis.
Asunto(s)
Prostatectomía , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/cirugía , Anciano , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Vigilancia de la Población , Prostatectomía/métodos , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess the satisfaction of men and of their partner towards their testicular implants after undergoing orchidectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hundred and twenty-four consecutive patients, who had undergone orchidectomy, and their partner were sent an anonymous questionnaire. The follow-up after the implantation was at least one year. The testicular implants used were all Perthèse. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients answered to the questionnaire, among whom 63 had a testicular implant. Fifty-eight partners answered. From the patients with implant, 5% thought their body image was worse than before the operation and 80% thought their sexual activity was unchanged. Ninety-six percent thought the implantation was worthwhile and would do it again if they had to do the choice again. The reasons for dissatisfaction were: for the shape (n=8), for the size (n=3), for the position (n=2) and one patient thought the implant was too cold. Forty percent of the partners did not care about the implants and 58% thought the implant was essential. The dissatisfaction rate for the partners was 26% and reasons for were: for the shape (n=5), for the size (n=2), and one partner thought the implant was too cold. From the patients without implant, only one is thinking about having one. CONCLUSION: Testicular implants are well accepted, but some reasons of dissatisfaction appeared in our study. It was the first evaluation of the partner's satisfaction.