RESUMO
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Focal cryotherapy emerged as an efficient option to treat favorable and localized prostate cancer (PCa). The purpose of this video is to describe the procedure step by step. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present the case of a 68 year-old man with localized PCa in the anterior aspect of the prostate. RESULTS: The procedure is performed under general anesthesia, with the patient in lithotomy position. Briefly, the equipament utilized includes the cryotherapy console coupled with an ultrasound system, argon and helium gas bottles, cryoprobes, temperature probes and an urethral warming catheter. The procedure starts with a real-time trans-rectal prostate ultrasound, which is used to outline the prostate, the urethra and the rectal wall. The cryoprobes are pretested and placed in to the prostate through the perineum, following a grid template, along with the temperature sensors under ultrasound guidance. A cystoscopy confirms the right positioning of the needles and the urethral warming catheter is installed. Thereafter, the freeze sequence with argon gas is started, achieving extremely low temperatures (-40ºC) to induce tumor cell lysis. Sequentially, the thawing cycle is performed using helium gas. This process is repeated one time. Results among several series showed a biochemical disease-free survival between 71-93% at 9-70 month- follow-up, incontinence rates between 0-3.6% and erectile dysfunction between 0-42% (1-5). CONCLUSIONS: Focal cryotherapy is a feasible procedure to treat anterior PCa that may offer minimal morbidity, allowing good cancer control and better functional outcomes when compared to whole-gland treatment.
Assuntos
Crioterapia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Idoso , Estudos de Viabilidade , Humanos , MasculinoRESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether patients with prostate cancer have worse functional urinary recovery with focal brachytherapy (FBT) at the base versus the apex of the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The functional outcomes of patients treated with FBT at the base of the prostate were compared with those of patients treated with FBT at the apex. Urinary symptoms, continence, and erectile dysfunction were measured using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Continence Score (ICS), and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaires, respectively, at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-eight and 13 patients were treated with FBT at the apex and the base, respectively, of the prostate. A significant difference between groups was found in the IPSS score at 6 months (mean IPSS: apex 6.4 ± 4.7, base 10.6 ± 5.7; p = 0.02), but not at baseline or at 12 and 24 months after treatment. On multivariate analysis, only FBT at the base of the prostate remained an independent predictor of worsening urinary symptoms (odds ratio, 5.8; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: At 6 months after FBT, significantly less urinary toxicity was found in patients who underwent FBT at the apex versus the base of the prostate. Continence and sexual side effects were minimal in all patients.
Assuntos
Braquiterapia/efeitos adversos , Braquiterapia/métodos , Disfunção Erétil/etiologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Transtornos Urinários/etiologia , Idoso , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
PURPOSE: We assessed the impact of focal therapy on perioperative, oncologic and functional outcomes in men who underwent salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy compared to primary robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Focal therapy was performed in patients presenting with Gleason score 3 + 3 or 3 + 4, clinical stage cT2a or less, serum prostate specific antigen 15 ng/ml or less, unilateral positive biopsy, maximum length of any positive core less than 10 mm and life expectancy greater than 10 years. Focal therapy was defined as target ablation of the index lesion plus a 1 cm safety margin in the normal ipsilateral prostatic parenchyma. The salvage group included 22 men who underwent salvage prostatectomy after focal therapy failure. The primary group was defined using matched pair 1:2 selection of 44 of 2,750 patients treated with primary prostatectomy. The primary and secondary end points were the between group differences in functional and oncologic outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Complication rates were comparable (p >0.05). Pad-free probability was comparable between the groups at 1 and 2 years (p = 0.8). Recovery of erectile function was significantly lower after salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (p = 0.008), which also showed a significantly lower probability of cumulative biochemical recurrence-free survival compared to primary robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (56.3% vs 92.4% at 2 years, p = 0.001). Salvage prostatectomy demonstrated a significantly increased risk of biochemical recurrence (HR 4.8, 95% CI 1.67-13.76, p = 0.004). Study limitations included the retrospective nature, the lack of randomization and the short followup. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy after focal therapy failure is feasible with acceptable complication rates. However, patients assigned to primary focal therapy should be advised about a poorer prognosis in terms of oncologic control and lower erectile recovery rates in case of a future salvage surgery.