FEASIBILITY AND RISKS OF NERVE-SPARING TECHNIQUE OF RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY IN ELDERLY PATIENTS


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of radical prostatectomy (RP) with nerve-saving technique (NST) in patients ≥ 65 years of age compared with a younger group of patients. Materials and methods: The study group comprised 117 patients ≥ 65 years old, the control group - 333 patients <65 years old, who underwent RP with unilateral or bilateral NST from January 2012 to December 2019. The analysis of pathomorphological results, complications rate, recurrence free survival (RFS) and the restoration of erectile function (EF) in both groups was performed. Results: The majority of older patients belonged to intermediate and high risk groups of biochemical recurrence. Extracapsular tumor extension was significantly more often observed in the group ≥ 65 years of age: 16.2% and 6.9%, p=0.028. There were no differences between the two groups in the frequency of serious postoperative complications (> III class according to the Clavien-Dindo classification): 2.55% and 2.7%; p=0.94. The five-year RFS after RP was 95.4% in the group <65 years old and 92.1% in the group ≥ 65 years old (p=0.31). There was a moderate tendency to a slower recovery of EF in older patients: sufficient EF after 6 and 12 months was observed in 21.9% and 59.4% versus 33.3% and 73% in the group <65 years old (p=0.12). Minimal differences in EF were observed 24 months after RP with bilateral NST (84.2% and 87.9%), and more relevant differences with unilateral NST: 53.8% and 66.7% in the study and control group (p=0.033). Conclusions: The performance of RP with NST in elderly patients is not associated with additional oncological risks, while the restoration of EF is somewhat slowed down in comparison with a group of patients <65 years of age. Bilateral NST provides high potency recovery results regardless of age.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

E. A Sokolov

Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education (RMACPE), department of urology and surgical andrology; S.P. Botkin’s State Clinical Hospital

Email: sokolov.yegor@yandex.ru
PhD in Medical Sciences, assistant, department of urology and surgical andrology (RMACPE), urologist at the S.P. Botkin’s State Clinical Hospital Moscow, Russia

E. I Veliev

Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education (RMACPE), department of urology and surgical andrology; S.P. Botkin’s State Clinical Hospital

Email: veliev@urotop.ru
Ph.D., MD, professor, professor at the Department of Urology and Surgical Andrology of RMANPO, Head of the Department of Urology of City clinical hospital named after S.P. Botkin Moscow, Russia

R. A Veliev

Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education (RMACPE), department of urology and surgical andrology

Email: ragifvel@mail.ru
Ph.D. student at the Department of Urology and Surgical Andrology of RMANPO Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Culp M.B., Soerjomataram I., Efstathiou J.A. et al. Recent Global Patterns in Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates. Eur Urol. 2020;77(1):38-52. doi: 10.14740/wjon1191.
  2. Rawla P. Epidemiology ofProstate Cancer. World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.035.
  3. Mottet N., Bellmunt J., Bolla M. et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618-629. Doi: 10.1016/j. eururo.2017.08.003.
  4. Bill-Axelson A., Holmberg L., Garmo H. et al. Radical Prostatectomy or Watchful Waiting in Prostate Cancer - 29-year Follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2319-2329. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1807801.
  5. Baunacke M., Schmidt M.L., Thomas C. et al. Long-term functional outcomes after robotic vs. retropubic radical prostatectomy in routine care: a 6-year follow-up of a large German health services research study. World J Urol. 2019. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02956-8. [Epub ahead of print].
  6. Nguyen L.N., Head L., Witiuk K. et al. The Risks and Benefits of Cavernous Neurovascular Bundle Sparing during Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Urol. 2017;198(4):760-769. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.3344.
  7. Шпоть Е.В., Чиненов Д.В., Амосов А.В. и соавт. Эректильная дисфункция, ассоциированная с радикальной простатэктомией: целесообразность и способы сохранения потенции. Урология. 2018;2:75-82). doi: 10.18565/urology.2018.2.75-82.
  8. Wilt T.J., Vo T.N., Langsetmo L. et al. Radical Prostatectomy or Obervation for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Extended Follow-up ofthe Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT). Eur Urol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.02009. [Epub ahead of print].
  9. Thurtle D.R., Greenberg D.C., Lee L.S. et al. Individual prognosis at diagnosis in nonmetastatic prostate cancer: Development and external validation of the PREDICT Prostate multivariable model. PLoS Med. 2019; 16(3):e1002758. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002758.
  10. Велиев Е.И., Соколов Е.А., Петров С.Б., Лоран О.Б. Радикальная простатэктомия у пациентов старше 70 лет: анализ выживаемости. Онкоурология. 2013;9(4):55-58. doi: 10.17650/1726-9776-2013-9-4-55-58.
  11. Imprialos K., Koutsampasopoulos K., Manolis A., Doumas M. Erectile dysfunction as a cardiovascular risk factor: time to step up? Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2020/ doi: 10.2174/1570161118666200414102556. [Epub ahead of print]
  12. Zattoni F., Montebelli F., Rossanese M. et al. Should radical prostatectomy be encouraged at any age? A critical non-systematic review. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2018; 70(1):42-52. doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02953-8.
  13. Everaerts W., Van Rij S., Reeves F., Costello A. Radical treatment of localised prostate cancer in the elderly. BJU Int. 2015;116(6):847-852. doi: 10.1111/bju.13128.
  14. Cozzi G., Musi G., Monturano M. et al. Sexual function recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Outcomes from an Italian referral centre and predicting nomogram. Andrologia. 2019;51(10):e13385. doi: 10.1111/and.13385.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies