Oderda, Marco

Introduction: Salvage lymph node dissection (sLND) is a treatment option for prostate cancer (PCa) patients with nodal recurrence after radical therapy to delay tumour progression and hormonal treatment. We evaluated the outcomes in terms of biochemical recurrence (BCR), clinical regression, and cancer specific survival (CSS) in a large, multicentric series of patients treated with sLND for nodal recurrence of PCa. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 106 consecutive patients with BCR of PCa after radical treatment who underwent sLND between 2007 and 2013 at three tertiary centres. BCR was defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >0.2 ng/mL. Clinical recurrence (CR) was defined as a positive imaging study or biopsy for metastasis after sLND. Kaplan–Meier curves calculated BCR-free survival (BFS), CR-free survival (CRS), and CSS. Cox regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of CR. Results: Median number of nodes removed at sLND was 21.7, with a median of three positive nodes. Immediate biochemical response after surgery was achieved in 50.9% of patients. At a median follow-up of 22.5 months, biochemical failure and CR were experienced by 67.9% and 40.5% of patients, respectively. At 2 years, BFS, CRS, and CSS were 25%, 52%, and 92%, respectively. Castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) status, PSA level at sLND, and presence of biochemical failure after sLND were significantly associated with CR after surgery. Conclusions: sLND represents a valid treatment option for selected patients with nodal recurrences, achieving a CR-free status in more than half of patients at 2 years. Patients with CRPC status or high PSA values might not be the best candidates for a sLND.

Objectives To determine if a re‐transurethral resection (TUR), in the presence or absence of muscle at the first TUR in patients with T1‐high grade (HG)/Grade 3 (G3) bladder cancer, makes a difference in recurrence, progression, cancer specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Patients and methods In a large retrospective multicentre cohort of 2451 patients with T1‐HG/G3 initially treated with bacille Calmette–Guérin, 935 (38%) had a re‐TUR. According to the presence or absence of muscle in the specimen of the primary TUR, patients were divided in four groups: group 1 (no muscle, no re‐TUR), group 2 (no muscle, re‐TUR), group 3 (muscle, no re‐TUR) and group 4 (muscle, re‐TUR). Clinical outcomes were compared across the four groups. Results Re‐TUR had a positive impact on recurrence, progression, CSS and OS only if muscle was not present in the primary TUR specimen. Adjusting for the most important prognostic factors, re‐TUR in the absence of muscle had a borderline significant effect on time to recurrence [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, P = 0.08], progression (HR 0.46, P = 0.06), CSS (HR 0.31, P = 0.07) and OS (HR 0.48, P = 0.05). Re‐TUR in the presence of muscle in the primary TUR specimen did not improve the outcome for any of the endpoints. Conclusions Our retrospective analysis suggests that re‐TUR may not be necessary in patients with T1‐HG/G3, if muscle is present in the specimen of the primary TUR.