No abstract

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy (AR) or salvage radiotherapy (SR) after prostatectomy is still unclear. We wanted to compare both types of radiotherapy after prostatectomy in terms of oncological and functional results. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We included 173 patients treated at a single center between January 2005 and December 2008. All patients were treated with the same radiotherapy protocol (3D conformal radiotherapy accelerator 6 mV, 66 GY). AR was defined as radiotherapy initiated in a patient with a PSA level &#x3c;0.2 ng/mL after prostatectomy otherwise it was defined as SR. No patients received neoadjuvant therapy prior to prostatectomy (whether hormone therapy or chemotherapy). Patients in the SR group had a PSA level ≥0.2 ng/mL during the treatment in accordance with the Phoenix criteria. The lymph nodes were irradiated if the patient had no lymph node dissection and if the risk of nodal involvement was &#x3e;10%. Both groups were compared in terms of biological progression-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival (OS) using log-rank tests. Moreover, acute and late urinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were also compared. <b><i>Results:</i></b> One hundred and fifty-seven patients underwent an open retropubic prostatectomy whereas 16 underwent a laparoscopy (6 subperitoneal and 10 transperitoneal). Eighty-six patients had AR with a median time of 6.7 months after surgery and 87 had SR with a median time of 21.4 months after surgery. Median follow-up was 6.7 years. Metastasis-free survival (MFS) was better in the AR than in the SR group (<i>p</i> = 0.01, 6-year MFS 95 and 89%, respectively). OS was also better in the AR than in the SR group (<i>p</i> = 0.02, 6-year OS 100 vs. 95%, respectively). AR was associated with better survival with no biochemical recurrence (85 vs. 63%, <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.00001). There was no significant difference between groups for acute or late urinary or gastrointestinal toxicity. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Our study suggests that patients treated by AR have better results in terms of OS, disease-specific survival, survival without metastatic recurrence, and survival without biochemical recurrence compared with SR. Toxicity was comparable between both groups.

OBJECTIVES To compare results of prostate laser photovaporization (PVP) by age groups to evaluate morbidity and functional results. Then, to specifically analyze surgical data for patients with an indwelling bladder catheter. DESIGN Monocentric retrospective study of a prospective maintained database of all laser PVPs performed at our university hospital between December 2012 and June 2017. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS A total of 305 patients (three groups: younger than 70, 70‐80, and older than 80 years) were operated on in our hospital center for the treatment of urinary tract disorders related to benign prostatic hyperplasia. RESULTS A difference was found between the three age groups, with a higher rate of complications for patients older than 80 years (45%) (P = .013). Rate of patients with postoperative bladder catheters at 1 year was higher for patients older than 80 years (15%) (P = .004). Postoperative quality‐of‐life (QoL) score was worse for patients older than 80 years (P = .04). For patients with an indwelling bladder catheter undergoing surgery, morbidity was greater in patients older than 80 years, but the difference was not significant. International Prostate Symptom Score and QoL score were not significantly different between the three groups. Rate of patients with a remaining bladder catheter at 1 year was higher for patients older than 80 years (17.1% vs 7.1% for patients between 70 and 80, and 4.8% for patients under 70.) but with no statistical difference. CONCLUSION PVP had a greater morbidity in octogenarians compared to younger subjects. Functional results were less satisfactory for patients older than 80 years compared to younger ones. For subjects operated on with an indwelling bladder catheter, no significant difference in outcome and morbidity was found between the three groups. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1888–1894, 2019

No abstract

No abstract