(1) Background: Secondary lymphedema is a chronic, progressive, and debilitating condition with an important impact on quality of life. Lymphedema is a frequently reported complication in oncological surgery but has not been systematically studied in the setting of prostate cancer. (2) Methods: Pubmed/MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched to identify articles reporting on lower limb or genital lymphedema after primary treatment (surgery of radiation therapy) of the prostate and the pelvic lymph nodes in men with prostate cancer. Primary outcome was the prevalence of lower limb and genital lymphedema. (3) Results: Eighteen articles were eligible for qualitative synthesis. Risk of bias was high in all included studies, with only one study providing a prespecified definition of secondary lymphedema. Eleven studies report the prevalence of lower limb (0–14%) and genital (0–1%) lymphedema after radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) Seven studies report a low prevalence of lower limb (0–9%) and genital (0–8%) lymphedema after irradiation of the pelvic lymph nodes. However, in the patient subgroups that underwent pelvic irradiation after staging pelvic lymph node dissections, the prevalence of lower limb (18–29%) and genital (2–22%) lymphedema is substantially elevated. (4) Conclusion: Prostate cancer patients undergoing surgery or irradiation of the pelvic lymph nodes are at risk of developing secondary lymphedema in the lower limbs and the genital region. Patients receiving pelvic radiation after pelvic lymph node dissection have the highest prevalence of lymphedema. The lack of a uniform definition and standardized diagnostic criteria for lower limb and genital lymphedema hampers the accurate estimation of their true prevalence. Future clinicals trials are needed to specifically evaluate secondary lymphedema in patients undergoing prostate cancer treatments, to identify potential risk factors and to determine the impact on quality of life.

Background: Patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer generally have good long‐term survival rates. However, late recurrences can occur and require lifelong follow‐up.Objective: This research aims to investigate different stakeholders' perceptions on the use of mobile health (mHealth) applications for prostate cancer follow‐up after radical prostatectomy.Methods: A cross‐sectional qualitative study was conducted to explore stakeholders' perceptions of an mHealth application for follow‐up after radical prostatectomy. Urologists, nurses, and patients treated with radical prostatectomy were interviewed, and data were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis according to Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven. Recommended features for an ideal mHealth application were grouped according to the Persuasive Systems Design model.Results and Limitations: A total of 30 stakeholders, consisting of nurse specialists (n = 7), urologists (n = 8), and patients (n = 15), were interviewed. Expected benefits and barriers were mentioned and grouped in five overarching themes: healthcare optimisation, disease management, app compliance, legal and organisational requirements, and patient–mHealth interaction. Stakeholders provided a multitude of suggestions for an ideal mHealth app. Yet, not all types of stakeholders were interviewed, and patient selection limited generalisability of findings.Conclusions: Stakeholders indicate that an mHealth app in the care for post‐prostatectomy patients can improve patient care and promote disease management but consider app compliance as a major challenge.Patient Summary: We interviewed patients, nurses, and urologists about using an mHealth application for follow‐up after radical prostatectomy. The participants agreed that an mHealth app could improve care optimisation and disease management, but some concerns and barriers were expressed. This resulted in a list of recommended features for an ideal app.

Objectives: Lymphedema of the lower limbs and pubic area is a potential complication following extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). The incidence of lymphedema after ePLND has not been systematically reported in the literature. This study aimed to determine the incidence of lymphedema, describe its clinical characteristics and identify specific risk factors in patients undergoing RARP with or without ePLND.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary referral centre between April 2016 and July 2020. Structured electronic case report forms (eCRFs) integrated into the electronic health record system were used to document intraoperative, perioperative and postoperative data. The primary endpoint was the incidence of lymphedema. Secondary endpoints included risk factors for and localization of the postoperative lymphedema.Results: A total of 500 patients who underwent RARP were included, with 301 patients undergoing ePLND and 199 patients without any form of PLND. Median follow‐up period was 18 (range 3–49) months. Seventy‐eight out of 301 (26%) of patients who underwent ePLND developed lymphedema, compared to only 2 out of 199 (1%) patients without ePLND. In most patients (49/301, 16%), lymphedema was mild (grade 1), whereas 29 patients (10%) developed grade 2 lymphedema. Twenty‐six patients (9%) received decongestive lymphatic therapy. The most frequent site of lymphedema occurrence were the lower (54%) and the upper legs (40%). The number of nodes removed during RARP was identified as a risk factor for post‐operative lymphedema (OR 1.04; p < 0.05).Conclusions: In this cohort study, approximately one in four patients undergoing RARP with ePLND developed lower limb and/or midline oedema, whereas one in ten patients started decongestive lymphatic therapy for symptomatic lymphedema. These findings provide valuable information for patient counselling about the potential benefits and risks of ePLND.