Background: Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a novel technique to treat localized prostate cancer with the aim of achieving oncological control while reducing related side effects. We present the outcomes of localized prostate cancer treated with IRE from a multi-center prospective registry. Methods: Men with histologically confirmed prostate cancer were recruited to receive IRE. All the patients were proposed for prostate biopsy at 1-year post-IRE ablation. The functional outcomes were measured by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaires. The safety of IRE was graded by the treatment-related adverse events (AEs) according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Results: 411 patients were recruited in this study from July 2015 to April 2020. The median follow-up time was 24 months (IQR 15–36). 116 patients underwent repeat prostate biopsy during 12–18 months after IRE. Clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4) was detected in 24.1% (28/116) of the patients; any grade prostate cancers were found in 59.5% (69/116) of the patients. The IPSS score increased significantly from 7.1 to 8.2 (p = 0.015) at 3 months but decreased to 6.1 at 6 months (p = 0.017). Afterwards, the IPSS level remained stable during follow-up. The IIEF-5 score decreased at 3 months from 16.0 to 12.1 (p < 0.001) and then maintained equable afterwards. The rate of AEs was 1.8% at 3 months and then dropped to less than 1% at 6 months and remained stable until 48 months after IRE. Major AEs (Grade 3 or above) were rare. Conclusion: For men with localized prostate cancer, IRE could achieve good urinary and sexual function outcomes and a reasonable oncological result. The real-world data are consistent with earlier studies, including recently published randomized controlled studies. The long-term oncological results need further investigation and follow-up.

Zhang K, et al. World J Mens Health. 2024 Jul;42:e65. https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.240012

The robot-assisted laparoscopic management of post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal metastasis and inferior vena cava tumor thrombus secondary to testicular cancer is a challenging task for urologists. A pathological examination of a 36-year-old Caucasian man who had undergone a right radical orchiectomy showed mixed testicular germ cell cancer (70% embryonal cancer and 30% seminoma); he had undergone four prior courses of cisplatin, etoposide, and bleomycin chemotherapy and was found to have residual retroperitoneal enlarged lymph nodes close to the right renal hilum and a 9.8 cm inferior vena cava tumor thrombus (pT1, N2, M1, S2). Pre-surgical three-dimensional image reconstruction was performed based on contrast computed tomography data. The inferior vena cava tumor thrombus was found in the vena cava at the level of the celiac trunk and the inferior mesenteric artery. Our patient accepted treatment with robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection with concomitant inferior vena cava thrombectomy and cava reconstruction on September 12, 2018. During the procedure, a drop-in robotic ultrasound probe was used to define the thrombus. Vena cavoscopy using a flexible ureteroscope found that the tumor thrombus adhered to the cava wall in all directions. The tumor thrombus was dissected free from the inferior vena cava lumen, and vena cava reconstruction was achieved using the da Vinci™ Si HD surgical system. The operative time was 550 minutes. The intraoperative estimated blood loss was 2300 ml. Intraoperative blood transfusions consisted of 10 units of red blood cells (Clavien-Dindo grade II). No Clavien-Dindo grade III or above perioperative complications occurred. The length of hospital stay was 7 days. Pathology revealed no viable cancer cells in any of the residual lymph node tissues or in the vena cava tumor thrombus. This is the first case of robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection with concomitant inferior vena cava thrombectomy and reconstruction for metastatic mixed testicular germ cell cancer published to date. This complicated surgical procedure was facilitated by the innovative usage of three-dimensional image reconstruction for defining the vena cava tumor thrombus, a robotic ultrasound probe for intraoperatively defining the vena cava tumor thrombus, and vena cavoscopy using a flexible ureteroscope.

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) targeted prostate biopsy increases the diagnostic accuracy of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). Currently there is no consensus on which type of MRI-targeted biopsy performs better in a given setting. In this study, we aimed to compare the detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa by MRI cognitive targeted biopsy (COG) and in-bore MRI-targeted biopsy (IB) techniques for naïve prostate biopsy patients in China. Methods: Our study included 85 men from Beijing United Family Hospital and Clinics and 88 men from Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology. All men had no history of prostate biopsy, undergoing mpMRI scan due to elevated PSA and/or abnormal DRE. The men in Beijing United Family Hospital group received COG plus systematic biopsy. The men in Beijing Hospital group only received IB. Results: The median age in COG and IB group was 63.0 years and 70.0 years (P<0.01). The median PSA was 7.4 and 6.8 ng/mL in COG and IB group respectively (P=0.124). The detection rate of PCa was 36.5% by COG and 52.3% by IB (P=0.037). The detection rate of clinically significant PCa (Gleason score ≥7) was 23.5% and 29.5% by COG and IB (P=0.371) respectively. In COG group, combination biopsy (COG + systematic biopsy) achieved improved PCa (42.4%) and clinically significant PCa (28.2%) detection rate compared with COG alone. However, there was no difference in overall PCa and clinically significant PCa detection between combination biopsy and IB. Conclusions: IB had a higher rate of overall PCa detection compared with COG, but the two approaches did not differ significantly in the detection of clinically significant PCa. There was no significant difference in detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa between the combination biopsy and IB.