Furrer Marc A, Sathianathen Niranjan, Gahl Brigitta, Wuethrich Patrick Y, Giannarini Gianluca, Corcoran Niall M, Thalmann George N
Department of Urology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Department of Urology, Solothurner Spitäler AG, Kantonsspital Olten, 4600 Olten, Switzerland.
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Dec 14;15(24):5839. doi: 10.3390/cancers15245839.
Nerve sparing (NS) is a surgical technique to optimize functional outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). However, it is not recommended in high risk (HR) cases because of the risk of a positive surgical margin that may increase the risk of cancer recurrence. In the last two decades there has been a change of perspective to the effect that in well-selected cases NS could be an oncologically safe option with better functional outcomes. Therefore, we aim to compare the functional outcomes and oncological safety of NS during RP in men with HR disease. A total of 1340 patients were included in this analysis, of which 12% ( = 158) underwent non-NSRP and 39% ( = 516) and 50% ( = 666) uni- and bilateral NSRP, respectively. We calculated a propensity score and used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to balance the baseline characteristics of Pca patients undergoing non-NSRP and those having uni- and bilateral NSRP, respectively. NS improved functional outcomes; after IPTW, only 3% of patients having non-NSRP reached complete erectile function recovery (without erectile aid) at 24 months, whereas 22% reached erectile function recovery (with erectile aid), while 87% were continent. Unilateral NS increased the probability of functional recovery in all outcomes (OR 1.1 or 1.2, respectively), bilateral NS slightly more so (OR 1.1 to 1.4). NSRP did not impact the risk of any recurrence (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.73-1.34, = 0.09), and there was no difference in survival for men who underwent NSRP (HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.39-1.08). There was no difference in cancer-specific survival (0.56, 95%CI 0.29-1.11). Our study found that NSRP significantly improved functional outcomes and can be safely performed in carefully selected patients with HR-PCa without compromising long term oncological outcomes.
保留神经(NS)是一种优化根治性前列腺切除术(RP)功能结局的手术技术。然而,由于手术切缘阳性的风险可能会增加癌症复发的风险,因此不建议在高危(HR)病例中使用。在过去的二十年中,人们的观点发生了变化,即在精心挑选的病例中,保留神经可能是一种肿瘤学上安全的选择,且功能结局更好。因此,我们旨在比较HR疾病男性患者在RP期间保留神经的功能结局和肿瘤学安全性。本分析共纳入1340例患者,其中12%(=158)接受了非保留神经的RP,39%(=516)和50%(=666)分别接受了单侧和双侧保留神经的RP。我们计算了倾向评分,并使用治疗权重的逆概率(IPTW)来平衡接受非保留神经RP的前列腺癌患者与接受单侧和双侧保留神经RP的患者的基线特征。保留神经改善了功能结局;在IPTW后,接受非保留神经RP的患者中只有3%在24个月时达到完全勃起功能恢复(无需勃起辅助),而22%达到勃起功能恢复(需要勃起辅助),同时87%的患者控尿良好。单侧保留神经增加了所有结局中功能恢复的概率(分别为OR 1.1或1.2),双侧保留神经的作用稍大(OR 1.1至1.4)。保留神经的RP不影响任何复发风险(HR 0.99,95%CI 0.73-1.34,P=0.09),接受保留神经RP的男性患者的生存率也没有差异(HR 0.65,95%CI 0.39-1.08)。癌症特异性生存率没有差异(0.56,95%CI 0.29-1.11)。我们的研究发现,保留神经的RP显著改善了功能结局,并且可以在精心挑选的HR-PCa患者中安全进行,而不会影响长期肿瘤学结局。