Search

Introduction Atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) and high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) are considered precancerous. We aimed to measure the rate of repeat biopsy and adenocarcinoma in patients with ASAP and HGPIN and identify any clinico-pathologic parameters at diagnosis of ASAP/HGPIN that are predictive of adenocarcinoma. Materials and methods Patients with a diagnosis of ASAP/HGPIN with no previous or concomitant cancer were identified. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) changes were monitored. Re-biopsy was at clinician discretion. Results Nineteen were diagnosed with ASAP and 17 with HGPIN. Seven with ASAP (37%) and 6 with HGPIN (35%) underwent re-biopsy. Three (16%) with ASAP and 5 with HGPIN (29%) were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma. The difference in cancer detection rates between ASAP and HGPIN was not significant (p = 0.35). Five (14%) in total required definitive therapy for adenocarcinoma. Twenty-three (64%) did not undergo repeat biopsy. Parameters at diagnosis of HGPIN and ASAP, including PSA, prostate volume and PSA density, were compared between the cancer and non-cancer cohorts with none found to be predictive of adenocarcinoma. Conclusion By monitoring PSA and MRI changes, we managed to spare re-biopsy in two-thirds of patients. Further evaluation is necessary to characterize a surveillance protocol in these populations.

To evaluate if early unclamping (EUC) of the renal pedicle compromises perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (PN). The cohort study includes all robot-assisted PN performed between September 2012 and September 2015 by a single surgeon at the Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK. The systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines identifying studies comparing EUC and standard unclamping (SUC) in either laparoscopic or robot-assisted PN. The Lister cohort prospectively reported 84 cases of robot-assisted PN (SUC = 22, EUC = 62) with a mean age of 58 years (SD = 11). The operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL) and warm ischaemia time (WIT) were 186.5 min (SD = 33.8), 125.5 mls (SD = 188.91) and 16.7 min (SD = 5.6), respectively. The data from the Lister cohort were included in the meta-analysis. The systematic review identified four studies, encompassing 666 cases (313 SUC, 353 EUC), for inclusion in the final analysis. There was a statistically significant difference in WIT in favour of the EUC group [−10.59 min (95% CI −16.58, −4.60)]. Specifically, the reduction in WIT was more pronounced in laparoscopic PN (−15.43 min (95% CI −19.05, −11.81)), when compared with the robotic PN [−5.60 min (95% CI −5.70, −5.50)]. There was no statistical difference in OT [−3.97 min (95% CI −14.22, 6.28)]. EBL was found to be increased in the EUC group [71.39 ml (95% CI −0.78, 143.56)]. There was no statistically significant difference in transfusion rates or complications between the two groups. The EUC technique for robot-assisted PN appears to offer a safe limited period of WIT without compromising perioperative outcomes and morbidity.