Search

Given the demographic trends toward a considerably longer life expectancy, the percentage of elderly patients with prostate cancer will increase further in the upcoming decades. Therefore, the question arises, should patients ≥75 years old be offered radical prostatectomy and under which circumstances? For treatment decision-making, life expectancy is more important than biological age. As a result, a patient's health and mental status has to be determined and radical treatment should only be offered to those who are fit. As perioperative morbidity and mortality in these patients is increased relative to younger patients, patient selection according to comorbidities is a key issue that needs to be addressed. It is known from the literature that elderly men show notably worse tumor characteristics, leading to worse oncologic outcomes after treatment. Moreover, elderly patients also demonstrate worse postoperative recovery of continence and erectile function. As the absolute rates of both oncological and functional outcomes are still very reasonable in patients ≥75 years, a radical prostatectomy can be offered to highly selected and healthy elderly patients. Nevertheless, patients clearly need to be informed about the worse outcomes and higher perioperative risks compared to younger patients.

Objective: To test for differences in recovery of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) between patients with storage‐positive vs ‐negative symptoms after laser enucleation of the prostate (LEP). Patients and methods: Consecutive storage‐positive (severe storage symptoms, International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS] storage subscore >8) vs storage‐negative patients treated with LEP (November 2017–September 2022) within our tertiary‐care database were identified. Mixed linear models tested for changes in IPSS and quality of life (QoL) at 1, 3 and 12 months after LEP. Multiple linear regression models tested for LUTS and QoL recovery risk factors at 1, 3 and 12 months. Results: Of 291 study patients, 180 (62%) had storage‐positive symptoms. There were no differences between storage‐positive and ‐negative patients in mean adjusted total IPSS, IPSS‐storage, IPSS‐voiding and QoL at 12 months after LEP. In multiple linear regression models, storage‐positive status was identified as a risk factor for higher IPSS at 1 month (β coefficient 2.98, P = 0.004) and 3 months (β coefficient 2.24, P = 0.04), as well as for more unfavourable QoL at 1 month (β coefficient 0.74, P = 0.006) and 3 months (β coefficient 0.73, P = 0.004) after LEP. Conversely, at 12 months there were no differences between storage‐positive vs ‐negative patients. Conclusion: Storage‐positive patients appear to experience similar long‐term benefits from LEP compared to storage‐negative patients. However, significant storage symptoms are associated with higher total IPSS and less favourable QoL at 1 and 3 months after LEP. These findings advocate for the consideration of LEP also in storage‐positive cases with the need for thorough patient education especially in the initial post‐LEP period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: Stevens‐Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) are rare, predominantly drug‐induced, acute life‐threatening diseases of skin and mucosae. SJS and TEN are nowadays considered as variants of one disease entity with varying degrees of severity called epidermal necrolysis (EN). EN is associated with high morbidity and mortality and constitutes a major disease burden for affected patients. The guideline "Diagnosis and treatment of epidermal necrolysis (Stevens‐Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis)" was developed under systematic consideration of existing scientific literature and in a formal consensus process according to regulations issued by the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) to establish an evidence‐based framework to support clinical decision‐making. The interdisciplinary guideline commission consisted of representatives from various specialist societies and of patient representatives. The guideline is aimed at specialists in the fields of dermatology, ophthalmology, plastic surgery, intensive care, and pediatrics in hospitals and offices, as well as other medical specialties involved in the diagnosis and treatment of EN. The guideline is also aimed at patients, their relatives, insurance funds, and policymakers. The second part is concerned with the topics of supportive therapy in the acute phase of EN and outpatient follow‐up treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The prognostic value of lymphovascular or perineural invasion in prostate cancer specimens regarding oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy is unclear. Within a contemporary study cohort of 822 prostate cancer patients, 78 (9%) exhibited lymphovascular invasion and 633 (77%) exhibited perineural invasion in RP specimens. In univariable Cox regression models, lymphovascular invasion and perineural invasion were both associated with higher rates of biochemical recurrence (BCR). However, after multivariable adjustment for standard pathologic tumor characteristics, lymphovascular or perineural invasion was not found to be an independent predictor for BCR. These phenomes may be explained by the strong association between the Gleason Grade Group and pathologic tumor stage with lymphovascular as well as perineural invasion. Objective: The aim of this study was to test for the association between lymphovascular invasion or perineural invasion in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Methods: Relying on a tertiary-care database, we identified prostate cancer patients treated with RP between January 2014 and June 2023. Of these, the majority underwent robotic-assisted RP (81%). Kaplan–Meier survival analyses and Cox regression models addressed BCR according to either lymphovascular invasion or perineural invasion in RP specimens. Additionally, the linear trend test assessed the association between the Gleason Grade Group or pathologic tumor stage and lymphovascular or perineural invasion. Results: Of 822 patients, 78 (9%) exhibited lymphovascular invasion and 633 (77%) exhibited perineural invasion in RP specimens. In survival analyses, the five-year BCR-free survival rates were 62% in patients with lymphovascular invasion vs. 70% in patients without lymphovascular invasion (p = 0.04) and 64% in patients with perineural invasion vs. 82% in patients without perineural invasion (p = 0.01). In univariable Cox regression models, lymphovascular invasion (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.01–2.47; p = 0.045) and perineural invasion (hazard ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.13–2.77; p = 0.013) were both associated with a higher BCR rate. After accounting for age at surgery, PSA value, pathologic tumor stage, Gleason Grade Group, lymph node invasion, positive surgical margin, surgical approach, and adjuvant radiation therapy, lymphovascular (p = 0.740) or perineural invasion (p = 0.341) were not significantly associated with a higher BCR since the Gleason Grade Group and pathologic tumor stage highly correlated with lymphovascular as well as perineural invasion. Conclusions: In univariable models, lymphovascular or perineural invasion is associated with BCR. After adjustment for standard pathologic tumor characteristics, lymphovascular or perineural invasion is not an independent predictor for BCR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The current real-world study suggests that important differences exist in patients progressing to mCRPC. Specifically, we found that a proportion of over 20% of patients progress without a PSA level rise, emphasizing the importance of regular staging intervals. Moreover, we found that patients with worse PSA responses are at higher risk for biochemical progression, emphasizing the need for regular PSA check-ups and kinetic measurements. However, no differences in PFS and OS outcomes between these patients were observed. Finally, staging with PSMA-PET/CT might provide better PFS and OS, relative to conventionally staged mCRPC patients. However, this observation may be substantially influenced by the detection of earlier disease progression and the possibility of treatment in patients with a lower metastatic burden, as well as more contemporary patients with better treatment options. Background/Objectives: Progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is defined either biochemically, radiographically or both. Moreover, staging for mCRPC can be performed either conventionally or with molecular imaging such as prostate-specific membrane antigen computer tomography (PSMA-PET/CT). Methods: We relied on the Frankfurt Metastatic Cancer Database of the Prostate (FRAMCAP) database to compare progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes regarding the cause of castration resistance and the staging modality used. Results: Overall, 35% progressed to mCRPC biochemically vs. 23% radiographically vs. 42% biochemically + radiographically. The PSA nadir in mHSPC (1.4 vs. 0.4 vs. 0.8 ng/mL) and PSA level at mCRPC progression (15 vs. 2 vs. 21 ng/mL, both p ≤ 0.01) were significantly higher for biochemical vs. radiographic vs. both progressed patients. In PFS and OS analyses, no significant differences were observed among all three compared groups. In the comparison of the staging used for progression to mCRPC, 67% received conventional vs. 33% PSMA-PET/CT, with higher metastatic burden in mHSPC and osseous lesions in mCRPC for conventionally staged patients (both p < 0.01). In PFS (15.3 vs. 10.1 months, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75) and OS analyses (52.6 vs. 34.3 months, HR: 0.61, both p < 0.05), PSMA-PET/CT harbored better prognosis; however, this did not hold after multivariable adjustment. Similar results were observed for further analyses in second- and third-line mCRPC or patients with a PSA level of ≥2 ng/mL. Conclusions: The cause of progression to mCRPC seems not to influence cancer-control outcomes, despite important baseline tumor characteristic differences. The PSMA-PET/CT staging modality might be associated with better PFS and OS outcomes, possibly due to its more sensitive detection of progression or new metastatic lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: Stevens‐Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) are rare, predominantly drug‐induced, acute, life‐threatening diseases of skin and mucosae. SJS and TEN are nowadays considered variants of one disease entity with varying degrees of severity called epidermal necrolysis (EN). EN is associated with high morbidity and mortality and constitutes a major disease burden for affected patients. The guideline "Diagnosis and treatment of epidermal necrolysis (Stevens‐Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis)" was developed under systematic consideration of existing scientific literature and in a formal consensus process according to regulations issued by the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) to establish an evidence‐based framework to support clinical decision‐making. The interdisciplinary guideline commission consisted of representatives from various specialist societies and patient representatives. The guideline is aimed at specialists in the fields of dermatology, ophthalmology, plastic surgery, intensive care, and pediatrics in hospitals and offices, as well as other medical speciallved in the diagnosis and treatment of EN. The guideline is also aimed at patients, their relatives, insurance funds, and policymakers. This first part focuses on the diagnostic aspects, the initial management as well as the immunomodulating systemic therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]