Background and objective: It is unknown whether renal transplant receipt (RTR) status can affect perioperative and oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). Our aim was to evaluate oncological and functional outcomes of RTR patients treated with RP for cN0M0 prostate cancer (PCa) via comparison with a no-RTR cohort. Methods: RTR patients who had undergone RP at seven European institutions during 2001–2022 were identified. A multi-institutional cohort of no-RTR patients treated with RP during 2004–2022 served as the comparator group. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:4 was used to match no-RTR patients to the RTR cohort according to age, prostate-specific antigen, and final pathology features. We used Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox, logistic, and Poisson log-linear regression models to test the outcomes of interest. Key findings and limitations: After PSM, we analyzed data for 102 RTR and 408 no-RTR patients. RTR patients experienced higher estimated blood loss (EBL), longer length of hospital stay (LOS) and time to catheter removal, higher postoperative complication rates, and a lower continence recovery rate (all p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, RTR independently predicted unfavorable operative time (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18–1.25), LOS (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32–1.86), EBL (OR 2.24, 95% CI 2.18–2.30), and time to catheter removal (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.68–2.21), but not complications or continence recovery. There were no significant differences for any oncological outcomes (biochemical recurrence, local or systemic progression) between the RTR and no-RTR groups. While no PCa deaths were recorded, the overall mortality rate was significantly higher in the RTR group (17% vs 0.5%, p < 0.001). Conclusions and clinical implications: Although RP is feasible for RTR patients, the procedure poses non-negligible surgical challenges, with longer operative time and LOS and higher EBL, but no major differences in terms of complications and continence recovery. The RTR group had similar oncological outcomes to the no-RTR group but significantly higher overall mortality related to causes other than PCa. Therefore, careful selection for RP is required among candidates with previous RTR. Patient summary: Removal of the prostate for prostate cancer is possible in patients who have had a kidney transplant, and cancer control outcomes are comparable to those for the general population. However, transplant patients have a higher risk of death from causes other than prostate cancer and the prostate surgery is likely to be more challenging.
Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: Outcomes for a Large Contemporary Cohort and a Matched Comparison to Patients Without a Transplant
Marra, Giancarlo;Tappero, Stefano;Marquis, Alessandro;Oderda, Marco;Montorsi, Francesco;Biancone, Luigi;Gontero, Paolo
2024-01-01
Abstract
Background and objective: It is unknown whether renal transplant receipt (RTR) status can affect perioperative and oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). Our aim was to evaluate oncological and functional outcomes of RTR patients treated with RP for cN0M0 prostate cancer (PCa) via comparison with a no-RTR cohort. Methods: RTR patients who had undergone RP at seven European institutions during 2001–2022 were identified. A multi-institutional cohort of no-RTR patients treated with RP during 2004–2022 served as the comparator group. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:4 was used to match no-RTR patients to the RTR cohort according to age, prostate-specific antigen, and final pathology features. We used Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox, logistic, and Poisson log-linear regression models to test the outcomes of interest. Key findings and limitations: After PSM, we analyzed data for 102 RTR and 408 no-RTR patients. RTR patients experienced higher estimated blood loss (EBL), longer length of hospital stay (LOS) and time to catheter removal, higher postoperative complication rates, and a lower continence recovery rate (all p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, RTR independently predicted unfavorable operative time (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18–1.25), LOS (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32–1.86), EBL (OR 2.24, 95% CI 2.18–2.30), and time to catheter removal (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.68–2.21), but not complications or continence recovery. There were no significant differences for any oncological outcomes (biochemical recurrence, local or systemic progression) between the RTR and no-RTR groups. While no PCa deaths were recorded, the overall mortality rate was significantly higher in the RTR group (17% vs 0.5%, p < 0.001). Conclusions and clinical implications: Although RP is feasible for RTR patients, the procedure poses non-negligible surgical challenges, with longer operative time and LOS and higher EBL, but no major differences in terms of complications and continence recovery. The RTR group had similar oncological outcomes to the no-RTR group but significantly higher overall mortality related to causes other than PCa. Therefore, careful selection for RP is required among candidates with previous RTR. Patient summary: Removal of the prostate for prostate cancer is possible in patients who have had a kidney transplant, and cancer control outcomes are comparable to those for the general population. However, transplant patients have a higher risk of death from causes other than prostate cancer and the prostate surgery is likely to be more challenging.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
