Upcoming event

An Algorithm to Personalize Nerve Sparing in Men with Unilateral High-Risk Prostate Cancer

  • Alberto Martini,
  • Timo F. W. Soeterik,
  • Hester Haverdings,
  • Razvan George Rahota,
  • Enrico Checcucci,
  • Sabrina De Cillis,
  • Thomas Hermanns,
  • Christian Daniel Fankhauser,
  • Luca Afferi,
  • Marco Moschini,
  • Agostino Mattei,
  • Claudia Kesch,
  • Isabel Heidegger,
  • Felix Preisser,
  • Fabio Zattoni,
  • Alessandro Marquis,
  • Giancarlo Marra,
  • Paolo Gontero,
  • Alberto Briganti,
  • Francesco Montorsi,
  • Francesco Porpiglia,
  • Jean Paul Van Basten,
  • Roderick C. N. Van den Bergh,
  • Harm H. E. Van Melick,
  • Guillaume Ploussard,
  • Giorgio Gandaglia,
  • Massimo Valerio,
  • On behalf of the Young Academic Urologists Working Group on Prostate Cancer of the European Association of Urology

Publication: Journal of Urology, September 2021

Purpose

Current guidelines do not provide strong recommendations on the preservation of the neurovascular bundles during RP in case of HR PCa and/or suspicious EPE. We aimed to evaluate when, in case of unilateral HR disease, contralateral NS should be considered or not.

Methods

Within a multi-institutional dataset we selected patients with unilateral HR PCa defined as: unilateral EPE and/or SVI on mpMRI or unilateral ISUP 4-5 or PSA ≥20 ng/ml. To evaluate when to perform NS based on the risk of contralateral EPE, we relied on CHAID, a recursive machine learning partitioning algorithm developed to identify risk groups, which was fit to predict the presence of EPE on final pathology, contralaterally to the prostate lobe with HR disease.

Results

705 patients were identified. Contralateral EPE was documented in 87 (12%) patients. The CHAID identified three groups: i) absence of SVI on mpMRI and index lesion’s diameter ≤15 mm; ii) index lesion’s diameter ≤15 mm and contralateral ISUP 2-3 or index lesion’s diameter >15 mm and negative contralateral biopsy or ISUP 1 iii) SVI on mpMRI or index lesion’s diameter >15 mm and contralateral biopsy ISUP 2-3. We named those groups as low- intermediate- and high-risk for contralateral EPE. The rate of EPE and PSMs across the groups were: 4.8%, 14%, 26% and 5.6%, 13%, 18%, respectively.

Conclusions

Our study challenges current guidelines by proving that wide bilateral excision in men with unilateral HR disease is not justified. Pending external validation, we propose performing NS and incremental NS in case of contralateral low- and intermediate EPE risk, respectively.