Objective: To compare the mid-term outcomes of photoselective vaporization of prostate (PVP) with GreenLight HPS 120 W laser and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for obstructive lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with prostate cancer (CaP). Patients and Methods: Seventy four patients with locally advanced (T3/T4) CaP with severe LUTS or acute urinary retention (AUR) were allocated to TURP (n = 36) or PVP (n = 38). International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS), maximum flow rates (Qmax) and post-void residual volumes (Vres), PSA levels, prostate volumes, complications, catheter removal and hospitalization periods were recorded. Patients were reassessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: The catheter removal time was significantly longer in the TURP group (3.8 ± 1.1 vs. 1.2 ± 0.7 days, p = 0.02), whereas failure of initial voiding trial was higher in PVP (2.7 vs. 13.1%, p = 0.01). No significant difference in IPSS, Qmax and Vres values was observed within the follow-up period between two groups. A significant difference in urethral stricture rate (8.3 vs. 0%), catheter removal time (3.8 ± 11 vs. 1.2 ± 0.7 days) and hospital stay (2.9 ± 0.6 vs. 1.1 ± 0.5 days) was observed in favor of PVP. Conclusions: Palliative PVP is very safe and effective by means of symptomatic relief in patients with locally advanced CaP.

Keywords:
Photoselective vaporization of prostate, Transurethral resection of the prostate, Prostate cancer, Bladder outlet obstruction, Urinary retention
1.
Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, et al: Cancer statistics, 2000. CA Cancer J Clin 2000;50:7-33.
2.
Moul JW, Davis R, Vaccaro JA, et al: Acute urinary retention associated with prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 1989;141:1375-1377.
3.
Oefelein MG: Prognostic significance of obstructive uropathy in advanced prostate cancer. Urology 2004;63:1117-1121.
4.
Clarke NW: The management of hormone-relapsed prostate cancer. BJU Int 2003;92:860-868.
5.
Mazur AW, Thompson IM: Efficacy and morbidity of ‘channel' TURP. Urology 1991;38:526-528.
6.
Crain DS, Amling CL, Kane CJ: Palliative transurethral prostate resection for bladder outlet obstruction in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;171(2 Pt 1):668-671.
7.
Liberale F, Muir GH, Walsh K, et al: GreenLight laser prostatectomy: a safe and effective treatment for bladder outlet obstruction by prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011;107:772-776.
8.
Jin C, Xu YM, Fu Q, et al: Photoselective laser vaporization of the prostate in the treatment of bladder outlet obstruction in advanced-stage prostate cancer: a single-center experience. J Endourol 2012;26:1314-1318.
9.
International Consensus Committee 1993: Recommendations of the International Consensus Committee 1993; in Cockett ATK, Khoury S, Aso Y, et al (eds): Proceedings of the 2nd International Consultation on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH). Jersey, Channel Islands, Scientific Communication International, 1993, pp 556-564.
10.
Abrams PH, Dunn M, George N: Urodynamic findings in chronic retention of urine and their relevance to results of surgery. Br Med J 1978;2:1258-1260.
11.
Malek RS, Kang HW, Coad JE, et al: GreenLight photoselective 120-watt 532-nm lithium triborate laser vaporization prostatectomy in living canines. J Endourol 2009;23:837-845.
12.
Esper P, Redman BG: Supportive care, pain management, and quality of life in advanced prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am 1999;26:375-389.
13.
Pergament ML, Swaim WR, Blackard CE: Disseminated intravascular coagulation in the urological patient. J Urol 1976;116:1-7.
14.
Khafagy R, Shackley D, Samuel J, et al: Complications arising in the final year of life in men dying from advanced prostate cancer. J Palliat Med 2007;10:705-711.
15.
Fleischmann JD, Catalona WJ: Endocrine therapy for bladder outlet obstruction from carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1985;134:498-500.
16.
Chang CC, Kuo JY, Chen KK, et al: Transurethral prostatic resection for acute urinary retention in patients with prostate cancer. J Chin Med Assoc 2006;69:21-25.
17.
Gnanapragasam VJ, Kumar V, Langton D, et al: Outcome of transurethral prostatectomy for the palliative management of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2006;13:711-715.
18.
Horasanli K, Silay MS, Altay B, et al: Photoselective potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for prostates larger than 70 ml: a short-term prospective randomized trial. Urology 2008;71:247-251.
19.
Thangasamy IA, Chalasani V, Bachmann A, et al: Photoselective vaporisation of the prostate using 80-W and 120-W laser versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review with meta-analysis from 2002 to 2012. Eur Urol 2012;62:315-323.
20.
Bouchier-Hayes DM, Van Appledorn S, Bugeja P, et al: A randomized trial of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the 80-W potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser vs. transurethral prostatectomy, with a 1-year follow-up. BJU Int 2010;105:964-969.
21.
Skolarikos A, Papachristou C, Athanasiadis G, et al: Eighteen-month results of a randomized prospective study comparing transurethral photoselective vaporization with transvesical open enucleation for prostatic adenomas greater than 80 cc. J Endourol 2008;22:2333-2340.
22.
Losco G, Mark S, Jowitt S: Transurethral prostate resection for urinary retention: does age affect outcome? ANZ J Surg 2013;83:243-245.
23.
Spaliviero M, Araki M, Wong C: Short-term outcomes of Greenlight HPS laser photoselective vaporization prostatectomy (PVP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). J Endourol 2008;22:2341-2347.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.