Presentations at the AUA annual meeting (on May 4 to 8): Part IV


Here is information about a fourth batch of abstracts of presentations to be given at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA). You can search these yourself if you go to this link. The meeting will be taking place in San Diego this year.

For many presentations (as previously mentioned) we shall simply be providing the abstract number, the name of the first author, the title of the paper, and any key point that the study may make. Unfortunately, you will then need to find the actual abstract yourself if you want to read it because the AUA web site does not permit us to give links directly to individual abstracts.

  • Mcleod L., et al. Low density lipoprotein (LDL) level but not statin use is associated with recurrence of prostate cancer after primary treatment (abstract no. 350). Key point: In this retrospective analysis of data from 1,734 men treated between 2001 and 2010, elevated LDL levels, but not statin use, was associated with recurrence of prostate cancer after primary treatment, suggesting an LDL-mediated process. However, the association was not apparent among men who were obese.
  • Punnen S., et al. How does patient age really affect quality of life outcomes after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer? (abstract no. 352). Key point: According to this analysis of data from 2,000+ patients in the CaPSURE database, even though younger patients have higher sexual function scores after surgery, they have more to lose and may undergo larger declines then older patients.
  • Jeong B., et al. Obesity and long-term survivals after radical prostatectomy in a single tertiary referral center (abstract no. 354). Key point: According to these data from the 30-year Johns Hopkins database, obesity is an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence-free and overall survival after radical prostatectomy, and moderately and severely obese patients have much higher recurrence rates than normal patients in long-term follow-up (at a median of 8 years).
  • Becker A., et al. Risk factors for biochemical recurrence- and clinical metastasis-free survival in D’Amico high-risk patients after radical prostatectomy (abstract no. 356). Key point: Based on data from 2,000+ high-risk patients treated at one German center, prognosis after radical prostatectomy is not uniformly poor for such men, and complete surgical resection and biochemical recurrence-free and metastasis-free survival can be achieved, particularly for patients with only one positive D’Amico risk factor.
  • Stroup S., et al. Radical prostatectomy and the effect of close surgical margins: Analysis from the SEARCH database (abstract no.  357). Key point: The authors define “close” surgical margins (as distinct from positive or negative surgical margins) as margins for which tumor is ≤ 1 mm from the surgical margin or by pathologic description from reports and comment on their clinical significance (but see abstract 369 below).
  • Thomas A., et al. Quality of life outcomes in men undergoing treatment of localized prostate cancer: initial results from the Kaiser Permanente Southern California region (abstract no. 361). Key point: The authors describe a new, 4,000+ patient quality of life study and offer some very early (and unsurprising) data on quality of life outcomes after surgery and radiation therapy.
  • Roghmann F., et al. The impact of multiple biopsies on erectile and voiding function after radical prostatectomy: a population-based assessment (abstract no. 363). Key point: According to this study of data from 7,700+ patients, those who have multiple biopsies prior to surgery may have a slightly higher risk for erectile and urinary dysfunction post-treatment.
  • Hampson L., et al. Impact of treatment and age on quality of life in men undergoing treatment for prostate cancer (abstract no. 364). Key point: Based on data from the CaPSURE database, the authors show that changes in quality of life after treatment vary by age and treatment type; that increasing age is related to quality of life outcomes at 2 years after treatment for some measures; and that older patients do not necessarily experience the largest declines in quality of life in all areas.
  • Mir M., et al. Optimal definition of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) depends on pathological risk factors (abstract no. 368). Key point: The authors present data from the Cleveland Clinic suggesting that: for patients with unfavorable pathology, any detectable PSA ≥ 0.03 ng/ml is associated with a high probability of PSA progression and is a reliable indicator of recurrent prostate cancer; for patients with favorable pathology, a more stringent definition requiring successive PSA measurements above a given threshold should be used; and that these findings have important implications for patient selection and timing of secondary therapy after radical prostatectomy.
  • Berg W., et al. Close surgical margins approximate positive margins in rates of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy (abstract no. 369). Key point: Patients found to have a “close” surgical margin at time of radical prostatectomy have similar outcomes to those with pathologic positive margins (but see abstract no. 357 above).
  • Helfand B., et al. Perineural invasion is a risk factor for upgrading on repeat biopsy in men enrolled in active surveillance (abstract no. 375). Key point: According to this study, perineural invasion is indeed an independent risk factor for upgrading on subsequent biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance (and roughly doubles the likelihood of subsequent upgrading).
  • Pollard M., et al. Are all D’Amico intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients equal? Heterogeneity of intermediate-risk patients by Gleason score (abstract no. 376). Key point: The authors use data from a 2,000+ patient database to show that there is significant heterogeneity in pathologic outcomes and biochemical recurrence-free survival among intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients basd on their Gleason scores (3 + 3 = 6 vs. 3 + 4 = 7 vs. 4 + 3 = 7).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: