Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Oct;25(10):3416-20.
doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfq193. Epub 2010 Apr 12.

Management of localized prostate cancer by retropubic radical prostatectomy in patients after renal transplantation

Affiliations

Management of localized prostate cancer by retropubic radical prostatectomy in patients after renal transplantation

M Raschid Hoda et al. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010 Oct.

Abstract

Background: The study aimed to report our experience with retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) for treatment of localized prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients (RTR).

Methods: Data of 16 RTR who had an RRP between 2001 and 2007 were retrospectively analysed and compared to the data of 294 non-transplanted patients who were operated for RRP during the same period. Diagnostic work-up consisted of digital rectal examination, serum prostate specific antigene levels, as well as Transrectal Ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. Follow-up was obtained in all patients with a mean follow-up time of 2.1 years in RTR.

Results: Mean time distance to the renal transplantation at the time of RRP was 81.2 ± 19.1 months. RRP was successfully performed and tolerated in all RTR without pelvic lymph node dissection. No major complications occurred during or after the operation. There were two minor complications in transplant group (prolonged haematuria and urinary leakage). Mean operative time was 108.3 ± 3.9 min in transplant group, which was significantly longer as in non-transplanted group (89.1 ± 4.1, P < 0.05). Mean estimated intra-operative blood loss was significantly lower in transplant group (P < 0.05). In RTR, one case of positive surgical margins was present (R(1): 6.2 vs. 12.3% in non-transplanted group, P < 0.05). None of the RTR had impairment of graft function. At follow-up, no case of biochemical recurrence was observed in RTR.

Conclusions: RRP is safe and feasible for management of localized prostate cancer in patients with kidney allograft being under immunosuppression. However, concern about impairment of graft function, infection and wound healing remains important.

PubMed Disclaimer