Objetivos Evaluar los resultados de la prostatectomía radical asistida por robot (PRAR), y compararlos con los de la cirugía abierta (PRA) y laparoscópica (PRL). El interés no solo radica en los resultados oncológicos y funcionales de la serie, sino en la evaluación de la calidad de vida (QoL), la recuperación postoperatoria y la satisfacción personal de los pacientes con la intervención (PR), fundamentalmente. Métodos Se realizaron 685 PR en nuestro centro entre 2011-2018 (17,8% PRA, 22,2% PRL y 60% PRAR). Los pacientes fueron evaluados prospectivamente mediante seguimiento hasta abril de 2020, y con la realización un cuestionario múltiple a los 12 meses post-PR, que incluía ICIQ-SF, SHIM, IPSS, IQL y preguntas sobre el dolor, la recuperación postoperatoria y la satisfacción del paciente (SP). También se recogieron datos basales y postoperatorios relacionados con el paciente y el tratamiento, y se realizaron regresiones logísticas binomiales para las comparaciones 1 vs. 1 (PRA vs. PRAR y PRL vs. PRAR). Resultados Los pacientes tratados con PRAR tienen en general menos comorbilidades, menos agresividad tumoral, un requerimiento de mayor tiempo operatorio y un número mayor de márgenes quirúrgicos positivos que los pacientes tratados con PRA y PRL. Sin embargo, la PRAR supera a la PRA en: días de estancia hospitalaria (OR: 0,86; IC 95%: 0,80-0,94), disminución de hemoglobina (OR: 0,38; IC 95%: 0,30-0,47), tasas de transfusión (OR: 0,18; IC 95%: 0,09-0,34), complicaciones tempranas (p = 0,001), IQL (OR: 0,82; IC 95%: 0,69-0,98), función eréctil (OR: 0,41; IC 95%: 0,21-0,79), manejo del dolor (OR: 0,82; IC 95%: 0,75-0,89), recuperación postoperatoria (p < 0,001) y elección de un abordaje diferente (OR: 5,55; IC 95%: 3,14-9,80). La PRAR es superior a la PRL en: continencia urinaria (OR: 0,55; IC 95%: 0,37-0,82), IPSS (OR: 0,96; IC 95%: 0,93-0,98), IQL (OR: 0,76; IC 95%: 0,66-0,88), función eréctil (OR: 0,52; IC 95%: 0,29-0,93), recuperación posquirúrgica (p = 0,02 y 0,004), PS (p = 0,005; 0,002; y 0,03) y elección de un abordaje diferente (OR: 7,79; IC 95%: 4,63-13,13). Conclusiones Los hallazgos de nuestro estudio respaldan la efectividad de la PRAR sobre la PRL y/o la PRA de manera global, tanto en factores funcionales, como en la recuperación postoperatoria, la QoL y la PS. Los resultados oncológicos aún deben ser mejorados.

Aims To identify the definition for urinary continence (UC) after radical prostatectomy (RP) which reflects best patients' perception of quality of life (QoL). Methods Continence was prospectively assessed in 634 patients, 12 months after RP using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short-Form (ICIQ-SF) and the number of pads employed in a 24-hour period (pad usage). We used the one-way ANOVA technique with posthoc pairwise comparisons according to Scheffe's method (homogeneous subsets) for assessing the degree of QoL deficit related to urinary incontinence (UI). Results The continence prevalence is 64.4%, 74.1%, 88.3%, and 35.8% using "0 pads," "1 safety pad," "1 pad," and "ICIQ score 0" definitions, respectively. Pad usage is moderately strongly associated with ICIQ 1, 2, and 3 (rho = 0.744, 0.677, and 0.711, respectively; p < 0.001). Concordance between classical UC definitions is acceptable between "0 pads-ICIQ score 0" (K = 0.466), but poor for "1 safety pad" and "1 pad" (K = 0.326 and 0.137, respectively). Patients with "0 pad usage" have better QoL related to urine leakage than patients with "1 safety pad" or "1 pad" (1.41 vs. 2.44 and 3.11, respectively; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences found regarding QoL between patients with ICIQ score 0 and ICIQ score 2 (1.01 vs. 1.63; p = 0.63). Conclusions Pad usage and the ICIQ-SF's answers provide useful information. We propose a combined definition (0 pads and ICIQ score <= 2) as it is the definition with the least impact on daily QoL.

Prostate cancer is a health problem in many Countries worldwide. Understanding the essential function of androgens in the prostate physiology led to the development of hormonal blockade as a therapeutic option in advanced disease, with limited response with time and development of resistance. In this stage, where castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is defined, it is associated with poor prognosis because survival varies between 18 and 24 months. Even with castration levels, tumors are dependent on the functional androgen receptor (AR). In this paper, we analyze pretreatment clinical parameters such as prognostic or progression-predictive biomarkers, castration resistance mechanisms, the development of new technologies for the use of the so called liquid biopsies from biological fluids and the identification of circulating tumor cells as CRPC response and progression biomarkers. Currently ongoing clinical trials are partially oriented to the search of new prognostic and predictive biomarkers, that will enable to open up precision medicine and so to improve oncologicol patient's quality of life with it.

We review the role of immunotherapy in castration resistant prostate cancer. Two immunotherapeutic strategies have been applied, isolated or in combination, either with each other or with other agents with demonstrated efficacy in this scenario that would play a role as immunomodulators: vaccines or monoclonal antibodies aimed to block immune response checkpoint inhibitors. Although CRPC presents, a priori, characteristics suggesting that immunotherapy may play a relevant role as a therapeutic strategy, its clinical application has demonstrated a limited and heterogeneous activity, in terms of proportion of responders and response intensity. Generally, the objective response rate is very low, although, in patients who have response it is possible to detect a clear, long-lasting benefit. Only the autologous vaccine Sipuleucel T has demonstrated an overall survival increase in patients with good prognosis criteria. In these treatments, it is characteristic that no progression free survival increase is visible due to its action mechanism. PSA evolution may not be considered a surrogate variable of radiological response or clinical benefit in this environment either. It is necessary to identify what patient's or tumor's characteristics are able to maximize the response. An important limitation is the absence of response predictive biomarkers that serve for patient preselection. As a general rule, the best responses with isolated immunotherapeutic treatments have been observed in patients with low tumor load, which may suggest that their optimal application could be in earlier phases of the disease (high risk localized, biochemical failure, etc) Combination strategy, without doubt the one with best future, is based on additional treatments increasing cell lysis with the subsequent antigen exposure and/ or producing an immunomodulatory effect that can surmount tumor induced immunologic tolerance. The results obtained suggest that immunotherapy may be more effective in combined therapy with other active therapies (abiraterone, enzalutamide, Radium 223, docetaxel) in a fight to achieve disease chronification.

OBJECTIVE: Several studies have assessed the role of adding chemotherapy to hormonal treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (MHSPC). The objective of this manuscript is to review these studies and to provide recommendations for the management of these patients. METHODS: We identified published clinical trials comparing hormone blockade (HB) with HB plus docetaxel as first-line treatment of HSMPC and we analyzed their results in terms of efficacy and toxicity. RESULTS: Of the 3 trials published, two demonstrated increased overall survival by adding docetaxel to the first-line treatment of MHSPC (CHAARTED and Stampede-Docetaxel studies) and the third one did not show such an advantage (GETUG-AFU15). In the CHAARTED study, the survival advantage was limited to patients presenting high tumor volume. Toxicity was increased in patients who received docetaxel. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of docetaxel to treatment with HB should be considered in patients with MHSPC, especially in those with high tumor volume. However, the toxicity and recent results of trials performed with abiraterone in MHSPC should also be taken in consideration.

OBJECTIVE: Several studies have assessed the role of adding chemotherapy to hormonal treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (MHSPC). The objective of this manuscript is to review these studies and to provide recommendations for the management of these patients. METHODS: We identified published clinical trials comparing hormone blockade (HB) with HB plus docetaxel as first-line treatment of HSMPC and we analyzed their results in terms of efficacy and toxicity. RESULTS: Of the 3 trials published, two demonstrated increased overall survival by adding docetaxel to the first-line treatment of MHSPC (CHAARTED and Stampede-Docetaxel studies) and the third one did not show such an advantage (GETUG-AFU15). In the CHAARTED study, the survival advantage was limited to patients presenting high tumor volume. Toxicity was increased in patients who received docetaxel. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of docetaxel to treatment with HB should be considered in patients with MHSPC, especially in those with high tumor volume. However, the toxicity and recent results of trials performed with abiraterone in MHSPC should also be taken in consideration.