Radical retropubic and perineal prostatectomyfor clinically localised prostate cancer in renaltransplant recipients

Objective: To analyse the functional and oncological outcome of consecutive renal-transplant recipients (RTRs) with clinically localised prostate cancer who underwent radical retropubic (RRP) or perineal (RPP) prostatectomy. Patients and methods: Between January 2000 and July 2011 16 patients underwent RRP (group 1) and seven RPP (group 2). In all, 200 consecutive non-RTRs served as the control group, of whom 100 each underwent RRP and RPP, respectively. The mean (range) interval between renal transplantation and RP was 95 (24–206) months, the PSA at the time of diagnosis was 4.5 (3.0–17.5) ng/mL, and the mean patient age was 64 (59–67) years. Results: The mean follow-up was 39 (RRP) and 48 months (RPP). There was no deterioration in graft function. In group 1, 13 and three patients had pT2a-cpN0 and pT3a-bpN0 prostate cancer, respectively, with a Gleason score of 6, 7 and 8 in 11, three and one patients, respectively. In group 2, three and four patients had pT2ac and pT3a-b disease, respectively, with a Gleason score of 6 and 7 in two and five, respectively. In both groups one patient had a positive surgical margin and was followedexpectantly, and all patients have no evidence of disease. Wound infections developed more often in the RPP group (29% vs. 7%), but there were no Clavien grade III–V complications. All patients achieved good continence, and two need one pad/day. Conclusions: RRP and RPP are suitable surgical treatments for prostate cancer in RTRs. RRP might be preferable, as it has the advantage of simultaneous pelvic lymphadenectomy and a lower risk of infectious complications.