The Management of Patients Diagnosed with Incidental Prostate Cancer: Narrative Review

• Main Authors: Abedi AR, Ghiasy S, Fallah-karkan M, Rahavian A, Allameh F
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dove Medical Press 2020-03-01
• Series: Research and Reports in Urology
• Subjects: incidental prostate cancer; prostate cancer; transurethral resection of the prostate (turp)
• Online Access: https://www.dovepress.com/the-management-of-patients-diagnosed-with-incidental-prostate-cancer-n-peer-reviewed-article-RRU

Amir Reza Abedi,1 Saleh Ghiasy,1 Morteza Fallah-karkan,1,2 Amirhossein Rahavian,1,3 Farzad Allameh1,2 1Urology Department, Shohada-e-Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 2Center of Excellence for Training Laser Applications in Medicine, Shohada-e-Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Health, Tehran, Iran; 3Infertility and Reproductive Health Research Center (irhrc), Shahid Beheshti Medical Science University, Tehran, IranCorrespondence: Farzad AllamehDepartment of Urology, Shohada-e-Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IranTel/Fax [phone]Email [e-mail]: 5– 14% of patients underwent surgery for benign prostate hyperplasia harboring prostate cancer (PCa) focus. The best management of incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) has been debated. The decision “treatment or no treatment” should be determined by predictors which accurately foretell PCa progression after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). The purpose of this study is to review the available data that can be useful in daily clinical judgment. Transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) did not provide further Gleason score (GS) data in most patients diagnosed with iPCa. TRUSBX may be useful before active surveillance, but not in all following radical prostatectomy. The decision “treatment or no treatment” should be dependent on the expected chance of having residual cancer and clinical progression. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels before and after TURP are good predictors of residual cancer after TURP. Pathological report of T0 is most likely seen in patients with low PSA density after TURP and indistinguishable lesion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. The decision “treatment vs no treatment” is judged by life expectancy, tumor characteristic in the pathology report of TURP sample and PSA level following TURP. Active surveillance should be contemplated in patients with iPCa who have both prostate-specific antigen density ≤ 0.08 after TURP and indistinguishable cancer lesion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Patients who do not meet the criteria for active surveillance are candidates for radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy (RT). Radical prostatectomy could be peacefully done after TURP with somewhat greater morbidity. RT in patients who had a history of TURP could be safely done and is associated with acceptable quality of life.Keywords: incidental prostate cancer, prostate cancer, transurethral resection of the prostate, TURP