Shiroki Ryoichi

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare prognostic outcomes of administering first- or second-generation androgen receptor signaling inhibitors in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and to find prognostic indicators. METHODS: This retrospective study included 198 patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer from 14 institutions associated with Tokai Urologic Oncology Research Seminar. Forty-two patients were treated with combined androgen blockade using first-generation inhibitors (bicalutamide or flutamide), and 156 were treated with second-generation inhibitors (abiraterone/enzalutamide or apalutamide/darolutamide) after primary androgen deprivation therapy failure. We compared survival outcomes of combined androgen blockade using first-generation inhibitors and second-generation inhibitor treatments, and analyzed clinicopathological or serum parameters and survival outcome. RESULTS: Combined androgen blockade and second-generation androgen receptor signaling inhibitor groups demonstrated median progression-free survival of 10.2 (95% confidence interval: 5.5-12.3) and 26.0 (95% confidence interval: 21.9-38.4; P < 0.001) months, respectively. Cut-off levels for clinical biomarkers were targeted to <0.2 ng/ml prostate-specific antigen levels 3 months after treatment initiation for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; the patient group that achieved this showed better progression-free survival (median 14.7 months, 95% confidence interval: 10.3-23.9 not achieved, median not applicable, 95% confidence interval: 24.6-not applicable achieved; P < 0.00001). Multivariate analysis revealed significant prognostic factors: second-generation androgen receptor signaling inhibitor as first-line treatment (odds ratio: 5.05, 95% confidence interval: 1.54-16.6) and a high hemoglobin level (odds ratio: 2.92, 95% confidence interval: 1.26-6.76). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested prostate-specific antigen < 0.2 ng/ml after 3 months may be a practical prognostic indicator of survival outcomes in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Patients showing a high hemoglobin level should be intensively treated with second-generation androgen receptor signaling inhibitors rather than combined androgen blockade using first-generation inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumors with the reported outcomes of conventional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and investigate the transition of renal function after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, open-label trial across 17 academic centers in Japan. Patients with endophytic renal tumors classified as cT1, cN0, cM0 were included and underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. We defined two primary outcomes to assess functional and oncological aspects of the procedure, which were represented by the warm ischemic time and positive surgical margin, respectively. Comparisons were made using control values previously reported in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy studies. In the historical control group, the warm ischemia time was 25.2, and the positive surgical margin was 13%. RESULTS: Our per-protocol analysis included 98 participants. The mean warm ischemic time was 20.3 min (99% confidence interval 18.3-22.3; p < 0.0001 vs. 25.2). None of the 98 participants had a positive surgical margin (99% confidence interval 0-5.3%; p < 0.0001 vs. 13.0%). The renal function ratio of eGFR before and after protocol treatment multiplied by splits was 0.70 (95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.75). Factors such as preoperative eGFR, resected weight, and warm ischemic time influenced the functional loss of the partially nephrectomized kidney after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumors offers a shorter warm ischemia time and comparable positive surgical margin rate compared with conventional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Recently, various novel robotic systems have been put into clinical use. The aim of the present study was to assess the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using the Hugo™ RAS system, one of brand-new robot-assisted surgical platforms. METHODS: We performed RARP with the Hugo™ RAS system in 13 cases of localized prostate cancer (PCa) between August 2023 and February 2024 at our hospital. The perioperative outcomes of these 13 patients were assessed. RESULTS: The median operative and console times were 197 (interquartile range [IQR], 187-228) and 134 min (IQR, 125-157), respectively. The median docking time was 7 min (IQR, 6-10), and the median estimated blood loss was 150 mL (IQR, 80-250). The vesical catheter was removed on postoperative day 6 in all cases. A positive surgical margin was observed in one patient (7.7%), and none experienced major perioperative complications, defined as Clavien-Dindo classification ≥3. The median postoperative length of stay was 8 days (IQR, 8-8.5). CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study to focus on RARP using the Hugo™ RAS system in Japan. Although further investigations should be conducted to assess the long-term oncological and functional outcomes, the Hugo™ RAS system could provide safe and favorable perioperative outcomes for patients with localized PCa undergoing RARP.

OBJECTIVES: The optimal indication and survival benefits of prophylactic urethrectomy (PU) during radical cystectomy remain unclear. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the impact of urethra-preserving surgery (UPS) on oncological outcome including its recurrence patterns, and to establish an optimal urethral management strategy with a novel UPS technique in the robotic era. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 281 male patients with bladder cancer who received radical cystectomy (RC) (115 with and 166 without PU) at our institutions between 2010 and 2023. Subsequently, perioperative and oncological outcomes were assessed between propensity score-matched cohorts. RESULTS: Urethral recurrence (UR) occurred in 5 patients (5/166, 3.0%), all of whom underwent open-RC. Three among those (1.8%) with concomitant metastasis were died of cancer. There were no statistically significant differences between the PU and UPS groups in urethral-recurrence free survival (urethral-RFS) (P = .14), local-RFS (P = .59) and overall survival (OS) (P = .84) in the entire cohort. However, the UPS group showed significantly worse urethral-RFS (P = .008), local-RFS (P = .005) and OS (P = .03) in patients with high-risk of UR. Analysis of recurrence patterns revealed that UPS in high-risk patients significantly increased local recurrence (25.8% vs. 5.0%, P = .02). Conversely, a novel robotic-UPS technique demonstrated significantly favorable perioperative outcomes, comparable local-RFS (P = .79) and OS (P = .16) without UR (0/134, 0%) when compared to robotic-PU. Robotic-UPS also exhibited significantly better local-RFS (P =.007) and OS (P < .001) than open-UPS. CONCLUSIONS: UR-related death was rare and PU did not show a survival benefit for the entire cohort. However, inappropriate UPS in patients at high-risk of UR may increase local recurrence which might be responsible for poor survival after UPS rather than disease progression derived from UR. The robotic-UPS has the potential to reduce unnecessary PU, urethral and local recurrence without compromising survival.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative Legionella pneumonia is very rare. CASE PRESENTATION: A 71-year-old male patient with prostate cancer (cT2bN0M0) underwent a robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. On the 5th postoperative day, the patient developed chills and a fever of 39.2°C. Chest radiography revealed decreased permeability in the right middle lung field, leading to the diagnosis of postoperative pneumonia. Antimicrobial therapy was initiated immediately. Blood tests on postoperative day 10 revealed mild liver function abnormalities, electrolyte abnormalities, and a markedly elevated inflammatory response. Legionella pneumonia was suspected based on blood sample results and systemic symptoms, such as diarrhea and nausea. Furthermore, Legionella antigens were detected in the patient's urine, prompting further administration of levofloxacin. The patient's subsequent clinical course was favorable. CONCLUSION: When bacterial pneumonia fails to respond to antimicrobial therapy and systemic symptoms develop, atypical pneumonia, caused by pathogens such as Legionella pneumophila, should be considered even in cases of postoperative pneumonia.