본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Preventative Function-sparing Radical Prostatectomy: Experience in a Tertiary Referral Centre.

European urology oncology 2026 Vol.9(1) p. 150-155

Haese A, Graefen M, Pott A, Preisser F

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

[BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE] The oncological and functional outcomes after preventative radical prostatectomy (pRP) are unknown.

이 논문을 인용하기

BibTeX ↓ RIS ↓
APA Haese A, Graefen M, et al. (2026). Preventative Function-sparing Radical Prostatectomy: Experience in a Tertiary Referral Centre.. European urology oncology, 9(1), 150-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2025.02.005
MLA Haese A, et al.. "Preventative Function-sparing Radical Prostatectomy: Experience in a Tertiary Referral Centre.." European urology oncology, vol. 9, no. 1, 2026, pp. 150-155.
PMID 40216571

Abstract

[BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE] The oncological and functional outcomes after preventative radical prostatectomy (pRP) are unknown. Our aim was to assess functional and oncological outcomes and the patient perspective, motivation, and postprocedural experiences of a highly selected pRP cohort.

[METHODS] We identified patients who underwent pRP between 2012 and 2021 in a single high-volume centre without a prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis before surgery. Functional and oncological outcomes were assessed via validated questionnaires. In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with the patients about their pRP experience.

[KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS] Seven patients who ranged in age from 37 to 57 yr underwent pRP. Final pathology revealed PCa in 71% of cases, which was International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 1 in two patients, and grade group 2 in three. The mean distress score was 7.7 points before pRP versus 1.3 points after surgery. At ≥12 mo after pRP, all the patients had erections firm enough for intercourse and were fully continent. A significant improvement in quality of life was reported because of mental relief and maintenance of physical functioning. The interviewees emphasised the importance of patient-centred medicine. Limitations include the small sample size, lack of a control cohort, and the single-centre setting.

[CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS] No patient regretted his decision after pRP and all patients were free of recurrence. For men with a serious fear of PCa that causes them distress and affects their quality of life, pRP could be a good option outside of guideline recommendations if performed by experts for well-informed patients. Improvements in the legal foundation for this approach are needed.

MeSH Terms

Humans; Male; Prostatectomy; Middle Aged; Prostatic Neoplasms; Tertiary Care Centers; Adult; Quality of Life; Organ Sparing Treatments