Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate to patients with bladder outlet obstruction, high prostate-specific antigen, and negative prostatic biopsy is a reliable tool for missed prostate cancer diagnosis
Loay Abbas1, Ahmed Kotb1, Ahmed S. Zakaria Ahmed1, Walid Shahrour1, Hazem Elmansy1.
1Division of Urology, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada
Introduction: The aim of this study was to report our experience doing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) to patients with high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and negative prostatic biopsy.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of all patients that had HoLEP because of refractory bladder outlet obstruction. The study included all patients with high PSA and negative prostatic biopsy.
Results: Thirty-one patients were identified. The mean age was 74 years. The mean preoperative PSA and PSA density were 8 ng/ml and 0.08 ng/ml/g, respectively. The mean prostate volume and resected weight were 106 cc and 72 g, respectively. The mean three-month postoperative PSA and the mean PSA reduction were 4.6 ng/ml and 79%, respectively. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 27 patients (87%) with HoLEP; of these, 14 patients had 3+3, 11 had 3+4, and two patients had 4+5 prostate cancer. Thirteen patients with 3+3 prostate cancer were enrolled into active surveillance (AS) and 11 of them had repeat prostatic biopsy within a year of diagnosis showing stable disease or no evidence of cancer. One patient with 3+3 prostate cancer chose radical prostatectomy (RP). Eleven patients had 3+4 prostate cancer; of these, four chose AS and showed no warning criteria of progression to the current time. Three patients had RP and four patients had radiotherapy. Two patients had 4+5 prostate cancer and that was followed by computed tomography and bone scan showing a metastatic disease. The other four patients included one diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia, two with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and one with atypical small acinar proliferation. Prostate biopsy after six months identified prostate cancer in two of them, including 3+3 prostate cancer in one patient managed by AS and 4+5 in the second one managed by radiotherapy.
Conclusions: Prostatic biopsy can be very challenging for prostate cancer diagnosis in men with a markedly large prostate. HoLEP has a high degree of reliability to diagnose prostate cancer in men with a large prostate and negative prostatic biopsy. Prostatic volume reduction with HoLEP increases the diagnostic yield of further prostatic biopsies to men with persistently high PSA.