Introduction: Whereas the excellent functional outcomes after Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and its equivalency to open prostatectomy (OP) have been studied in detail in the past years, the oncological equivalency has yet to be investigated. Therefore, we conducted a matched pair analysis to evaluate and compare incidental prostate cancer detection rates after HoLEP and OP. Patients and methods: Preoperative patient age, total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate volume were used as primary matching criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to confirm matching quality. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher´s exact test and T-test or Mann-Whitney U-test for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Results: After the matching procedure, 72 out of 145 patients after HoLEP and 72 out of 477 patients after OP were included. Mean patient age (70 vs. 71 years), median prostate volume (106 vs. 107 mL), and median preoperative total PSA (4.32 vs. 4.36 ng/mL) were almost identical. The amount of removed tissue did not differ between HoLEP and OP. Incidental prostate cancer detection rate was similar with 9.7% after HoLEP and 8.3% after OP (p = 1.000). Conclusion: This first matched pair analysis shows that HoLEP does not have a disadvantage regarding cancer detection rate during desobstructive surgery for large prostates.

Keywords:
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, Simple prostatectomy, Incidental prostate cancer, Matched pairs
1.
Kuntz RM, Lehrich K, Ahyai S: Does perioperative outcome of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate depend on prostate size? J Endourol 2004; 18: 183–188.
2.
Ahyai SA, Gilling P, Kaplan SA, Kuntz RM, Madersbacher S, Montorsi F, et al: Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 384–397.
3.
Cornu JN, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, de la Rosette J, Gilling P, Gratzke C, et al: A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: an update. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 1066–1096.
4.
Kuntz RM, Lehrich K, Ahyai S: Transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate compared with transvesical open prostatectomy: 18-month follow-up of a randomized trial. J Endourol 2004; 18: 189–191.
5.
Kuntz RM, Lehrich K, Ahyai SA: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 grams: 5-year follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 160–166.
6.
Naspro R, Suardi N, Salonia A, Scattoni V, Guazzoni G, Colombo R, et al: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates > 70 g: 24-month follow-up. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 563–568.
7.
Gravas S, Bach T, Bachmann A, Drake M, Gacci M, Gratzke C, et al: Guidelines on the Management of Non-Neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS), incl. Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO), 2017. https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-Non-Neurogenic-Male-LUTS-Guidelines-2015-v2.pdf.
8.
Rosenhammer B, Lausenmeyer EM, Mayr R, Burger M, Eichelberg C: HoLEP provides a higher prostate cancer detection rate compared to bipolar TURP – a matched pair analysis. World J Urol 2018, Epub ahead of print.
9.
Sakamoto H, Matsumoto K, Hayakawa N, Maeda T, Sato A, Ninomiya A, et al: Preoperative parameters to predict incidental (T1a and T1b) prostate cancer. Can Urol Assoc J 2014; 8:E815–E820.
10.
Bhojani N, Boris RS, Monn MF, Mandeville JA, Lingeman JE: Coexisting prostate cancer found at the time of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: predicting its presence and grade in analyzed tissue. J Endourol 2015; 29: 41–46.
11.
Elkoushy MA, Elshal AM, Elhilali MM: Incidental prostate cancer diagnosis during holmium laser enucleation: assessment of predictors, survival, and disease progression. Urology 2015; 86: 552–557.
12.
Herlemann A, Wegner K, Roosen A, Buchner A, Weinhold P, Bachmann A, et al: “Finding the needle in a haystack”: oncologic evaluation of patients treated for LUTS with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). World J Urol 2017; 35: 1777–1782.
13.
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, Bolla M, Bourke L, Cornford P, et al: EAU – ESTRO – ESUR – SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer, 2017. http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/09-Prostate-Cancer_2017_web.pdf.
14.
Naspro R, Freschi M, Salonia A, Guazzoni G, Girolamo V, Colombo R, et al: Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate. Are histological findings comparable? J Urol 2004; 171: 1203–1206.
15.
Long RM, Thomas AZ, Browne C, Alsinnawi M, Ul-islam J, McDermott TE, et al: A 30-year experience of Millin’s retropubic prostatectomy: Has this classic operation derived by a President of the College in Ireland stood the test of time? Ir J Med Sci 2015; 184: 341–344.
16.
Kuntz RM, Lehrich K: Transurethral holmium laser enucleation versus transvesical open enucleation for prostate adenoma greater than 100 gm: a randomized prospective trial of 120 patients. J Urol 2002; 168(4 pt 1): 1465–1469.
17.
Montorsi F, Naspro R, Salonia A, Suardi N, Briganti A, Zanoni M, et al: Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: results from a 2-center, prospective, randomized trial in patients with obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2004; 172(5 pt 1): 1926–1929.
18.
Salonia A, Suardi N, Naspro R, Mazzoccoli B, Zanni G, Gallina A, et al: Holmium laser enucleation versus open prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an inpatient cost analysis. Urology 2006; 68: 302–306.
19.
Tan AH, Gilling PJ, Kennett KM, Frampton C, Westenberg AM, Fraundorfer MR: A randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate with transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of bladder outlet obstruction secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia in large glands (40 to 200 grams). J Urol 2003; 170(4 pt 1): 1270–1274.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.