Erectile Dysfunction Following Radical Prostatectomy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Downloaded from www.jama.com at Johns Hopkins University, on November 23, 2005 GRAND ROUNDS CLINICIAN’S CORNER AT THE JOHNS HOPKINS BAYVIEW MEDICAL CENTER Erectile Dysfunction Following Radical Prostatectomy Arthur L. Burnett, MD Erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized pros- CASE PRESENTATION tate cancer is a known potential complication of the surgery. Because pros- DR BURNETT: Mr G is a previously tate cancer is diagnosed today more frequently than in the past and because healthy 51-year-old man who works as the diagnosis is made in increasingly younger men, there is an urgent need to a health program administrator. Dur- develop effective interventions that preserve erectile function after surgery. ing a prostate health screening, he was In this presentation, a 51-year-old man with adenocarcinoma of the prostate found to have a prostate-specific anti- underwent a bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy, after which he lost gen (PSA) level of 4.2 ng/mL (normal natural erectile function for approximately 9 months. The case highlights the range: 0.0-4.0 ng/mL). On digital rec- tal examination, the prostate was of av- fact that following surgery in which the nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy erage size and without nodules or technique is used, between 60% to 85% of men eventually recover erectile masses. A urological consultation was function. This constitutes a dramatic improvement over an earlier era, when recommended. postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction was the nearly universal rule. The case Mr G underwent a transrectal ultra- also emphasizes that despite expert application of the nerve-sparing prosta- sound-guided biopsy of the prostate tectomy technique, early recovery of natural erectile function is uncommon. gland. There were no sonographic ab- Many patients experience erectile dysfunction for as long as 2 years after the normalities, but the 12-core biopsy es- procedure, requiring the use of erectile aids for sexual activity during this pe- tablished the diagnosis of adenocarci- noma, with a Gleason score of 6 (see riod until natural erections recover. Corrective, cause-specific advances such TABLE 1 for explanation of Gleason as neuromodulatory therapy offer valuable adjuncts to this surgery. score).1,2 The cancer involved 80% of a JAMA. 2005;293:2648-2653 www.jama.com single core from the right base region of the prostate. Because Mr G was judged to have a low risk for metastatic dis- used cigarettes. He was taking nutri- agnosis and how you arrived at a deci- ease, further imaging studies were not tional supplements that included saw sion about your treatment? indicated. He was counseled regarding palmetto, fish oil, and various vita- MR G: I was stunned when first told management options for his diagnosis mins. To his knowledge, no one in his that I had cancer. I never, ever expected of clinically localized prostate cancer. family had ever been diagnosed with that diagnosis. I thought I was in great I saw Mr G for the first time about 5 prostate cancer. We reviewed his physical shape, doing all the right things weeks later for a second opinion. His clinical presentation and workup, to live a long, happy life. Before meet- vital signs were within normal limits. which was consistent with an early ing Dr Burnett, I had actually done a con- In fact, he appeared quite fit, with a stage prostate cancer of intermediate siderable amount of study about pros- body mass index of 24 (Յ25 consis- grade. We next discussed applicable tate cancer. I had explored the different tent with healthy weight). He stated that management options, including sur- Author Affiliations: Johns Hopkins University School he experienced no urinary complaints veillance (watchful waiting); radical of Medicine, Department of Urology, The James and his erectile function was fully in- prostatectomy; radiation therapy ad- Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hop- ministered by external beam and/or in- kins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md. tact, as evidenced by a score of 25 Corresponding Author: Arthur L. Burnett, MD, De- (range: 0-25) on the Sexual Health In- terstitial implants; and cryotherapy partment of Urology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 3 (freezing the prostate). We reviewed the N Wolfe St, Marburg 407, Baltimore, MD 21287- ventory for Men (SHIM). He had never 2411 ([email protected]). advantages and disadvantages of each Grand Rounds at The Johns Hopkins Bayview Medi- option. cal Center Section Editors: John H. Stone, MD, MPH, Charles Weiner, MD, Stephen D. Sisson, MD, The Johns CME available online at DR BURNETT: Mr G, could you please www.jama.com Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Md; David S. Cooper, MD, tell us about your reaction to your di- Contributing Editor, JAMA. 2648 JAMA, June 1, 2005—Vol 293, No. 21 (Reprinted) ©2005 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Downloaded from www.jama.com at Johns Hopkins University, on November 23, 2005 ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION FOLLOWING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY treatment options and felt certain I on my own! It is a wonderful thing. (His Table 1. Explanation of the Gleason Score* should have my prostate removed. Sur- 12-month postoperative SHIM score Biopsy gery seemed to offer the best chance for was 18.) Aggressiveness Level Incidence, % a cure, and since I am a young man, I fa- Low 2 vored a treatment that would give me the DISCUSSION Gleason 2 (1 ϩ 1) Gleason 3 (1 ϩ 2) best chance for living a lot longer. But Mr G’s case illustrates several key con- Gleason 4 (2 ϩ 2) the notion that I might lose erectile func- cepts in the current management of pros- Intermediate 70 Gleason 5 (2 ϩ 3-3ϩ 2) tion was still devastating. Fortunately, my tate cancer. Among solid-organ malig- Gleason 6 (3 ϩ 3) wife was very supportive. I’m not sure nancies, prostate cancer is the most Intermediate-High 20 how I would have moved forward with- commonly diagnosed tumor and the sec- Gleason 7 (3 ϩ 4) Gleason 7 (4 ϩ 3) out her. I recall her saying: “I don’t have ond-leading cause of cancer-related High 8 a relationship with your penis. I have a deaths among men in the United States.4 Gleason 8 (4 ϩ 4) Gleason 9 (4 ϩ 5-5ϩ 4) relationship with you.” Mr G’s presentation typifies some of the Gleason 10 (5 ϩ 5) DR BURNETT: Mr G opted for radical common dilemmas facing many pa- *The pathological patterns of prostate cancer range from prostatectomy, which was performed tients diagnosed today with this dis- 1 (almost normal-looking) to 5 (very poorly differenti- ated). The Gleason system of evaluating prostate can- successfully 1 year ago. We used a bi- ease. Our improved diagnostic capabili- cer is based on this range with grades termed for these 5 specific patterns of cancer-cell architecture. The score lateral cavernous nerve-sparing tech- ties have led to the fact that many prostate refers to the addition of the numbers of the first and sec- nique at surgery to maximize his like- cancer patients receive their diagnoses at ond most common patterns. Note that the grouping for “intermediate-high” aggressiveness includes 2 biologi- lihood of erection preservation. The final relatively young ages. In considering the cally distinct tumors for Gleason 7, with score 4 ϩ 3=7 pathology confirmed the presence of or- impact of the various treatment ap- behaving more aggressively than score 3 ϩ 4=7.1,2 gan-confined prostate cancer with nega- proaches on their quality of life, many tive surgical margins, pelvic lymph patients place paramount importance on several weeks, return of urinary conti- nodes, and seminal vesicles, consistent the possibility of retaining natural erec- nence is achieved by more than 95% of with disease eradication. No adjuvant tile function.5 This matter is frequently patients within a few months, and erec- therapy was indicated. Serial PSA mea- important to young men who by age sta- tion recovery with ability to engage in surements every 3 months since sur- tus are more likely to have intact erec- sexual intercourse is regained by most gery confirmed undetectable levels. tile function than older men; however, patients with or without oral phospho- DR BURNETT: Mr G, how did you fare for all men having normal preoperative diesterase type 5 (PDE 5) inhibitors with your recovery? erectile function irrespective of age, pres- within 2 years.7 It is acknowledged that MR G: I did great with the surgery. I ervation of this function is understand- these expectations reflect results was back at work within a few weeks. ably important postoperatively. achieved at major academic centers, I was continent of urine in 1 month and Although radical prostatectomy has which may not be representative of the 27 days! (I am told that this is rather been referred to as the gold standard for patterns of care experienced by most quick for the recovery of continence.) definitive cure of early stage prostate men treated for localized prostate can- But I was concerned by my lack of erec- cancer, this option has been chal- cer in the United States. tions. I know Dr Burnett explained that lenged frequently in recent years, prin- Regardless of clinical practice set- erection recovery could take as much cipally over questions related to the ting, the reality of the recovery pro- as 2 years, but I felt the pressure. The degree of functional recovery in many cess after radical prostatectomy today, pressure was not from my wife; I had areas. Historically, radical prostatec- nonetheless, is that erectile function re- my own pressure as a man. I was the tomy has carried high risks of postop- covery lags behind other functional re- one who really wanted something to be erative complications, including covery in other areas.