Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2023, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (5): 818-824. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2023.05.007

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Predictive model of early urinary continence recovery based on prostate gland MRI parameters after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Hai MAO1,2,Fan ZHANG1,Zhan-yi ZHANG1,Ye YAN1,Yi-chang HAO1,Yi HUANG1,*(),Lu-lin MA1,Hong-ling CHU3,*(),Shu-dong ZHANG1   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
    2. Department of Urology, Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Fengjie, Fengjie 404600, Chongqing, China
    3. Research Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
  • Received:2023-04-04 Online:2023-10-18 Published:2023-10-09
  • Contact: Yi HUANG,Hong-ling CHU E-mail:pku_huang@163.com;18810530974@163.com

RICH HTML

 7   

PDF (PC)

108

Abstract:

Objective: Constructing a predictive model for urinary incontinence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) based on prostatic gland related MRI parameters. Methods: In this study, 202 cases were included. All the patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer by prostate biopsy and underwent LRP surgery in Peking University Third Hospital. The preoperative MRI examination of all the patients was completed within 1 week before the prostate biopsy. Prostatic gland related parameters included prostate length, width, height, prostatic volume, intravesical prostatic protrusion length (IPPL), prostate apex shape, etc. From the first month after the operation, the recovery of urinary continence was followed up every month, and the recovery of urinary continence was based on the need not to use the urine pad all day long. Logistic multivariate regression analysis was used to analyze the influence of early postoperative recovery of urinary continence. Risk factors were used to draw the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves of each model to predict the recovery of postoperative urinary continence, and the difference of the area under the curve (AUC) was compared by DeLong test, and the clinical net benefit of the model was evaluated by decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: The average age of 202 patients was 69.0 (64.0, 75.5) years, the average prostate specific antigen (PSA) before puncture was 12.12 (7.36, 20.06) μg/L, and the Gleason score < 7 points and ≥ 7 points were 73 cases (36.2%) and 129 cases (63.9%) respectively, with 100 cases (49.5%) at T1/T2 clinical stage, and 102 cases (50.5%) at T3 stage. The prostatic volume measured by preoperative MRI was 35.4 (26.2, 51.1) mL, the ratio of the height to the width was 0.91 (0.77, 1.07), the membranous urethral length (MUL) was 15 (11, 16) mm, and the IPPL was 2 (0, 6) mm. The prostatic apex A-D subtypes were 67 cases (33.2%), 80 cases (39.6%), 24 cases (11.9%) and 31 cases (15.3%), respectively. The training set and validation set were 141 cases and 61 cases, respectively. The operations of all the patients were successfully completed, and the urinary continence rate was 59.4% (120/202) in the 3 months follow-up. The results of multivariate analysis of the training set showed that the MUL (P < 0.001), IPPL (P=0.017) and clinical stage (P=0.022) were independent risk factors for urinary incontinence in the early postoperative period (3 months). The nomogram and clinical decision curve were made according to the results of multivariate analysis. The AUC value of the training set was 0.885 (0.826, 0.944), and the AUC value of the validation set was 0.854 (0.757, 0.950). In the verification set, the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was performed on the model, and the Chi-square value was 5.426 (P=0.711). Conclusion: Preoperative MUL, IPPL, and clinical stage are indepen-dent risk factors for incontinence after LRP. The nomogram developed based on the relevant parameters of MRI glands can effectively predict the recovery of early urinary continence after LRP. The results of this study require further large-scale clinical research to confirm.

Key words: Prostate neoplasm, Urinary continence, Laparoscopic surgery, Prostatectomy, Nomogram

CLC Number: 

  • R737.25

Table 1

Comparison of patients characteristics between training dataset and validation dataset"

Items All patients
(n=202)		 Training dataset
(n=141)		 Validation dataset
(n=61)
Age/years, n (%)
  ≥70 109 (54.0) 77 (54.6) 32 (52.5)
   < 70 93 (46.0) 64 (45.4) 29 (47.5)
Pre-biopsy PSA/(μg/L), M (P25, P75) 12.12 (7.36, 20.06) 10.98 (7.43, 19.31) 12.90 (7.10, 21.80)
Biopsy Gleason score, n (%)
  ＜7 73 (36.1) 56 (39.7) 17 (27.9)
  ≥7 129 (63.9) 85 (60.3) 44 (72.1)
cT, n (%)
  T1/T2 100 (49.5) 66 (46.8) 34 (55.7)
  T3 102 (50.5) 75 (53.2) 27 (44.3)
PV/mL, M (P25, P75) 35.4 (26.2, 51.1) 35.8 (27.1, 50.5) 33.9 (23.4, 53.7)
MUL/mm, M (P25, P75) 15 (11, 16) 15 (11, 16) 15 (11, 17)
IPPL/mm, M (P25, P75) 2 (0, 6) 2 (0, 6) 2 (0, 8)
Length/width, M (P25, P75) 0.91 (0.77, 1.07) 0.91 (0.82, 1.07) 0.89 (0.74, 1.06)
Prostate apex shape, n (%)
  A-C 171 (84.7) 122 (86.5) 49 (80.3)
  D 31 (15.3) 19 (13.5) 12 (19.7)

Table 2

Univariate analysis of continence recovery 3 months of training dataset after surgery"

Items Continence
(n=58)		 Incontinence
(n=83)		 t/χ2/z value P value
Age/years, n (%) 1.595 0.207
  ≥70 28 (48.3) 49 (59.0)
   < 70 30 (51.7) 34 (41.0)
Pre-biopsy PSA/(μg/L), M (P25, P75) 13.59 (7.62, 22.31) 10.27 (7.16, 17.15) 0.953 0.340
Biopsy Gleason score, n (%) 0.114 0.736
  ＜7 24 (41.4) 32 (38.6)
  ≥7 34 (58.6) 51 (61.4)
cT, n (%) 6.012 0.014
  T1/T2 20 (34.5) 46 (55.4)
  T3 38 (65.5) 37 (44.6)
PV/mL, M (P25, P75) 41.51 (31.49, 56.42) 34.53 (23.7, 44.33) 2.786 0.005
MUL/mm, M (P25, P75) 11 (9, 14) 15 (14, 17) -6.059 < 0.001
IPPL/mm, M (P25, P75) 6 (0, 10) 0 (0, 3) 4.788 < 0.001
Prostate apex shape, n (%) 3.657 0.056
  A-C 54 (93.1) 68 (81.9)
  D 4 (6.9) 15 (18.1)
Length/width, M (P25, P75) 0.99 (0.85, 1.13) 0.88 (0.77, 1.01) 2.506 0.012

Table 3

Multivariate analysis of continence recovery 3 months"

Items B S.E. z P OR (95%CI)
IPPL -0.140 0.059 -2.384 0.017 0.87 (0.78, 0.98)
MUL 0.367 0.073 5.021 < 0.001 1.44 (1.25, 1.67)
cT -1.086 0.475 -2.286 0.022 0.34 (0.13, 0.86)
Length/width -2.476 1.269 -1.950 0.051 0.08 (0.01, 1.01)
Constant -0.143 1.597 -0.089 0.929

Figure 1

ROC curves of continence recovery after LRP of training dataset (A) and validation dataset (B) LRP, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; ROC, receiver operator characteristic."

Figure 2

Calibration plot of continence recovery after LRP of training dataset (A) and validation dataset (B) LRP, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy."

Figure 3

The nomogram (A) and DCA (B) of continence recovery after LRP of training dataset and validation dataset MUL, membranous urethral length; IPPL, intravesical prostatic protrusion length; cT, clinical stage; LRP, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; DCA, decision curve analysis."

1 Mottet N , van den Bergh RCN , Briers E , et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent[J]. Eur Urol, 2021, 79 (2): 243- 262.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
2 Ficarra V , Novara G , Rosen RC , et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy[J]. Eur Urol, 2012, 62 (3): 405- 417.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045
3 Adam M , Tennstedt P , Lanwehr D , et al. Functional outcomes and quality of life after radical prostatectomy only versus a combination of prostatectomy with radiation and hormonal therapy[J]. Eur Urol, 2017, 71 (3): 330- 336.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.015
4 Heesakkers J , Farag F , Bauer RM , et al. Pathophysiology and contributing factors in postprostatectomy incontinence: A review[J]. Eur Urol, 2017, 71 (6): 936- 944.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.09.031
5 Lamberg H , Shankar PR , Singh K , et al. Preoperative prostate MRI predictors of urinary continence following radical prostatectomy[J]. Radiology, 2022, 303 (1): 99- 109.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.210500
6 van Dijk-de Haan MC , Boellaard TN , Tissier R , et al. Value of different magnetic resonance imaging-based measurements of anatomical structures on preoperative prostate imaging in predicting urinary continence after radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur Urol Focus, 2022, 8 (5): 1211- 1225.
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.01.015
7 Mungovan SF , Sandhu JS , Akin O , et al. Preoperative membranous urethral length measurement and continence recovery following radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur Urol, 2017, 71 (3): 368- 378.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.023
8 Manfredi M , Checcucci E , Fiori C , et al. Total anatomical reconstruction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Focus on urinary continence recovery and related complications after 1 000 procedures[J]. BJU Int, 2019, 124 (3): 477- 486.
doi: 10.1111/bju.14716
9 Matsushita K , Kent MT , Vickers AJ , et al. Preoperative predictive model of recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy[J]. BJU Int, 2015, 116 (4): 577- 583.
doi: 10.1111/bju.13087
10 Tutolo M , Bruyneel L , van der Aa F , et al. A novel tool to predict functional outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and the value of additional surgery for incontinence[J]. BJU Int, 2021, 127 (5): 575- 584.
doi: 10.1111/bju.15242
11 Lee SE , Byun SS , Lee HJ , et al. Impact of variations in prostatic apex shape on early recovery of urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy[J]. Urology, 2006, 68 (1): 137- 141.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.01.021
12 Walz J , Epstein JI , Ganzer R , et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy of the prostate related to optimisation of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy: An update[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 70 (2): 301- 311.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.026
13 Zhang F , Chu H , Hao Y , et al. Preoperative predictive model of early urinary continence recovery after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy[J]. World J Urol, 2023, 41 (1): 59- 65.
14 Kadono Y , Nohara T , Kawaguchi S , et al. Investigating the me-chanism underlying urinary continence recovery after radical prostatectomy: Effectiveness of a longer urethral stump to prevent urinary incontinence[J]. BJU Int, 2018, 122 (3): 456- 462.
doi: 10.1111/bju.14181
15 Nunez Bragayrac LA , Hussein AA , Attwood K , et al. Feasibility and continence outcomes of extended prostatic urethral preservation during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy[J]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2020, 23 (2): 286- 294.
doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0173-y
16 Huang AC , Kowalczyk KJ , Hevelone ND , et al. The impact of prostate size, median lobe, and prior benign prostatic hyperplasia intervention on robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: Technique and outcomes[J]. Eur Urol, 2011, 59 (4): 595- 603.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.01.033
17 Jo JK , Hong SK , Byun SS , et al. Urinary Continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The impact of intrave-sical prostatic protrusion[J]. Yonsei Med J, 2016, 57 (5): 1145- 1151.
doi: 10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1145
18 Hoeh B , Wenzel M , Müller M , et al. Urethral sphincter length but not prostatic apex shape in preoperative MRI is associated with mid-term continence rates after radical prostatectomy[J]. Diagnostics (Basel), 2022, 12 (3): 701.
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12030701
[1] Zhan-yi ZHANG,Fan ZHANG,Ye YAN,Cai-guang CAO,Chang-jian LI,Shao-hui DENG,Yue-hao SUN,Tian-liang HUANG,Yun-he GUAN,Nan LI,Min LU,Zhen-hua HU,Shu-dong ZHANG. Near-infrared targeted probe designed for intraoperative imaging of prostatic neurovascular bundles [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(5): 843-850.
[2] ZHANG Fan,CHEN Qu,HAO Yi-chang,YAN Ye,LIU Cheng,HUANG Yi,MA Lu-lin. Relationship between recovery of urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and preoperative/postoperative membranous urethral length [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2022, 54(2): 299-303.
[3] DING Ting-ting,ZENG Chu-xiong,HU Li-na,YU Ming-hua. Establishment of a prediction model for colorectal cancer immune cell infiltration based on the cancer genome atlas (TCGA) database [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2022, 54(2): 203-208.
[4] HAO Han,LIU Yue,CHEN Yu-ke,SI Long-mei,ZHANG Meng,FAN Yu,ZHANG Zhong-yuan,TANG Qi,ZHANG Lei,WU Shi-liang,SONG Yi,LIN Jian,ZHAO Zheng,SHEN Cheng,YU Wei,HAN Wen-ke. Evaluating continence recovery time after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(4): 697-703.
[5] ZHANG Fan,HUANG Xiao-juan,YANG Bin,YAN Ye,LIU Cheng,ZHANG Shu-dong,HUANG Yi,MA Lu-lin. Relationship between prostate apex depth and early recovery of urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(4): 692-696.
[6] Wen-peng WANG,Jie-fu WANG,Jun HU,Jun-feng WANG,Jia LIU,Da-lu KONG,Jian LI. Clinicopathological features and prognosis of colorectal stromal tumor [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(2): 353-361.
[7] Run-zhuo MA,Hai-zhui XIA,Min LU,Zhi-ying ZHANG,Qi-ming ZHANG,Jian LU,Guo-liang WANG,Lu-lin MA. Impact of diagnostic ureteroscopy and biopsy on radical nephroureterectomy of upper tract urothelial carcinoma [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2019, 51(4): 665-672.
[8] ZHANG Fan, ZHANG Shu-dong, XIAO Chun-lei, HUANG Yi, MA Lu-lin. Perioperative parameters and prognosis analysis of patients aged 80 years or older treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(5): 822-827.
[9] ZHANG Fan, XIAO Chun-lei, ZHANG Shu-dong, HUANG Yi, MA Lu-lin. Relationship between recovery of urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and prostatic volume and intravesical prostatic protursion length [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(4): 621-625.
[10] LIU Yu-qing, LU Jian, HAO Yi-chang, XIAO Chun-lei, MA Lu-lin. Predicting model based on risk factors for urosepsis after percutaneous nephrolithotomy [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(3): 507-513.
[11] YE Xiong-jun1, LIU Jun, Abudukeymu ABLIMIT,XIONG Liu-lin, LIU Shi-jun, XU Tao, HUANG Xiao-bo. Clinical application of retroperitoneal laparoscopic surgery combined with miniflank incision “hybrid surgery” for partial nephrectomy of complex renal tumors [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2017, 49(4): 613-616.
[12] LIU Zhuo, LUO Cheng, HU Shuai, FAN Yu, LIU Zhen-hua, YANG Xin-yu, SHEN Qi, LIU Li-bo, HAN Wen-ke, ZHOU Li-qun, YU Wei, HE Qun, ZHANG Qian, JIN Jie. Diagnosis and treatment of T1a－T1b prostate cancer [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2016, 48(5): 812-816.
[13] ZUO Qiang, ZHANG Fan, HUANG Yi, MA Lu-lin, LU Min, LU Jian. Clinically predictive factors of Gleason score upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2016, 48(4): 603-606.
[14] LIAO Xiao-Xing, XING Nian-Zeng, QIAO Peng, KANG Ning, ZHANG Jun-Hui, NIU Yi-Nong. "Sandwich” urethra reconstruction improves the early continence following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2015, 47(4): 601-604.
[15] LI Qing, XIAO Bo, LIU Shi-Jun, XU Tao, WANG Xiao-Feng. Effects of interval time between prostate biopsy and surgery on laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2014, 46(4): 532-536.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd