Catherine R. Harris

We determined the effect of nerve sparing radical prostatectomy on sexual and urinary function in men at various levels of pretreatment sexual function. Men in the CaPSURE™ (Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor) database who underwent radical prostatectomy and had baseline and 2-year posttreatment UCLA-PCI sexual function and urinary function scores were selected. Nerve sparing was categorized as bilateral, unilateral or none and the level of pretreatment sexual function was divided into quartiles. The cohort was divided into subgroups of nerve sparing technique and pretreatment sexual function. Differences between sexual function and urinary function among subgroups were determined. A test of interaction was performed between preoperative sexual function and degree of nerve sparing on postoperative sexual function and urinary function scores. A total of 1,322 patients met the study inclusion criteria. Median patient age was 61 years (range 41 to 79). Bilateral, unilateral and no nerve sparing procedures were performed in 899, 200 and 223 men, respectively. The effects of nerve sparing on sexual function differed among the quartiles of preoperative sexual function (p <0.01). Nerve sparing did not have an effect on the sexual function of men in the lowest quartile of preoperative sexual function score (p = 0.15) but did have a significant beneficial effect on sexual function in the higher 3 quartiles (p = 0.04, p <0.01 and p <0.01, respectively). Alternatively, nerve sparing improved urinary function in men in the lowest quartile of baseline sexual function. Nerve sparing radical prostatectomy results in better sexual function outcomes than no nerve sparing in most men except those with little baseline function. Urinary function was positively impacted in all men. Men who are suitable candidates for nerve preservation may benefit from nerve sparing surgery. Poorer baseline sexual function should not exclude these men from such surgery.

Study Type – Prognosis (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? It is well documented that biopsy of small renal masses is inaccurate and tends to under‐estimate tumour grade compared with surgical specimens. To our knowledge there has not been a study showing grading discrepancy between biopsy and surgical excision in a large population‐based cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether differences exist in tumour grade between patients who undergo partial nephrectomy (PN) and those who undergo ablation for renal tumours. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data was obtained using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Patients with solitary renal tumours of P < 0.001), more likely to be married (70% vs 64%, P < 0.001), and had smaller tumours (2.4 vs 2.6 cm, P < 0.001). There were no differences in the distribution of histology between the PN and ablation groups. Tumour grade was significantly lower in tumours treated with ablation. Compared with grade 1 disease, those undergoing ablation were 30% less likely to have grade 2 ( P < 0.001), 30% less likely to have grade 3 ( P < 0.001), and 92% less likely to have grade 4 disease ( P < 0.01) than those having PN. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between grade and treatment type in patients with small renal masses after controlling for baseline characteristics. As grade is determined by different methods, we think that this shows systematic under‐grading in biopsy of small renal masses.