OBJETIVO: Analisar a resposta bioquímica nas variáveis volume prostático, valor do antígeno prostático específico (PSA), escores de Gleason, estádio, risco da doença e hormonioterapia. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: No período de fevereiro de 1998 a julho de 2001, 46 pacientes com câncer de próstata foram tratados com radioterapia, numa combinação de teleterapia e braquiterapia de alta taxa de dose (BATD). A idade variou de 51 a 79 anos (média de 66,4 anos). O estádio T1c foi o mais freqüente: 30 (65%). O escore de Gleason era abaixo de 7 em 78% dos pacientes. O PSA variou de 3,4 a 33,3, estando abaixo de 10 em 39% das vezes. O volume prostático médio foi de 32,3 cc. Um total de 28% dos pacientes recebeu hormonioterapia. A dose de teleterapia variou de 45 a 50,4 Gy, associada a quatro frações de BATD de 4 Gy. RESULTADOS: O seguimento variou de 6 a 43 meses. Quatro pacientes perderam seguimento e quatro morreram (um por doença). Dos 39 pacientes analisados, 76% apresentaram PSA menor que 1,5. Nenhuma das variáveis analisadas foi estatisticamente significante (p > 0,05) com relação ao controle bioquímico. CONCLUSÃO: A utilização de BATD foi eficiente no tratamento do câncer de próstata e, neste estudo, as variáveis consideradas como fatores prognósticos não interferiram no controle bioquímico.

OBJECTIVE: This study focuses on the biochemical response of the following variables: prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value, Gleason scores, staging, the risk of the disease, and hormonotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the period between February of 1998 and July of 2001, 46 patients with prostate cancer were treated with radiotherapy, in a combination of teletherapy and high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR). The age ranged from 51 to 79 years (averaging 66.4 years). T1c stage was the most frequent one: 30 (65%). The Gleason score was below 7 in 78% of the patients. PSA ranged from 3.4 to 33.3, being below 10 in 39% of the cases. The average prostatic volume was 32.3cc. Twenty-eight percent of the patients received hormonotherapy. Teletherapy dose ranged from 45 to 50.4 Gy, associated to four fractions of 4 Gy of HDR. RESULTS: The follow-up period varied from 6 to 43 months. Four patients missed the follow-up and four died (one due to the disease). Out of the 39 patients that were analyzed, 76% presented a less than 1.5 PSA. None of the analyzed variables were found to be of statistical significance (p>0.05) regarding biochemical control. CONCLUSION: The use of HDR brachytherapy was found to be effective in the treatment of prostate cancer and, in this study, the variables considered as prognostic factors did not interfere in the biochemical control.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed the total symptom score, irritative and obstructive domains of IPSS questions regarding quality of life and the urodynamic diagnosis in 400 men with LUTS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred consecutive male patients were prospectively enrolled after being submitted to full urodynamic evaluation and IPSS. Obstructed and non-obstructed patients were compared regarding the symptoms score and quality of life. Results were assessed through Wilcox, ANOVA and Student-t tests. RESULTS: 80.2% were diagnosed as urodynamically obstructed of which 42.4% presented detrusor instability in the filling phase. In obstructed patients there were no statistical difference concerning obstructive or irritative questions from IPSS (p = 0.50). It was not possible either to predict which patients presented detrusor instability based on the questionnaire (p = 0.65). Out of seventy-nine cases unobstructed (19.8%), 65.4% revealed detrusor instability. These cases could not be distinguished from all obstructed men based on the clinical questions measured by IPSS (p = 0.87). Obstructive and irritative questions did not present different indexes than obstructed cases (p = 0.63). Subjective quality of life index did not discriminate obstruction nor it could predict detrusor instability in both groups. CONCLUSION: Clinical symptoms and quality of life index measured by the IPSS as well as its obstructive and irritative domains do not have discriminating power to predict the presence of infravesical obstruction in males with LUTS, demanding objective tools to demonstrate obstruction.

CONTEXTO: A profilaxia antibiótica nas ressecções transuretrais da próstata é uma prática regular e freqüente na clínica urológica. No entanto, seu efeito profilático e bactericida protetor pode ser contestado se procedimentos assépticos são utilizados na realização da cirurgia, sobretudo em pacientes com urina estéril. No caso de infecção urinária, a identificação dos germes para escolha do antibiótico adequado pode ser necessária. OBJETIVO: Verificar a eficácia da antibioticoprofilaxia em pacientes com urina estéril submetidos a ressecção transuretral de próstata. TIPO DE ESTUDO: Prospectivo num centro de referência de tratamento urológico, aberto. LOCAL: Hospital de referência terciária. PARTICIPANTES: 124 pacientes. VARIÁVEIS ESTUDADAS: 124 pacientes consecutivos foram randomicamente divididos em dois grupos para receber ou não antibioticoterapia profilática na ressecção transuretral de próstata. Cultura do meato uretral, urina, líquido irrigante e anti-séptico, além dos fragmentos de próstata ressecados foram analisados quanto a sensibilidade a antibióticos, escolhidos a critério do cirurgião, e determinada a partir de antibiograma com as cepas bacterianas identificadas nos sítios mencionados. RESULTADOS: Não se encontrou diferença estatisticamente significante na evolução clínica de ambos os grupos. Aqueles que receberam antibioticoprofilaxia apresentaram menor freqüência de cultura urinária positiva do que aqueles que não receberam profilaxia. No entanto, na observação da evolução clínica de ambos os grupos, o uso de antibiótico não mostrou qualquer benefício no que concerne à ocorrência de febre, positividade das culturas obtidas dos fragmentos de próstata ressecados ou episódios de bacteremia. 68 casos (57,1%) apresentaram cultura positiva do tecido prostático. Entretanto, não houve correlação entre a bactéria identificada a partir do tecido prostático e de outros locais, tais como meato, urina, líquido irrigante ou anti-séptico utilizado. Somente em seis casos foi encontrada a mesma bactéria no tecido prostático e na urina pós-operatória. Apenas em 15 casos (25%) do grupo antibiótico observou-se a sensibilidade esperada da bactéria identificada ao antibiótico utilizado. CONCLUSÃO: A profilaxia antibiótica em pacientes com urina estéril submetidos a ressecção transuretral de próstata poderia ser reavaliada, pois, na grande maioria das vezes, o antibiótico selecionado com finalidade profilática não apresenta especificadade às bactérias identificadas nos diversos sítios pesquisados.

CONTEXT: Antibiotic prophylaxis in transurethral resection of the prostate is a regular practice in urology. However, its prophylactic effect can be questioned when the antiseptic surgical technique is used. Nonetheless, urine culture-oriented antibiotic therapy is the gold standard for avoiding improper medication usage and bacterial resistance. OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy of antibiotic usage in patients with negative urine cultures, who were submitted to transurethral resection of the prostate. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective open labeled study. SETTING: Tertiary care referral hospital PARTICIPANTS: 124 consecutive patients, who were randomly divided into two groups to receive antibiotic prophylaxis or not. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Cultures from meatus, urine, irrigation and antiseptic fluid, and prostate tissue chips, were compared and analyzed for bacterial sensitivity to the antibiotic used, according to the surgeon's personal criteria. McLennan's test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference regarding clinical evolution was found between the groups that received or antibiotics or not. Statistical significance was found regarding the occurrence of positive urine cultures during the postoperative period for those not receiving antibiotics, but not in relation to fever, prostate chip culture or bacteremic episodes. Sixty-eight subjects (57.1%) presented positive prostatic tissue culture. There was no specific correlation between the recovered bacteria from the meatus, prostatic tissue chip and urine and the spectrum of the administered antibiotic. Six cases showed the same bacteria in the urine and prostatic tissue chip. Only fifteen cases (25%) in the antibiotic group showed the desired sensitivity directed to the collected bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients whose urine is sterile is debatable in patients who are candidates for transurethral resection of the prostate. Most of the time, the antibiotic agent used is not specific for any of the bacteria recovered from the various sources analyzed.