(012) Incidence of Peyronie’s Disease After Radical Prostatectomy Among Patients Undergoing Penile Rehabilitation Regimen

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Radical prostatectomy remains one of the gold standard treatments for localized prostate cancer, the most prevalent solid organ cancer in men. Surgical management of prostate cancer has been theorized to increase the risk of developing Peyronie’s Disease (PD). In 2010, Drs. Tal and Mulhall’s team characterized the incidence of PD in a cohort of 1011 men after radical prostatectomy to be 13.7% at 2 years and 15.9% at 3 years of follow-up. These numbers, significantly higher than estimates in the general population, which range from 0.5 to 7.1% (Sharma et al., Sex Med Rev 2020;8:314–23), suggest radical prostatectomy is a risk factor for developing PD. Objective Our aim was to evaluate the incidence of PD among post-prostatectomy patients who undergo a formal multi-modal penile rehabilitation program that includes mechanical and pharmacologic interventions to promote penile smooth muscle activation after surgery. Methods In this retrospective, descriptive study we reviewed the charts of 581 patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer, treated with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP), and were engaged in a penile rehabilitation program from January 2016 through January 2019. At our institution, patients scheduled for prostatectomy are referred preoperatively to an academic Men’s Health clinic to start a multi-modal program and follow up regularly for evaluation of sexual health. The program includes daily tadalafil, L-citrulline, and VED use (Table 1). Patients refractory to these therapies had the option to increase tadalafil dosing or undergo further treatment with intracavernosal injections at ~3 months post-op. We excluded patients who had PD pre-operatively or who did not have post-operative follow-up with the providers at this institution. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of PD among this cohort. Secondary outcome included time to development or diagnosis of PD. Results 581 patients with prostate cancer treated with RALP engaged in penile rehabilitation and were included in this analysis. The median age of men was 62.6 y with additional demographics listed in Table 2. The incidence of PD in this cohort was 2.9% (17 patients) with a median follow-up of 21.4 mo (IQR 2.8 – 55.8 mo). The diagnosis of PD was made at a median of 28.7 mo (IQR 20 – 36 mo) after prostatectomy. The 17 patients with PD had a median follow-up of 38.9 mo (IQR 23.2 – 55.8 mo). Conclusions In this cohort of prostate cancer patients treated with RALP and undergoing a consistent, multi-modal penile rehabilitation program, the incidence of PD was 2.9%, and median time to diagnosis was 28.7 months. This is the first study to assess PD incidence in men who engage in mechanical and pharmacologic penile rehabilitation at time of RALP. Furthermore, diagnosis of PD was made more than two years after surgery; this warrants further evaluation on whether penile rehabilitation prevents PD. This retrospective analysis is a hypothesis-generating study that should inspire further research on the role of regular mechanical stimulation or daily PDE-5 inhibitors in delaying or preventing PD after pelvic surgery. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Endo Scientific.