Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 17, 2026
A New Technique for Treating Low-risk Prostate Cancer—Super Active Surveillance
Published on: November 7, 2025
[Incidental carcinoma of the prostate: can we and should we recommend radical prostatectomy?]
R Paul1, C Knebel, H van Randenborgh
1Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität, München. R.Paul@lrz.tu-muenchen.de
Introduction:
There is controversy regarding tumor control of incidental prostate cancer (PC). We evaluated in a large cohort if we can recommend radical prostatectomy after TURP.
Material And Method:
In 52 (4.3%) from a total of 1207 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy the diagnosis had been made by TURP. In a retrospective analysis we evaluated morbidity, histopathological results, and tumor control of pT1a/b tumors.
Results:
The number of incidentally detected PC decreased with time. In 5.8% in the TURP group and in 0.5% of the needle biopsy group, there was no residual tumor found (p<0.001). Morbidity was similar +/- TURP with the exception of operation time (206 vs 188 min) and catheter duration (19.3 vs 17.3 days). Postoperative continence was identical. There was no difference in tumor control for local recurrence-free survival and PSA-free survival with and without TURP.
Conclusions:
The rate of incidentally detected PC by TURP decreases over time, but in almost all cases we found clinically relevant cancer. TURP is not an adverse prognostic factor and morbidity is similar compared with patients who were diagnosed by needle biopsy. Our data confirm that we should recommend radical prostatectomy to patients who are candidates for further curative therapy.
