# Impact of Cryopreserved Placental Allografts on Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer

## TL;DR

This study found that using cryopreserved placental allografts during prostate cancer surgery improves continence recovery but does not affect cancer recurrence.

## Contribution

The study is the first to investigate the impact of placental allografts on biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer patients.

## Key findings

- Cryopreserved placental allografts improved continence recovery after prostate cancer surgery.
- No significant effect on biochemical recurrence was observed in patients using placental allografts.
- In vitro tests showed reduced prostate cancer cell viability when exposed to placental allografts.

## Abstract

Placental allograft tissue has been extensively used in wound healing. It can also be placed along the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy to improve post-operative continence and erectile function recovery. The existing literature shows how placental allografts lead to improved functional recovery after radical prostatectomy. It is unknown whether these allografts have an impact on biochemical recurrence (BCR). Our study was a single surgeon retrospective review of 362 radical prostatectomy cases. The subgroups were the negative control group and two brands of cryopreserved amniotic membrane (CAM). Our data show improved continence recovery using CAM allografts. At a median follow-up of 41 months, there was no observed impact of BCR. Interestingly, in vitro analysis also revealed decreased cell viability of prostate cancer cell lines when incubated with the CAM allograft. Although further investigation is required, our data do not support a need for oncologic concern while using CAM allografts during radical prostatectomy.

Background: Human placental allografts are widely used to promote wound healing. Placental (or amniotic membrane/umbilical cord) allografts are placed along the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy to improve continence and erectile function recovery. It is unknown whether placental allografts impact biochemical recurrence (BCR). Methods: This was a single-surgeon retrospective study of 566 robotic radical prostatectomies performed from April 2015 to March 2021. The patients were divided into three groups: the negative control, Brand A, and Brand B. Brand A and Brand B were both cryopreserved amniotic membrane (CAM) allografts. A total of 324 cases were included for BCR Kaplan–Meier and risk-adjusted multivariate analyses (362 for continence analysis). In vitro analyses were performed to determine the effect of CAM allografts on prostate cancer (PCa) cell line growth. Results: For propensity score-matched analysis (adjusting for pre-operative PSA, tumor stage, Gleason Grade, and margin status), (1) the allograft groups did not show differences in time to BCR vs. the negative control group (p = 0.7), and (2) combined allograft treatment groups showed better continence recovery vs. the negative controls (p = 0.01). In vitro, placental allografts reduced PCa cell line growth in co-culture assays. Conclusions: cryopreserved AM allografts (combined or individual brands) did not show a significant effect on BCR but improved continence recovery for PCa patients.