51
|
Rozet F, Hennequin C, Beauval JB, Beuzeboc P, Cormier L, Fromont-Hankard G, Mongiat-Artus P, Ploussard G, Mathieu R, Brureau L, Ouzzane A, Azria D, Brenot-Rossi I, Cancel-Tassin G, Cussenot O, Rebillard X, Lebret T, Soulié M, Penna RR, Méjean A. RETRACTED: Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l’AFU – Actualisation 2018–2020 : cancer de la prostate French ccAFU guidelines – Update 2018–2020: Prostate cancer. Prog Urol 2018; 28:S79-S130. [PMID: 30392712 DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2018.08.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2018] [Accepted: 08/14/2018] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).
Cet article est retiré de la publication à la demande des auteurs car ils ont apporté des modifications significatives sur des points scientifiques après la publication de la première version des recommandations.
Le nouvel article est disponible à cette adresse: DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007.
C’est cette nouvelle version qui doit être utilisée pour citer l’article.
This article has been retracted at the request of the authors, as it is not based on the definitive version of the text because some scientific data has been corrected since the first issue was published.
The replacement has been published at the DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007.
That newer version of the text should be used when citing the article.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Rozet
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, institut mutualiste Montsouris, université René-Descartes, 42, boulevard Jourdan, 75674, Paris, France.
| | - C Hennequin
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service de radiothérapie, Saint-Louis Hospital, AP-HP, 75010, Paris, France
| | - J-B Beauval
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, oncologie médicale, institut universitaire du cancer Toulouse-Oncopole, CHU Rangueil, 31100, Toulouse, France
| | - P Beuzeboc
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Foch, 92150, Suresnes, France
| | - L Cormier
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, CHU François-Mitterrand, 21000, Dijon, France
| | - G Fromont-Hankard
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; CHU de Tours, 2, boulevard Tonnellé, 37000, Tours, France
| | - P Mongiat-Artus
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Saint-Louis, 1, avenue Claude-Vellefaux, Paris cedex 10, France
| | - G Ploussard
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, clinique La Croix du Sud-Saint-Jean Languedoc, institut universitaire du cancer, 31100, Toulouse, France
| | - R Mathieu
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital de Rennes, 2, rue Henri-le-Guilloux, 35033, Rennes cedex 9, France
| | - L Brureau
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Inserm, U1085, IRSET, 97145 Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe
| | - A Ouzzane
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Claude-Huriez, CHRU de Lille, rue Michel-Polonovski, 59000, Lille, France
| | - D Azria
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Inserm U1194, ICM, université de Montpellier, 34298, Montpellier, France
| | - I Brenot-Rossi
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Institut Paoli-Calmettes, 232, boulevard de Sainte-Marguerite, 13009, Marseille, France
| | - G Cancel-Tassin
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; GRC no 5 ONCOTYPE-URO, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne université, 75020, Paris, France
| | - O Cussenot
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Tenon, AP-HP, Sorbonne université, 75020, Paris, France
| | - X Rebillard
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, clinique mutualiste Beau-Soleil, 119, avenue de Lodève, 34070, Montpellier, France
| | - T Lebret
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Foch, 92150, Suresnes, France
| | - M Soulié
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Centre hospitalier universitaire Rangueil, 31059, Toulouse, France
| | - R Renard Penna
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; GRC no 5 ONCOTYPE-URO, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne université, 75020, Paris, France; Service de radiologie, hôpital Tenon, AP-HP, 75020, Paris, France
| | - A Méjean
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, université Paris Descartes, Assistance publique des hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), 75015, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
52
|
Rozet F, Hennequin C, Beauval JB, Beuzeboc P, Cormier L, Fromont-Hankard G, Mongiat-Artus P, Ploussard G, Mathieu R, Brureau L, Ouzzane A, Azria D, Brenot-Rossi I, Cancel-Tassin G, Cussenot O, Rebillard X, Lebret T, Soulié M, Renard Penna R, Méjean A. Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l’AFU – Actualisation 2018–2020 : cancer de la prostate. Prog Urol 2018; 28 Suppl 1:R81-R132. [DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2018] [Accepted: 08/14/2018] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
|
53
|
Mottrie A, Larcher A, Patel V. The Past, the Present, and the Future of Robotic Urology: Robot-assisted Surgery and Human-assisted Robots. Eur Urol Focus 2018; 4:629-631. [PMID: 30337191 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.10.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2018] [Accepted: 10/02/2018] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandre Mottrie
- ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium; Department of Urology, Onze Lieve Vrouw Hospital, Aalst, Belgium
| | - Alessandro Larcher
- ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium; Department of Urology, Onze Lieve Vrouw Hospital, Aalst, Belgium; Department of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
| | - Vipul Patel
- Department of Urology, Global Robotic Institute-Florida Hospital, Celebration, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
54
|
Regional differences in total hospital charges between open and robotically assisted radical prostatectomy in the United States. World J Urol 2018; 37:1305-1313. [DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2525-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2018] [Accepted: 10/08/2018] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
|
55
|
Murakami T, Otsubo S, Namitome R, Shiota M, Inokuchi J, Takeuchi A, Kashiwagi E, Tatsugami K, Eto M. Clinical factors affecting perioperative outcomes in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Mol Clin Oncol 2018; 9:575-581. [PMID: 30279989 DOI: 10.3892/mco.2018.1718] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2018] [Accepted: 09/12/2018] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
The present study investigated clinical factors affecting perioperative outcomes in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). The study included 625 Japanese cases treated with RARP between 2009 and 2017. The association between clinical factors (age, overweight status, prostate volume, clinical T-stage, nerve sparing, lympho-node dissection, and the number of experienced cases) and perioperative outcomes (operation time, estimated blood loss, catheterization duration, and perioperative complication) were analyzed. Results revealed that overweight status, prostate volume, lymph-node dissection, and the number of experienced cases were associated with operation time. For estimated blood loss, the identified risk factors were overweight status, prostate volume, nerve sparing, lymph-node dissection, and the number of experienced cases. Lymph-node dissection and the number of experienced cases were also associated with catheterization duration. Additionally, only lymph-node dissection was associated with increased perioperative complication. Taken together, the present study identified several clinical factors affecting perioperative outcomes in RARP. This information may help surgeons to estimate perioperative outcomes as well as to inform patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tomohiko Murakami
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
| | - Satoshi Otsubo
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
| | - Ryo Namitome
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
| | - Masaki Shiota
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
| | - Junichi Inokuchi
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
| | - Ario Takeuchi
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
| | - Eiji Kashiwagi
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
| | - Katsunori Tatsugami
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
| | - Masatoshi Eto
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
56
|
Ranasinghe W, de Silva D, Bandaragoda T, Adikari A, Alahakoon D, Persad R, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton D. Robotic-assisted vs. open radical prostatectomy: A machine learning framework for intelligent analysis of patient-reported outcomes from online cancer support groups. Urol Oncol 2018; 36:529.e1-529.e9. [PMID: 30236854 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.08.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2018] [Revised: 08/05/2018] [Accepted: 08/18/2018] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The advantages of Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RARP) over open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in Prostate cancer perioperatively are well-established, but quality of life is more contentious. Increasingly, patients are utilising online cancer support groups (OCSG) to express themselves. Currently there is no method of analysis of these sophisticated data sources. We have used the PRIME-2 (Patient Reported Information Multidimensional Exploration version 2) framework for automated identification and intelligent analysis of decision-making, functional and emotional outcomes in men undergoing ORP vs. RARP from OCSG discussions. METHODS The PRIME-2 framework was developed to retrospectively analyse individualised patient-reported information from 5,157 patients undergoing RARP and 579 ORP. The decision factors, side effects, and emotions in 2 groups were analysed and compared using Chi-squared, t tests, and Pearson correlation. RESULTS There were no differences in Gleason score, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), and age between the groups. Surgeon experience and preservation of erectile function (P < 0.01) were important factors in the decision making process. There were no significant differences in urinary, sexual, or bowel symptoms between ORP and RARP on a monthly basis during the initial 12 months. Emotions expressed by patients undergoing RARP were more consistent and positive while ORP expressed more negative emotions at the time of surgery and 3 months postsurgery (P < 0.05), due to pain and discomfort, and during ninth month due to fear and anxiety of pending PSA tests. CONCLUSIONS ORP and RARP demonstrated similar side effect profiles for 12 months, but PRIME-2 enables identification of important quality of life features and emotions over time. It is timely for clinicians to accept OCSG as an adjunct to Prostate cancer care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Weranja Ranasinghe
- University of Melbourne, Department of Surgery, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Daswin de Silva
- Research Centre for Data Analytics and Cognition, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia
| | - Tharindu Bandaragoda
- Research Centre for Data Analytics and Cognition, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia
| | - Achini Adikari
- Research Centre for Data Analytics and Cognition, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia
| | - Damminda Alahakoon
- Research Centre for Data Analytics and Cognition, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia
| | - Raj Persad
- North Bristol, NHS Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Nathan Lawrentschuk
- University of Melbourne, Department of Surgery, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
| | - Damien Bolton
- University of Melbourne, Department of Surgery, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
57
|
Pompe RS, Beyer B, Haese A, Preisser F, Michl U, Steuber T, Graefen M, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI, Tilki D. Postoperative complications of contemporary open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using standardised reporting systems. BJU Int 2018; 122:801-807. [DOI: 10.1111/bju.14369] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Raisa S. Pompe
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center; University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf; Hamburg Germany
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit; University of Montreal Health Center; Montreal QC Canada
- Department of Urology; University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf; Hamburg Germany
| | - Burkhard Beyer
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center; University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf; Hamburg Germany
| | - Alexander Haese
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center; University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf; Hamburg Germany
| | - Felix Preisser
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center; University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf; Hamburg Germany
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit; University of Montreal Health Center; Montreal QC Canada
| | - Uwe Michl
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center; University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf; Hamburg Germany
| | - Thomas Steuber
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center; University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf; Hamburg Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center; University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf; Hamburg Germany
| | - Hartwig Huland
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center; University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf; Hamburg Germany
| | - Pierre I. Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit; University of Montreal Health Center; Montreal QC Canada
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center; University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf; Hamburg Germany
- Department of Urology; University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf; Hamburg Germany
| |
Collapse
|
58
|
Cole AP, Friedlander DF, Trinh QD. Secondary data sources for health services research in urologic oncology. Urol Oncol 2018; 36:165-173. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.08.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2017] [Revised: 08/03/2017] [Accepted: 08/09/2017] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
|
59
|
Tang K, Jiang K, Chen H, Chen Z, Xu H, Ye Z. Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update. Oncotarget 2018; 8:32237-32257. [PMID: 27852051 PMCID: PMC5458281 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.13332] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2016] [Accepted: 10/21/2016] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
CONTEXT The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP) is debated. Recently, a number of large-scale and high-quality studies have been conducted. OBJECTIVE To obtain a more valid assessment, we update the meta-analysis of RARP compared with RRP to assessed its safety and feasibility in treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify studies that compared RARP with RRP. Outcomes of interest included perioperative, pathologic variables and complications. RESULTS 78 studies assessing RARP vs. RRP were included for meta-analysis. Although patients underwent RRP have shorter operative time than RARP (WMD: 39.85 minutes; P < 0.001), patients underwent RARP have less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -507.67ml; P < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rates (OR = 0.13; P < 0.001), shorter time to remove catheter (WMD = -3.04day; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.62day; P < 0.001), lower PSM rates (OR:0.88; P = 0.04), fewer positive lymph nodes (OR:0.45;P < 0.001), fewer overall complications (OR:0.43; P < 0.001), higher 3- and 12-mo potent recovery rate (OR:3.19;P = 0.02; OR:2.37; P = 0.005, respectively), and lower readmission rate (OR:0.70, P = 0.03). The biochemical recurrence free survival of RARP is better than RRP (OR:1.33, P = 0.04). All the other calculated results are similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate that RARP appears to be safe and effective to its counterpart RRP in selected patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kun Tang
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Kehua Jiang
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.,Department of Urology, The Central Hospital of Enshi Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi, China
| | - Hongbo Chen
- Department of Urology, The Central Hospital of Enshi Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi, China
| | - Zhiqiang Chen
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Hua Xu
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Zhangqun Ye
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| |
Collapse
|
60
|
Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Parry M, Charman SC, Aggarwal A, Payne H, Dasgupta P, Clarke NW, van der Meulen J, Cathcart P. National cohort study comparing severe medium-term urinary complications after robot-assisted vs laparoscopic vs retropubic open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2018; 121:445-452. [PMID: 29032582 PMCID: PMC5873443 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the occurrence of severe urinary complications within 2 years of surgery in men undergoing either robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) or retropubic open radical prostatectomy (ORP). PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a population-based cohort study in men who underwent RARP (n = 4 947), LRP (n = 5 479) or ORP (n = 6 873) between 2008 and 2012 in the English National Health Service (NHS) using national cancer registry records linked to Hospital Episodes Statistics, an administrative database of admissions to NHS hospitals. We identified the occurrence of any severe urinary or severe stricture-related complication within 2 years of surgery using a validated tool. Multi-level regression modelling was used to determine the association between the type of surgery and occurrence of complications, with adjustment for patient and surgical factors. RESULTS Men undergoing RARP were least likely to experience any urinary complication (10.5%) or a stricture-related complication (3.3%) compared with those who had LRP (15.8% any or 5.7% stricture-related) or ORP (19.1% any or 6.9% stricture-related). The impact of the type of surgery on the occurrence of any urinary or stricture-related complications remained statistically significant after adjustment for patient and surgical factors (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION Men who underwent RARP had the lowest risk of developing severe urinary complications within 2 years of surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Julie Nossiter
- Clinical Effectiveness UnitRoyal College of Surgeons of EnglandLondonUK
| | - Matthew Parry
- Clinical Effectiveness UnitRoyal College of Surgeons of EnglandLondonUK
- Department of Health Services Research and PolicyLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK
| | - Susan C. Charman
- Clinical Effectiveness UnitRoyal College of Surgeons of EnglandLondonUK
- Department of Health Services Research and PolicyLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK
| | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Department of Health Services Research and PolicyLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of OncologyUniversity College London HospitalsLondonUK
| | | | - Noel W. Clarke
- Department of UrologyChristie and Salford Royal NHS Foundation TrustsManchesterUK
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Department of Health Services Research and PolicyLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK
| | - Paul Cathcart
- Department of UrologyGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| |
Collapse
|
61
|
Matsumoto K, Tabata KI, Hirayama T, Shimura S, Nishi M, Ishii D, Fujita T, Iwamura M. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy is a safe and effective procedure for patients with bladder cancer compared to laparoscopic and open surgery: Perioperative outcomes of a single-center experience. Asian J Surg 2017; 42:189-196. [PMID: 29254869 DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2017.11.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2017] [Revised: 10/25/2017] [Accepted: 11/06/2017] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We compared the perioperative outcomes of patients with bladder cancer according to three different procedures: robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy (RALC), laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC), and open radical cystectomy (ORC). METHODS From April 2008 to March 2017, 36 consecutive patients underwent radical cystectomy and ileal conduit with RALC (n = 10), LRC (n = 10), or ORC (n = 16). All patients underwent RALC and LRC with extracorporeal urinary diversion. Perioperative data were patient demographics, perioperative laboratory data including hematocrit and creatinine, intraoperative crystalloids and colloids, estimated blood loss (EBL), allogeneic transfusion, respiratory parameters including maximum end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2) and respiratory rate, arterial blood gas data including highest pH, partial pressure of CO2 (PaCO2), partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), operative time, opiate consumption including intraoperative and postoperative anesthesia, time of hospital stay, time to oral intake and normal diet, and adverse events. RESULTS EBL was less for RALC than for other procedures (p = 0.0004). No blood transfusions were performed for RALC, but ORC required significant blood transfusions (p = 0.003). Respiratory rate was highest and PaCO2 was lowest for RALC. Preoperative creatinine levels were significantly worse for the RALC group, but no significant differences were noted after surgery. There were no significant differences among the groups in regard to hematocrit levels. Operative time, laparoscopic time, intraoperative anesthesia, and postoperative anesthesia did not differ among the groups. High-grade adverse events were only seen for ORC. CONCLUSION Although RALC required a steep Trendelenburg position, which might add elements of risk, RALC was safe even for this small cohort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kazumasa Matsumoto
- Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Japan.
| | - Ken-Ichi Tabata
- Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Japan
| | - Takahiro Hirayama
- Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Japan
| | - Soichiro Shimura
- Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Japan
| | - Morihiro Nishi
- Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Japan
| | - Daisuke Ishii
- Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Japan
| | - Tetsuo Fujita
- Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Japan
| | - Masatsugu Iwamura
- Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
62
|
Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open prostatectomy for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a matched case-control study. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY-ONCOLOGY 2017; 2:e13. [PMID: 29177226 PMCID: PMC5673152 DOI: 10.1097/ij9.0000000000000013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2017] [Accepted: 02/14/2017] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Little data exist on effect of undergoing laparoscopic prostatectomy(LP) versus open prostatectomy(OP) upon 30-day mortality rates among low-risk prostate cancer patients. Materials and methods Using the National Cancer Database, we identified men (2004 to 2013) with biopsy-proven, low-risk prostate cancer who met the eligibility criteria: N0, M0, T-stage≤2A, PSA≤10 ng/mL, and Gleason score=6. We utilized a 1:N matched case-control study, with cases and controls matched by race, insurance status, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, surgical margin status, and facility type to investigate the short-term comparative effectiveness of LP versus OP. Results Among the 448,773 patients in the National Cancer Database with low-risk prostate cancer, 116,359 patients met the above inclusion criteria. The target group was restricted to patients who received LP or OP, thus, leaving 44,720 patients for the study. The use of LP (compared with OP) was associated with patients with privately insured patients, treatment at an academic/research centers, high-volume hospitals, and white race (all P<0.01). LP was less frequently utilized for black patients, those who received treatment at community centers, and for those with Medicaid insurance(all P<0.01). The odds ratio of death for surgery type (laparoscopy vs. open) was estimated at 0.31 (95% confidence interval, 0.135-0.701; P<0.05). Thus, the risk of death within 30 days was 69% lower with LP compared with OP. Conclusions We found that the 30-day mortality rate among low-risk prostate cancer patients is significantly lower among patients who received LP when compared with OP, with various clinicopathologic parameters associated with its preferential use.
Collapse
|
63
|
Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review. BJU Int 2017; 121:845-853. [PMID: 29063728 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We included all randomized or pseudo-randomized controlled trials that directly compared LRP and RARP with ORP. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. RESULTS We included two unique studies in a total of 446 randomized participants with clinically localized prostate cancer. All available outcome data were short-term (up to 3 months). We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on one trial, RARP probably results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (mean difference [MD] -1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.65 to 2.05; moderate quality of evidence) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI: -1.84 to 9.64; moderate quality of evidence). No study addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival. Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.41, 95% CI: 0.16-1.04; low quality of evidence) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.02-1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at 1 day (MD -1.05, 95% CI: -1.42 to -0.68; low quality of evidence) and up to 1 week (MD -0.78, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.17; low quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI: -0.32 to 0.34; moderate quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI: -2.19 to -1.25; moderate quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; low quality of evidence). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1,000 men (95% CI: 78-48 fewer). CONCLUSIONS There is no evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared with ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life appear similar. Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dragan Ilic
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Sue M Evans
- Centre of Research Excellence in Patient Safety, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Christie Ann Allan
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Jae Hung Jung
- Department of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.,Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.,Urology Section, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Declan Murphy
- Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Mark Frydenberg
- Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| |
Collapse
|
64
|
Hosny M, Rai B, Aljaafari F, Agarwal S, McNicholas T, Boustead G, Lane T, Adshead J, Vasdev N. Can Anterior Prostatic Fat Harbor Prostate Cancer Metastasis? A Prospective Cohort Study. Curr Urol 2017; 10:182-185. [PMID: 29234260 PMCID: PMC5704707 DOI: 10.1159/000447178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2016] [Accepted: 01/24/2017] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Traditionally anterior prostatic fat (APF) hasn't been included in pelvic lymph node (LN) dissection templates following radical prostatectomy. In this study we evaluate the incidence of lymphoid tissue in the APF and the incidence of LN metastasis in APF in patients who have undergone robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). METHODS A prospective database of RALP has been maintained between January 2010 and September 2015. APF is routinely excised and sent separately for histopathological evaluation to identify lymphoid tissue and metastatic prostate cancer. RESULTS A total of 629 underwent RALP. Forty-six (7.3%) of the patients had lymphoid tissue on histopathological evaluation. Two patients had meta-static disease. Both patients with positive LNs were intermediate risk on pre-operative evolution (A-PSA 16.6 ng/ml, Gleason 3 + 4; B PSA 7.3 ng/ml, Gleason 4 + 3) and upgraded on final prostate pathological evaluation to high risk disease (A-Gleason 4 + 5, pT3b, B-Gleason 4 + 3, pT4). CONCLUSION There appears to be lymphatic drainage to the APF from the prostate. Hence APF should be included in pelvic LN dissection templates when lymphadenectomy is contemplated in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohannad Hosny
- Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK
| | - Bhavan Rai
- Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK
| | - Feras Aljaafari
- Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK
| | - Samita Agarwal
- Department of Histopathology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK
| | - Thomas McNicholas
- Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK
| | - Gregory Boustead
- Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK
| | - Thimothy Lane
- Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK
| | - James Adshead
- Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK
| | - Nikhil Vasdev
- Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK
| |
Collapse
|
65
|
Schroeck FR, Jacobs BL, Bhayani SB, Nguyen PL, Penson D, Hu J. Cost of New Technologies in Prostate Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review of Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy, Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy, and Proton Beam Therapy. Eur Urol 2017; 72:712-735. [PMID: 28366513 PMCID: PMC5623181 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2017] [Accepted: 03/17/2017] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Some of the high costs of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and proton beam therapy may be offset by better outcomes or less resource use during the treatment episode. OBJECTIVE To systematically review the literature to identify the key economic trade-offs implicit in a particular treatment choice for prostate cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We systematically reviewed the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and protocol. We searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for articles published between January 2001 and July 2016, which compared the treatment costs of RARP, IMRT, or proton beam therapy to the standard treatment. We identified 37, nine, and three studies, respectively. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS RARP is costlier than radical retropubic prostatectomy for hospitals and payers. However, RARP has the potential for a moderate cost advantage for payers and society over a longer time horizon when optimal cancer and quality-of-life outcomes are achieved. IMRT is more expensive from a payer's perspective compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, but also more cost effective when defined by an incremental cost effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year. Proton beam therapy is costlier than IMRT and its cost effectiveness remains unclear given the limited comparative data on outcomes. Using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, the quality of evidence was low for RARP and IMRT, and very low for proton beam therapy. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with new versus traditional technologies is costlier. However, given the low quality of evidence and the inconsistencies across studies, the precise difference in costs remains unclear. Attempts to estimate whether this increased cost is worth the expense are hampered by the uncertainty surrounding improvements in outcomes, such as cancer control and side effects of treatment. If the new technologies can consistently achieve better outcomes, then they may be cost effective. PATIENT SUMMARY We review the cost and cost effectiveness of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and proton beam therapy in prostate cancer treatment. These technologies are costlier than their traditional counterparts. It remains unclear whether their use is associated with improved cure and reduced morbidity, and whether the increased cost is worth the expense.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florian Rudolf Schroeck
- White River Junction VA Medical Center, White River Junction, VT, USA; Section of Urology and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA; The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA.
| | - Bruce L Jacobs
- Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Center for Research on Health Care, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Sam B Bhayani
- Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Paul L Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - David Penson
- Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; VA Tennessee Valley Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC), Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Jim Hu
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
66
|
Vertosick EA, Assel M, Vickers AJ. A systematic review of instrumental variable analyses using geographic region as an instrument. Cancer Epidemiol 2017; 51:49-55. [PMID: 29035744 DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2017.10.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2017] [Revised: 09/12/2017] [Accepted: 10/07/2017] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Instrumental variables analysis is a methodology to mitigate the effects of measured and unmeasured confounding in observational studies of treatment effects. Geographic area is increasingly used as an instrument. METHODS We conducted a literature review to determine the properties of geographic area in studies of cancer treatments. We identified cancer studies performed in the United States which incorporated instrumental variable analysis with area-wide treatment rate within a geographic region as the instrument. We assessed the degree of treatment variability between geographic regions, assessed balance of measured confounders afforded by geographic area and compared the results of instrumental variable analysis to those of multivariable methods. RESULTS Geographic region as an instrument was relatively common, with 22 eligible studies identified, many of which were published in high-impact journals. Treatment rates did not vary greatly by geographic region. Covariates were not balanced by the instrument in the majority of studies. Eight out of eleven studies found statistically significant effects of treatment on multivariable analysis but not for instrumental variables, with the central estimates of the instrumental variables analysis generally being closer to the null. CONCLUSIONS We recommend caution and an investigation of IV assumptions when considering the use of geographic region as an instrument in observational studies of cancer treatments. The value of geographic region as an instrument should be critically evaluated in other areas of medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily A Vertosick
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 485 Lexington Avenue, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10017, United States.
| | - Melissa Assel
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 485 Lexington Avenue, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10017, United States.
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 485 Lexington Avenue, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10017, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
67
|
Nouvelles techniques dans le cancer de la prostate localisé : chirurgie et radiothérapie. Cancer Radiother 2017; 21:442-446. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2017.08.107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2017] [Revised: 08/07/2017] [Accepted: 08/09/2017] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
|
68
|
Sebesta EM, Anderson CB. The Surgical Management of Prostate Cancer. Semin Oncol 2017; 44:347-357. [DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2018.01.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2018] [Accepted: 01/09/2018] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
69
|
Baack Kukreja J, Kamat AM. Strategies to minimize readmission rates following major urologic surgery. Ther Adv Urol 2017; 9:111-119. [PMID: 28588648 PMCID: PMC5444623 DOI: 10.1177/1756287217701699] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2016] [Accepted: 02/28/2017] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Readmissions after major surgical procedures are prevalent across multiple disciplines. Specifically, in urology, with incorporation of early discharge and recovery pathways, readmissions are emerging as an important problem and effecting an epidemic proportion of urology patients. As expected, readmissions have garnered the attention of major healthcare payers in the United States who see readmissions as easy targets because of the association with astronomical costs. More importantly, readmissions have a significant negative impact on patient sense of wellbeing, and places economic and other hardships on the doors of our patients and their families. Here, we explore the reasons patients are readmitted, using radical cystectomy as a case study, and means to decrease the incidence of readmissions. Since time to readmission for most major urologic oncology surgeries is within the first 2 weeks after discharge, this time frame is critical for efforts to improve symptom identification and reduce the total number and severity of readmissions. Readmission reduction to zero is unlikely for any major surgery, but with effective coordinated strategies, we must strive to reduce the rates as much as possible, as a means to improve the care continuum for our patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janet Baack Kukreja
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit #1373, Houston, TX 77030-4000, USA
| | - Ashish M. Kamat
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit #1373, Houston, TX 77030-4000, USA
| |
Collapse
|
70
|
Saika T, Miura N, Fukumoto T, Yanagihara Y, Miyauchi Y, Kikugawa T. Role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in locally advanced prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2017; 25:30-35. [PMID: 28901630 DOI: 10.1111/iju.13441] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2017] [Accepted: 07/11/2017] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Locally advanced prostate cancer is regarded as a very high-risk disease with a poor prognosis. Although there is no definitive consensus on the definition of locally advanced prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer as a primary treatment or part of a multimodal therapy has been reported. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is currently carried out even in high-risk prostate cancer because it provides optimal outcomes. However, limited studies have assessed the role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Herein, we summarize and review the current knowledge in terms of the definition and surgical indications of locally advanced prostate cancer, and the surgical procedure and perisurgical/oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takashi Saika
- Department of Urology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Toon, Ehime, Japan
| | - Noriyoshi Miura
- Department of Urology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Toon, Ehime, Japan
| | - Tetsuya Fukumoto
- Department of Urology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Toon, Ehime, Japan
| | - Yutaka Yanagihara
- Department of Urology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Toon, Ehime, Japan
| | - Yuki Miyauchi
- Department of Urology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Toon, Ehime, Japan
| | - Tadahiko Kikugawa
- Department of Urology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Toon, Ehime, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
71
|
Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M. Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 9:CD009625. [PMID: 28895658 PMCID: PMC6486168 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009625.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised prostate cancer. Prostatectomy has traditionally been performed as open surgery, typically via a retropubic approach. The advent of laparoscopic approaches, including robotic-assisted, provides a minimally invasive alternative to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to ORP, including pseudo-RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE. MAIN RESULTS We included two unique studies with 446 randomised participants with clinically localised prostate cancer. The mean age, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of the participants were 61.3 years, 49.78 mL, and 7.09 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on data from one trial, RARP likely results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (MD -1.30, 95% CI -4.65 to 2.05) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI -1.84 to 9.64). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate for both quality of life outcomes, downgrading for study limitations. Secondary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival.Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32). We rated the quality of evidence as low for both surgical complications, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision.Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at one day (MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.68 ) and up to one week (MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.17). We rated the quality of evidence for both time-points as low, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision. Based on one study, RARP likely results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.34). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on one study, RARP likely reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.25). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on two study, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.46). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1000 men (95% CI 78 fewer to 48 fewer). We rated the quality of evidence as low, downgrading for study limitations and indirectness.We were unable to perform any of the prespecified secondary analyses based on the available evidence. All available outcome data were short-term and we were unable to account for surgeon volume or experience. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is no high-quality evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared to ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life-related outcomes appear similar.Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions. All available outcome data were short-term, and this study was unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dragan Ilic
- Monash UniversityDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive MedicineThe Alfred Centre, Level 6, 99 Commercial RdMelbourneVictoriaAustralia3004
| | - Sue M Evans
- School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityCentre of Research Excellence in Patient SafetyMelbourneAustralia
| | - Christie Ann Allan
- Monash UniversityDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive MedicineThe Alfred Centre, Level 6, 99 Commercial RdMelbourneVictoriaAustralia3004
| | - Jae Hung Jung
- Yonsei University Wonju College of MedicineDepartment of Urology20 Ilsan‐roWonjuGangwonKorea, South26426
- University of MinnesotaDepartment of UrologyMinneapolis, MinnesotaUSA
- Minneapolis VA Health Care SystemUrology SectionMinneapolis, MinnesotaUSA
| | - Declan Murphy
- Peter MacCallum Cancer CentreCancer SurgeryMelbourneAustralia
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
72
|
Jang WS, Kim MS, Jeong WS, Chang KD, Cho KS, Ham WS, Rha KH, Hong SJ, Choi YD. Does robot-assisted radical prostatectomy benefit patients with prostate cancer and bone oligometastases? BJU Int 2017; 121:225-231. [DOI: 10.1111/bju.13992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Won Sik Jang
- Department of Urology; Urological Science Institute; Yonsei University College of Medicine; Seoul Korea
| | - Myung Soo Kim
- Department of Urology; Urological Science Institute; Yonsei University College of Medicine; Seoul Korea
| | - Won Sik Jeong
- Department of Urology; Urological Science Institute; Yonsei University College of Medicine; Seoul Korea
| | - Ki Don Chang
- Department of Urology; Urological Science Institute; Yonsei University College of Medicine; Seoul Korea
| | - Kang Su Cho
- Department of Urology; Urological Science Institute; Yonsei University College of Medicine; Seoul Korea
| | - Won Sik Ham
- Department of Urology; Urological Science Institute; Yonsei University College of Medicine; Seoul Korea
| | - Koon Ho Rha
- Department of Urology; Urological Science Institute; Yonsei University College of Medicine; Seoul Korea
| | - Sung Joon Hong
- Department of Urology; Urological Science Institute; Yonsei University College of Medicine; Seoul Korea
| | - Young Deuk Choi
- Department of Urology; Urological Science Institute; Yonsei University College of Medicine; Seoul Korea
| |
Collapse
|
73
|
Dell’Oglio P, Stabile A, Gandaglia G, Zaffuto E, Fossati N, Bandini M, Suardi N, Karakiewicz PI, Shariat SF, Montorsi F, Briganti A. New surgical approaches for clinically high-risk or metastatic prostate cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2017; 17:1013-1031. [DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2017.1374858] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Paolo Dell’Oglio
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Armando Stabile
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Emanuele Zaffuto
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicola Fossati
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Marco Bandini
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Nazareno Suardi
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Pierre I. Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Shahrokh F. Shariat
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna and General Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
74
|
Cheung H, Wang Y, Chang SL, Khandwala Y, Del Giudice F, Chung BI. Adoption of Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomies: A Population-Based Analysis of U.S. Surgeons from 2004 to 2013. J Endourol 2017; 31:886-892. [DOI: 10.1089/end.2017.0174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Hoiwan Cheung
- Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
- Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire
| | - Ye Wang
- Division of Urology and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Steven L. Chang
- Division of Urology and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Yash Khandwala
- Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
- University of California San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, California
| | - Francesco Del Giudice
- Department of Gynecological-Obstetrics Sciences and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Benjamin I. Chung
- Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| |
Collapse
|
75
|
Chaudhary MA, Leow JJ, Mossanen M, Chowdhury R, Jiang W, Learn PA, Weissman JS, Chang SL. Patient driven care in the management of prostate cancer: analysis of the United States military healthcare system. BMC Urol 2017; 17:56. [PMID: 28693554 PMCID: PMC5504736 DOI: 10.1186/s12894-017-0247-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2017] [Accepted: 07/06/2017] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Patient preferences are assumed to impact healthcare resource utilization, especially treatment options. There is limited data exploring this phenomenon. We sought to identify factors associated with patients transferring care for prostatectomy, from military to civilian facilities, and the receipt of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP). Methods Retrospective review of 2006-2010 TRICARE data identified men diagnosed with prostate cancer (ICD-9 185) receiving open radical prostatectomy (ORP; ICD-9: 60.5) or MIRP (ICD-9 60.5 + 54.21/17.42). Patients diagnosed at military facilities but underwent surgery at civilian facilities were defined as “transferring care”. Logistic regression models identified predictors of transferring care for patients diagnosed at military facilities. A secondary analysis identified the predictors of MIRP receipt at civilian facilities. Results Of 1420 patients, 247 (17.4%) transferred care. These patients were more likely to undergo MIRP (OR = 7.83, p < 0.01), and get diagnosed at low-volume military facilities (OR = 6.10, p < 0.01). Our secondary analysis demonstrated that transferring care was strongly associated with undergoing MIRP (OR = 1.51, p = 0.04). Conclusions Patient preferences induced a demand for greater utilization of MIRP and civilian facilities. Further work exploring factors driving these preferences and interventions tailoring them, based on evidence and cost considerations, is required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Muhammad Ali Chaudhary
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Jeffrey J Leow
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Matthew Mossanen
- Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ritam Chowdhury
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Wei Jiang
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Peter A Learn
- Department of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Joel S Weissman
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Steven L Chang
- Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
76
|
Gershman B, Meier SK, Jeffery MM, Moreira DM, Tollefson MK, Kim SP, Karnes RJ, Shah ND. Redefining and Contextualizing the Hospital Volume-Outcome Relationship for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Implications for Centralization of Care. J Urol 2017; 198:92-99. [DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.067] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/24/2017] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Boris Gershman
- Division of Urology, Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Sarah K. Meier
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Molly M. Jeffery
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Daniel M. Moreira
- Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | | | - Simon P. Kim
- Department of Urology, Urology Institute, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio
| | | | - Nilay D. Shah
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
- OptumLabs, Cambridge, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
77
|
Sood A, Meyer CP, Abdollah F, Sammon JD, Sun M, Lipsitz SR, Hollis M, Weissman JS, Menon M, Trinh QD. Minimally invasive surgery and its impact on 30-day postoperative complications, unplanned readmissions and mortality. Br J Surg 2017. [PMID: 28632890 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10561] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A critical appraisal of the benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is needed, but is lacking. This study examined the associations between MIS and 30-day postoperative outcomes including complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, unplanned readmissions, hospital stay and mortality for five common surgical procedures. METHODS Patients undergoing appendicectomy, colectomy, inguinal hernia repair, hysterectomy and prostatectomy were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Non-parsimonious propensity score methods were used to construct procedure-specific matched-pair cohorts that reduced baseline differences between patients who underwent MIS and those who did not. Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied and P < 0·006 was considered significant. RESULTS Of the 532 287 patients identified, 53·8 per cent underwent MIS. Propensity score matching yielded an overall sample of 327 736 patients (appendicectomy 46 688, colectomy 152 114, inguinal hernia repair 59 066, hysterectomy 59 066, prostatectomy 10 802). Within the procedure-specific matched pairs, MIS was associated with significantly lower odds of Clavien-Dindo grade I-II, III and IV complications (P ≤ 0·004), unplanned readmissions (P < 0·001) and reduced hospital stay (P < 0·001) in four of the five procedures studied, with the exception of inguinal hernia repair. The odds of death were lower in patients undergoing MIS colectomy (P < 0·001), hysterectomy (P = 0·002) and appendicectomy (P = 0·002). CONCLUSION MIS was associated with significantly fewer 30-day postoperative complications, unplanned readmissions and deaths, as well as shorter hospital stay, in patients undergoing colectomy, prostatectomy, hysterectomy or appendicectomy. No benefits were noted for inguinal hernia repair.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Sood
- Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation (VCORE), Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, USA.,Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - C P Meyer
- Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - F Abdollah
- Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation (VCORE), Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, USA
| | - J D Sammon
- Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation (VCORE), Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, USA.,Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - M Sun
- Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - S R Lipsitz
- Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - M Hollis
- Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - J S Weissman
- Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - M Menon
- Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation (VCORE), Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, USA
| | - Q-D Trinh
- Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation (VCORE), Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, USA.,Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
78
|
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The purpose of the guidelines national committee CCAFU was to propose updated french guidelines for localized and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS A Medline search was achieved between 2013 and 2016, as regards diagnosis, options of treatment and follow-up of PCa, to evaluate different references with levels of evidence. RESULTS Epidemiology, classification, staging systems, diagnostic evaluation are reported. Disease management options are detailed. Recommandations are reported according to the different clinical situations. Active surveillance is a major option in low risk PCa. Radical prostatectomy remains a standard of care of localized PCa. The three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy is the technical standard. A dose of > 74Gy is recommended. Moderate hypofractionation provides short-term biochemical control comparable to conventional fractionation. In case of intermediate risk PCa, radiotherapy can be combined with short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In case of high risk disease, long-term ADT remains the standard of care. ADT is the backbone therapy of metastatic disease. In men with metastases at first presentation, upfront chemotherapy combined with ADT should be considered as a new standard. In case of metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC), new hormonal treatments and chemotherapy provide a better control of tumor progression and increase survival. CONCLUSIONS These updated french guidelines will contribute to increase the level of urological care for the diagnosis and treatment for prostate cancer. © 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Collapse
|
79
|
Herlemann A, Cowan JE, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR. Community-based Outcomes of Open versus Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2017; 73:215-223. [PMID: 28499617 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2016] [Accepted: 04/19/2017] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Identifying the optimal surgical approach for patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) managed in the community setting remains controversial due to the lack of robust, prospective data. OBJECTIVE To assess surgical outcomes and changes in urinary and sexual quality of life (QOL) over time in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Our study included patients enrolled in Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE), a large, prospective, mostly community-based, nationwide PCa registry, who underwent RP between 2004 and 2016. INTERVENTION Open (ORP) versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localized PCa. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Demographic and clinicopathologic data and surgical outcomes were compared between ORP and RARP. Self-reported, validated questionnaires (scaled 0-100 with higher numbers indicating better function) were used to evaluate urinary and sexual QOL at different time points. Repeated measures mixed-models assessed changes in function and bother over time in each domain. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Among 1892 men (n = 1137 ORP; n = 755 RARP), Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score, Gleason grade at biopsy and RP, and pT-stage were lower in ORP patients (all p < 0.01). Men undergoing RARP had comparable surgical margin rates, lymph node yields, and biochemical recurrence rates. In a subset analysis with 1451 men reporting baseline and follow-up QOL data, ORP patients reported superior scores in urinary incontinence (ORP mean ± standard deviation 69 ± 26 vs RARP 62 ± 27) and bother (ORP 75±29 vs RARP 68±28, both p < 0.01) only in the 1st yr after RP. Differences in sexual outcomes did not differ between groups, nor did any QOL scores beyond 1 yr. Limitations include a decrease in the rate of questionnaire response during follow-up, potential selection biases in terms of patient assignment to ORP versus RARP and survey completion rates, and the fact that RARP cases likely included the initial learning curve for the CaPSURE surgeons. CONCLUSIONS Most patients experienced changes in urinary and sexual QOL in the 1st 3 yr following RP. The pattern of recovery over time was similar between ORP and RARP groups. Patients should not expect different oncologic or QOL outcomes based on surgical approach. PATIENT SUMMARY Aside from a small, early, and temporary advantage in terms of urinary incontinence and bother favoring open surgery, minimal differences in outcomes are observed when comparing men who undergo open versus robot-assisted prostatectomy in the community setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annika Herlemann
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Janet E Cowan
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Peter R Carroll
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Matthew R Cooperberg
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
80
|
Jayadevappa R, Chhatre S, Wong YN, Wittink MN, Cook R, Morales KH, Vapiwala N, Newman DK, Guzzo T, Wein AJ, Malkowicz SB, Lee DI, Schwartz JS, Gallo JJ. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments for patient-centered outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA Compliant). Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96:e6790. [PMID: 28471976 PMCID: PMC5419922 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000006790] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the context of prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by the multiple alternative treatment strategies, comparative effectiveness analysis is essential for informed decision-making. We analyzed the comparative effectiveness of PCa treatments through systematic review and meta-analysis with a focus on outcomes that matter most to newly diagnosed localized PCa patients. METHODS We performed a systematic review of literature published in English from 1995 to October 2016. A search strategy was employed using terms "prostate cancer," "localized," "outcomes," "mortality," "health related quality of life," and "complications" to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, and retrospective studies. For observational studies, only those adjusting for selection bias using propensity-score or instrumental-variables approaches were included. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratio was used to assess all-cause and disease-specific mortality. Funnel plots were used to assess the level of bias. RESULTS Our search strategy yielded 58 articles, of which 29 were RCTs, 6 were prospective studies, and 23 were retrospective studies. The studies provided moderate data for the patient-centered outcome of mortality. Radical prostatectomy demonstrated mortality benefit compared to watchful waiting (all-cause HR = 0.63 CI = 0.45, 0.87; disease-specific HR = 0.48 CI = 0.40, 0.58), and radiation therapy (all-cause HR = 0.65 CI = 0.57, 0.74; disease-specific HR = 0.51 CI = 0.40, 0.65). However, we had minimal comparative information about tradeoffs between and within treatment for other patient-centered outcomes in the short and long-term. CONCLUSION Lack of patient-centered outcomes in comparative effectiveness research in localized PCa is a major hurdle to informed and shared decision-making. More rigorous studies that can integrate patient-centered and intermediate outcomes in addition to mortality are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ravishankar Jayadevappa
- Department of Medicine
- Urology Division, Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
- Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
- Abramson Cancer Center
| | - Sumedha Chhatre
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
| | - Yu-Ning Wong
- Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Marsha N. Wittink
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY
| | | | | | | | - Diane K. Newman
- Urology Division, Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
| | - Thomas Guzzo
- Urology Division, Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
| | - Alan J. Wein
- Urology Division, Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
- Abramson Cancer Center
| | - Stanley B. Malkowicz
- Urology Division, Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
- Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC
- Abramson Cancer Center
| | - David I. Lee
- Urology Division, Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
| | - Jerome S. Schwartz
- Department of Medicine
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
- Abramson Cancer Center
- Health Care Management Department, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Joseph J. Gallo
- General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
81
|
Moschini M, Foerster B, Abufaraj M, Soria F, Seisen T, Roupret M, Colin P, De la Taille A, Peyronnet B, Bensalah K, Herout R, Wirth MP, Novotny V, Chlosta P, Bandini M, Montorsi F, Simone G, Gallucci M, Romeo G, Matsumoto K, Karakiewicz P, Briganti A, Shariat SF. Trends of lymphadenectomy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients treated with radical nephroureterectomy. World J Urol 2017; 35:1541-1547. [DOI: 10.1007/s00345-017-2026-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2016] [Accepted: 02/15/2017] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
|
82
|
Seisen T, Cole AP, Sun M, Kibel AS, Trinh QD. Assessing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Lancet 2017; 389:799. [PMID: 28248169 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30511-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2016] [Accepted: 11/10/2016] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Seisen
- Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120, USA
| | - Alexander P Cole
- Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120, USA
| | - Maxine Sun
- Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120, USA
| | - Adam S Kibel
- Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120, USA
| | - Quoc-Dien Trinh
- Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
83
|
Moschini M, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Dell'Oglio P, Cucchiara V, Luzzago S, Zaffuto E, Suardi N, Damiano R, Shariat SF, Montorsi F, Briganti A. Incidence and Predictors of 30-Day Readmission After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017; 15:67-71. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2016.06.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2015] [Accepted: 06/05/2016] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
84
|
Cole AP, Friedlander DF, Trinh QD. Understanding the roles of randomized trials for robotic prostatectomy. ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE 2017; 4:467. [PMID: 28090523 DOI: 10.21037/atm.2016.11.59] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander P Cole
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - David F Friedlander
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Quoc-Dien Trinh
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
85
|
Hagen ME, Jung MK, Ris F, Fakhro J, Buchs NC, Buehler L, Morel P. Early clinical experience with the da Vinci Xi Surgical System in general surgery. J Robot Surg 2016; 11:347-353. [PMID: 28028750 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-016-0662-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2016] [Accepted: 12/04/2016] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
The da Vinci Xi Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has been released in 2014 to facilitate minimally invasive surgery. Novel features are targeted towards facilitating complex multi-quadrant procedures, but data is scarce so far. Perioperative data of patients who underwent robotic general surgery with the da Vinci Xi system within the first 6 month after installation were collected and analyzed. The gastric bypass procedures performed with the da Vinci Xi Surgical System were compared to an equal amount of the last procedures with the da Vinci Si Surgical System. Thirty-one foregut (28 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses), 6 colorectal procedures and 1 revisional biliary procedure were performed. The mean operating room (OR) time was 221.8 (±69.0) minutes for gastric bypasses and 306.5 (±48.8) for colorectal procedures with mean docking time of 9.4 (±3.8) minutes. The gastric bypass procedure was transitioned from a hybrid to a fully robotic approach. In comparison to the last 28 gastric bypass procedures performed with the da Vinci Si Surgical System, the OR time was comparable (226.9 versus 230.6 min, p = 0.8094), but the docking time significantly longer with the da Vinci Xi Surgical System (8.5 versus 6.1 min, p = 0.0415). All colorectal procedures were performed with a single robotic docking. No intraoperative and two postoperative complications occurred. The da Vinci Xi might facilitate single-setups of totally robotic gastric bypass and colorectal surgeries. However, further comparable research is needed to clearly determine the significance of this latest version of the da Vinci Surgical System.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Monika E Hagen
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
| | - Minoa K Jung
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Frederic Ris
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Jassim Fakhro
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Nicolas C Buchs
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Leo Buehler
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Philippe Morel
- Division of Digestive and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
86
|
Re: Robotic versus Open Prostatectomy: End of the Controversy: M. O. Koch J Urol 2016;196:9-10. J Urol 2016; 197:820-821. [PMID: 27992748 DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.121] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/23/2016] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
87
|
Loeb S, Meyer CP, Krasnova A, Curnyn C, Reznor G, Kibel AS, Lepor H, Trinh QD. Risk of Small Bowel Obstruction After Robot-Assisted vs Open Radical Prostatectomy. J Endourol 2016; 30:1291-1295. [DOI: 10.1089/end.2016.0206] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Stacy Loeb
- Department of Urology, New York University, New York, New York
- Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, New York
| | - Christian P. Meyer
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Anna Krasnova
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Caitlin Curnyn
- Department of Urology, New York University, New York, New York
- Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, New York
| | - Gally Reznor
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Adam S. Kibel
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Herbert Lepor
- Department of Urology, New York University, New York, New York
| | - Quoc-Dien Trinh
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
88
|
Gandaglia G, Karl A, Novara G, de Groote R, Buchner A, D'Hondt F, Montorsi F, Stief C, Mottrie A, Gratzke C. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted vs. open radical cystectomy in bladder cancer patients: A comparison of two high-volume referral centers. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016; 42:1736-1743. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.02.254] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2015] [Revised: 02/13/2016] [Accepted: 02/24/2016] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
|
89
|
Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L, Dunglison N, Carter R, Williams S, Payton DJ, Perry-Keene J, Lavin MF, Gardiner RA. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 2016; 388:1057-1066. [PMID: 27474375 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30592-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 428] [Impact Index Per Article: 53.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The absence of trial data comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy is a crucial knowledge gap in uro-oncology. We aimed to compare these two approaches in terms of functional and oncological outcomes and report the early postoperative outcomes at 12 weeks. METHOD In this randomised controlled phase 3 study, men who had newly diagnosed clinically localised prostate cancer and who had chosen surgery as their treatment approach, were able to read and speak English, had no previous history of head injury, dementia, or psychiatric illness or no other concurrent cancer, had an estimated life expectancy of 10 years or more, and were aged between 35 years and 70 years were eligible and recruited from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (Brisbane, QLD). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy or radical retropubic prostatectomy. Randomisation was computer generated and occurred in blocks of ten. This was an open trial; however, study investigators involved in data analysis were masked to each patient's condition. Further, a masked central pathologist reviewed the biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Primary outcomes were urinary function (urinary domain of EPIC) and sexual function (sexual domain of EPIC and IIEF) at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 months and oncological outcome (positive surgical margin status and biochemical and imaging evidence of progression at 24 months). The trial was powered to assess health-related and domain-specific quality of life outcomes over 24 months. We report here the early outcomes at 6 weeks and 12 weeks. The per-protocol populations were included in the primary and safety analyses. This trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), number ACTRN12611000661976. FINDINGS Between Aug 23, 2010, and Nov 25, 2014, 326 men were enrolled, of whom 163 were randomly assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and 163 to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. 18 withdrew (12 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and six assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy); thus, 151 in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group proceeded to surgery and 157 in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group. 121 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy completed the 12 week questionnaire versus 131 assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urinary function scores did not differ significantly between the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group at 6 weeks post-surgery (74·50 vs 71·10; p=0·09) or 12 weeks post-surgery (83·80 vs 82·50; p=0·48). Sexual function scores did not differ significantly between the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group at 6 weeks post-surgery (30·70 vs 32·70; p=0·45) or 12 weeks post-surgery (35·00 vs 38·90; p=0·18). Equivalence testing on the difference between the proportion of positive surgical margins between the two groups (15 [10%] in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group vs 23 [15%] in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group) showed that equality between the two techniques could not be established based on a 90% CI with a Δ of 10%. However, a superiority test showed that the two proportions were not significantly different (p=0·21). 14 patients (9%) in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group versus six (4%) in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group had postoperative complications (p=0·052). 12 (8%) men receiving radical retropubic prostatectomy and three (2%) men receiving robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy experienced intraoperative adverse events. INTERPRETATION These two techniques yield similar functional outcomes at 12 weeks. Longer term follow-up is needed. In the interim, we encourage patients to choose an experienced surgeon they trust and with whom they have rapport, rather than a specific surgical approach. FUNDING Cancer Council Queensland.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John W Yaxley
- Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Geoffrey D Coughlin
- Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Suzanne K Chambers
- Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia; The University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Australia; Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Stefano Occhipinti
- Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
| | - Hema Samaratunga
- The University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Aquesta Specialized Uropathology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | | | - Nigel Dunglison
- Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Rob Carter
- Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | | | | | | | - Martin F Lavin
- The University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Robert A Gardiner
- Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; The University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
90
|
Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Stabile A, Bandini M, Rigatti P, Montorsi F, Briganti A. Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: Results of a Single-institution Series with Long-term Follow-up. Eur Urol 2016; 72:289-292. [PMID: 27574820 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2016] [Accepted: 08/17/2016] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
In the absence of data from randomized trials, the role of local treatment in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is gaining interest. Our study aimed to assess perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) in a selected cohort of 11 patients with oligometastatic disease treated with RP and extended pelvic lymph node dissection between 2006 and 2011. Oligometastatic disease was defined as the presence of five or fewer bone lesions at bone scan with or without suspicious pelvic or retroperitoneal nodal involvement at preoperative imaging. The minimum follow-up for survivors was 5 yr. Perioperative outcomes, clinical progression, and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) were evaluated. Median age was 72 yr. Median operative time, blood loss, and length of hospitalization were 170min, 750ml, and 13 d, respectively. Overall, two patients (18%) experienced grade 3 complications in the postoperative period, and eight (73%) received blood transfusions. Overall, 10 (91%) and 8 (73%) patients had lymph node invasion and positive surgical margins, respectively. Adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was administered to 10 patients (91%). Median follow-up for survivors was 63 mo. The 7-yr clinical progression- and CSM-free survival rates were 45% and 82%, respectively. Our findings support the safety and effectiveness of RP in a highly selected cohort of PCa patients with bone metastases and long-term follow-up. PATIENT SUMMARY We evaluated the outcomes of patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy with a minimum of 5-yr follow-up. This surgical procedure performed with a multimodal approach might represent a safe and feasible option in selected men and provide acceptable oncologic outcomes at long-term follow-up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicola Fossati
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Armando Stabile
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Marco Bandini
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Patrizio Rigatti
- Department of Urology, Advanced Urotechnology Center, Scientific Institute "Istituto Auxologico Italiano," Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
91
|
Ficarra V, Crestani A, Rossanese M, Palumbo V, Calandriello M, Novara G, Praturlon S, Giannarini G. Urethral-fixation technique improves early urinary continence recovery in patients who undergo retropubic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2016; 119:245-253. [DOI: 10.1111/bju.13514] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Vincenzo Ficarra
- Urology Unit; Department of Experimental and Clinical Medical Sciences; University of Udine; Udine Italy
- Urology Unit; Academic Medical Centre Hospital Santa Maria della Misericordia; Udine Italy
| | - Alessandro Crestani
- Urology Unit; Academic Medical Centre Hospital Santa Maria della Misericordia; Udine Italy
| | | | - Vito Palumbo
- Urology Unit; Department of Oncologic, Surgical and Gastrointestinal Sciences; University of Padova; Padova Italy
| | - Mattia Calandriello
- Urology Unit; Academic Medical Centre Hospital Santa Maria della Misericordia; Udine Italy
| | - Giacomo Novara
- Urology Unit; Department of Oncologic, Surgical and Gastrointestinal Sciences; University of Padova; Padova Italy
| | - Silvio Praturlon
- Urology Unit; Academic Medical Centre Hospital Santa Maria della Misericordia; Udine Italy
| | - Gianluca Giannarini
- Urology Unit; Academic Medical Centre Hospital Santa Maria della Misericordia; Udine Italy
| |
Collapse
|
92
|
|
93
|
Gandaglia G, Bray F, Cooperberg MR, Karnes RJ, Leveridge MJ, Moretti K, Murphy DG, Penson DF, Miller DC. Prostate Cancer Registries: Current Status and Future Directions. Eur Urol 2016; 69:998-1012. [PMID: 26056070 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.05.046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2015] [Accepted: 05/26/2015] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Disease-specific registries that enroll a considerable number of patients play a major role in prostate cancer (PCa) research. OBJECTIVE To evaluate available registries, describe their strengths and limitations, and discuss the potential future role of PCa registries in outcomes research. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We performed a literature review of the Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The search strategy included the terms prostate cancer, outcomes, statistical approaches, population-based cohorts, registries of outcomes, and epidemiological studies, alone or in combination. We limited our search to studies published between January 2005 and January 2015. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Several population-based and prospective disease-specific registries are currently available for prostate cancer. Studies performed using these data sources provide important information on incidence and mortality, disease characteristics at presentation, risk factors, trends in utilization of health care services, disparities in access to treatment, quality of care, long-term oncologic and health-related quality of life outcomes, and costs associated with management of the disease. Although data from these registries have some limitations, statistical methods are available that can address certain biases and increase the internal and external validity of such analyses. In the future, improvements in data quality, collection of tissue samples, and the availability of data feedback to health care providers will increase the relevance of studies built on population-based and disease-specific registries. CONCLUSIONS The strengths and limitations of PCa registries should be carefully considered when planning studies using these databases. Although randomized controlled trials still provide the highest level of evidence, large registries play an important and growing role in advancing PCa research and care. PATIENT SUMMARY Several population-based and prospective disease-specific registries for prostate cancer are currently available. Analyses of data from these registries yield information that is clinically relevant for the management of patients with prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giorgio Gandaglia
- Unit of Urology/Department of Oncology, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
| | - Freddie Bray
- Section of Cancer Surveillance, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | - Matthew R Cooperberg
- Departments of Urology and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Kim Moretti
- South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative, Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, and the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Declan G Murphy
- Division of Cancer Surgery, University of Melbourne, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - David F Penson
- Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, and the VA Tennessee Valley Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC), Nashville, TN, USA
| | - David C Miller
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
94
|
Gandaglia G, De Lorenzis E, Novara G, Fossati N, De Groote R, Dovey Z, Suardi N, Montorsi F, Briganti A, Rocco B, Mottrie A. Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Locally-advanced Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2016; 71:249-256. [PMID: 27209538 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2016] [Accepted: 05/06/2016] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Limited data are available on the role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE To describe our surgical technique of extrafascial RARP and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) in locally advanced PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Ninety-four patients with clinical stage ≥T3 undergoing RARP with ePLND at three European centers between 2011 and 2015 were retrospectively evaluated. SURGICAL PROCEDURE Surgery was performed using the DaVinci Si system. The anatomically defined ePLND included nodes overlying the external iliac axis, those in the obturator fossa, and around the internal iliac artery up to the ureter. RARP was performed using an extrafascial approach where the Denonvillers' fascia was dissected free and left on the posterior surface of the seminal vesicles. MEASUREMENTS Perioperative outcomes consisted of operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complications occurred within 30 d after surgery. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as two consecutive prostate-specific antigen values ≥0.2ng/ml. Kaplan-Meier analyses assessed time to BCR and clinical recurrence. Multivariable Cox regression analyses assessed predictors of BCR. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Median operative time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were 230min, 200ml, and 6 d. Overall, 12 (12.7%) patients experienced complications and five (5.3%), four (4.3%), and three (3.2%) patients had Clavien I, II, and III/IV complications. Overall, 72 (76.6%), 35 (37.2%), and 30 (32.3%) patients had pT3/4, pN1, and positive margins. The median number of nodes removed was 16. Overall, 19 (20.2%) and 21 (22.3%) patients received adjuvant radiotherapy and hormonal therapy. The median follow-up was 23.5 mo. At 3-yr follow-up, the BCR- and clinical recurrence-free survival rates were 63.3% and 95.8%. Pathologic stage, Gleason score, and positive margins represented predictors of BCR (all p≤0.03). Our study is limited by its retrospective nature and by the follow-up duration. CONCLUSIONS RARP represents a well-standardized, safe, and oncological effective option in patients with locally advanced PCa. Pathologic stage, Gleason score, and positive margins should be considered to select patients for multimodal approaches. PATIENT SUMMARY Robot-assisted surgery represents a well-standardized, safe, and oncological effective option in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Two out of three patients treated with this approach are free from recurrence at 3-yr follow-up. Pathologic stage, Gleason score, and positive surgical margins represent predictors of BCR and should be considered to select patients for multimodal approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Department of Urology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; OLV Vattikuti Robotic Surgery Institute, Melle, Belgium.
| | - Elisa De Lorenzis
- Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy
| | | | - Nicola Fossati
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Department of Urology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; OLV Vattikuti Robotic Surgery Institute, Melle, Belgium
| | - Ruben De Groote
- Department of Urology, Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Hospital, Aalst, Belgium
| | - Zach Dovey
- OLV Vattikuti Robotic Surgery Institute, Melle, Belgium
| | - Nazareno Suardi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Department of Urology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Department of Urology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Department of Urology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Bernardo Rocco
- Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
95
|
Chirurgie robot-assistée en uro-oncologie. ONCOLOGIE 2016. [DOI: 10.1007/s10269-016-2622-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
96
|
Lepor H. Editorial Comment. Urology 2016; 91:116-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.12.076] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
97
|
Abstract
There is increasing attention in the US healthcare system on the delivery of high-quality care, an issue central to oncology. In the report 'Crossing the Quality Chasm', the Institute of Medicine identified six aims for improving healthcare quality: safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient and equitable. This article describes how current big data resources can be used to assess these six dimensions, and provides examples of published studies in oncology. Strengths and limitations of current big data resources for the evaluation of quality of care are also discussed. Finally, this article outlines a vision where big data can be used not only to retrospectively assess the quality of oncologic care, but help physicians deliver high-quality care in real time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James R Broughman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB #7512, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.,School of Medicine, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Ronald C Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB #7512, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.,School of Medicine, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.,Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
98
|
Makarov DV, Li H, Lepor H, Gross CP, Blustein J. Teaching Hospitals and the Disconnect Between Technology Adoption and Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Case of the Surgical Robot. Med Care Res Rev 2016; 74:369-376. [PMID: 27034439 DOI: 10.1177/1077558716642690] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
The surgical robot, a costly technology for treatment of prostate cancer with equivocal marginal benefit, rapidly diffused into clinical practice. We sought to evaluate the role of teaching in the early adoption phase of the surgical robot. Teaching hospitals were the primary early adopters: data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project showed that surgical robots were acquired by 45.5% of major teaching, 18.0% of minor teaching and 8.0% of non-teaching hospitals during the early adoption phase. However, teaching hospital faculty produced little comparative effectiveness research: By 2008, only 24 published studies compared robotic prostatectomy outcomes to those of conventional techniques. Just ten of these studies (41.7%) were more than minimally powered, and only six (25%) involved cross-institutional collaborations. In adopting the surgical robot, teaching hospitals fulfilled their mission to innovate, but failed to generate corresponding scientific evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Danil V Makarov
- 1 Department of Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, NY.,2 Department of Urology.,3 Department of Population Health.,4 New York University Cancer Institute.,5 Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
| | - Huilin Li
- 3 Department of Population Health.,4 New York University Cancer Institute
| | - Herbert Lepor
- 2 Department of Urology.,4 New York University Cancer Institute
| | - Cary P Gross
- 7 Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program and Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
| | - Jan Blustein
- 5 Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.,6 Department of Medicine New York University, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
99
|
Williams SB, Davis JW, Wang X, Achim MF, Zurita-Saavedra A, Matin SF, Pisters LL, Ward JF, Pettaway CA, Chapin BF. Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy Before Radical Prostatectomy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Does Not Increase Surgical Morbidity: Contemporary Results Using the Clavien System. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2016; 14:130-8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2015.10.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2015] [Revised: 10/02/2015] [Accepted: 10/17/2015] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
|
100
|
Sukumar S, Elliott SP. The Devastated Bladder Outlet in Cancer Survivors After Local Therapy for Prostate Cancer. CURRENT BLADDER DYSFUNCTION REPORTS 2016. [DOI: 10.1007/s11884-016-0355-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
|