A Progress Report on a Prospective Randomised Trial of Open and Robotic Prostatectomy

Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer

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.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy significantly reduced biochemical recurrence compared to retro pubic radical prostatectomy

Background

The pathological and oncological outcomes of retro-pubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) have not been sufficiently investigated.

Methods

Treatment-naïve patients with localized prostate cancer (PC) (n = 908; RRP, n = 490; and RARP, n = 418) were enrolled in the study. The clinicopathological outcomes, rate and localization of the positive surgical margin (PSM), localization of PSM, and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival groups were compared between RRP and RARP.

Results

The median patient age and serum PSA level (ng/mL) at diagnosis were 67 years and 7.9 ng/ml, respectively, for RRP, and 67 years and 7.6 ng/ml, respectively, for RARP. The overall PSM rate with RARP was 21%, which was 11% for pT2a, 12% for pT2b, 9.8% for pT2c, 43% for pT3a, 55% for pT3b, and 0% for pT4. The overall PSM rate with RRP was 44%, which was 12% for pT2a, 18% for pT2b, 43% for pT2c, 78% for pT3a, 50% for pT3b, and 40% for pT4. The PSM rate was significantly lower for RARP in men with pT2c and pT3a (p < 0.0001 for both). Multivariate analysis showed that RARP reduced the risk of BCR (hazard ratio; 0.6, p = 0.009).

Conclusions

RARP versus RRP is associated with an improved PSM rate and BCR. To examine the cancer-specific survival, further investigations are needed.

[Surgical approach and sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy]

BACKGROUND

Radical prostatectomy is curative surgical treatment of choice for localized prostate cancer. The objectives are cancer control, preservation of continence and preservation of sexuality, the combination of the three constituting the Trifecta.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess, through the analysis of the literature, the sexual outcomes according to surgical approach: radical prostatectomy by laparotomy (PRL), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (PRLa) and laparoscopic robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (PRLaRA), when nerve sparing was practiced.

METHODS

An exhaustive and retrospective review of literature was conducted using the Pubmed search with the following keywords: "Prostatic Neoplasms" [Mesh], "Prostatectomy" [Mesh], "Erectile Dysfunction" [Mesh], "Robotics" [Mesh], "Laparoscopy" [Mesh], Nerve sparing.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The selected articles were prospective or retrospective series including more than 200 patients, randomized trials and meta-analyses published between 1990 and 2014.

RESULTS

A total of 21 prospective studies (6 on PRL, 4 on PRLa and 11 on PRLaRA), 12 retrospective studies (6 on PRL, 1 on PRLa and 5 on PRLaRA), 2 randomized controlled trial and 3 meta-analyses were selected from 1992 to 2013. There was no evidence of the superiority of one surgical approach compared to others in terms of sexuality.

LIMITS

Articles with level 1 of scientific evidence have discordant results, due to heterogeneity in the assessment criteria of postoperative sexual function.

CONCLUSION

According to our knowledge, there is currently no difference in terms of sexual outcomes between PRL, PRLA and PRLaRA approaches.

Robot-assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Contemporary Analysis of an All-payer Discharge Database

BACKGROUND

More than a decade since its inception, the benefits and cost efficiency of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) continue to elicit controversy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes and costs between RARP and open RP (ORP).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cohort study of 629 593 men who underwent RP for localized prostate cancer at 449 hospitals in the USA from 2003 to 2013, using the Premier Hospital Database.

INTERVENTION

RARP was ascertained through a review of the hospital charge description master for robotic supplies.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Outcomes were 90-d postoperative complications (Clavien), blood product transfusions, operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and direct hospital costs. Propensity-weighted regression analyses accounting for clustering by hospitals and survey weighting ensured nationally representative estimates.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

RARP utilization rapidly increased from 1.8% in 2003 to 85% in 2013 (p<0.001). RARP patients (n=311 135) were less likely to experience any complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, p<0.001) or prolonged LOS (OR 0.28, p<0.001), or to receive blood products (OR 0.33, p=0.002) compared to ORP patients (n=318 458). The adjusted mean ORT was 131min longer for RARP (p=0.002). The 90-d direct hospital costs were higher for RARP (+$4528, p<0.001), primarily attributed to operating room and supplies costs. Costs were no longer signficantly different between ORP and RARP among the highest-volume surgeons (≥104 cases/yr; +$1990, p=0.40) and highest-volume hospitals (≥318 cases/yr; +$1225, p=0.39). Limitations include the lack of oncologic characteristics and the retrospective nature of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Our contemporary analysis reveals that RARP confers a perioperative morbidity advantage at higher cost. In the absence of large randomized trials because of the widespread adoption of RARP, this retrospective study represents the best available evidence for the morbidity and cost profile of RARP versus ORP.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this large study of men with prostate cancer who underwent either open or robotic radical prostatectomy, we found that robotic surgery has a better morbidity profile but costs more.

[Oncological outcomes of prostate cancer surgery]

OBJECTIVE

Review of the oncological results of the radical prostatectomy as initial treatment of prostate cancer, according to the surgical approach and the risk stratification using D'Amico risk groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Review of literature using Medline databases and MedScience based on scientific relevance. Research focused on the oncological results of the radical prostatectomy in series and meta-analysis published since 10 years, taking into consideration the surgical approach if mentioned.

RESULTS

The characteristics of the operated tumor highly impact the local control authenticated by the pathologic stage and the rates of positive surgical margins (PSM), in addition to the survival and the biochemical recurrence. Surgical technique adapted according to the tumor treated, was a constant challenge to the urologist, who counter balance between the oncological control and the conservation of urinary and sexual function by conditioning the type of radical prostatectomy. Results of radical prostatectomy acceptable in terms of PSM and survival are not influenced by the surgical approach but by the degree of surgical experience.

CONCLUSION

Results of radical prostatectomy show the efficient local control of prostate cancer, taking into consideration the oncological rules and indications validated by multidisciplinary meetings, based on the national (CCAFU) and European oncological guidelines. Tendency is going toward considering radical prostatectomy indicated for patients with higher risk of disease progression, so integrating surgery in a multidisciplinary personalized approach.

Patterns-of-care and health economic analysis of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system

OBJECTIVES

To compare patterns of care and peri-operative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with other surgical approaches, and to create an economic model to assess the viability of RARP in the public case-mix funding system.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all radical prostatectomies (RPs) performed for localized prostate cancer in Victoria, Australia, from the Victorian Admitted Episode Dataset, a large administrative database that records all hospital inpatient episodes in Victoria. The first database, covering the period from July 2010 to April 2013 (n = 5 130), was used to compare length of hospital stay (LOS) and blood transfusion rates between surgical approaches. This was subsequently integrated into an economic model. A second database (n = 5 581) was extracted to cover the period between July 2010 and June 2013, three full financial years, to depict patterns of care and make future predictions for the 2014-2015 financial year, and to perform a hospital volume analysis. We then created an economic model to evaluate the incremental cost of RARP vs open RP (ORP) and laparoscopic RP (LRP), incorporating the cost-offset from differences in LOS and blood transfusion rate. The economic model constructs estimates of the diagnosis-related group (DRG) costs of ORP and LRP, adds the gross cost of the surgical robot (capital, consumables, maintenance and repairs), and manipulates these DRG costs to obtain a DRG cost per day, which can be used to estimate the cost-offset associated with RARP in comparison with ORP and LRP. Economic modelling was performed around a base-case scenario, assuming a 7-year robot lifespan and 124 RARPs performed per financial year. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed for the four-arm da Vinci SHD, Si and Si dual surgical systems (Intuitive Surgical Ltd, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).

RESULTS

We identified 5 581 patients who underwent RP in 20 hospitals in Victoria with an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgical approach in the public and private sector. The majority of RPs (4 233, 75.8%), in Victoria were performed in the private sector, with an overall 11.5% decrease in the total number of RPs performed over the 3-year study period. In the most recent financial year, 820 (47%), 765 (44%) and 173 patients (10%) underwent RARP, ORP and LRP, respectively. In the same timeframe, RARP accounted for 26 and 53% of all RPs in the public and private sector, respectively. Public hospitals in Victoria perform a median number of 14 RPs per year and 40% of hospitals perform <10 RPs per year. In the public system, RARP was associated with a mean (±sd) LOS of 1.4 (±1.3) days compared with 3.6 (±2.7) days for LRP and 4.8 (±3.5) days for ORP (P < 0.001). The mean blood transfusion rates were 0, 6 and 15% for RARP, LRP and ORP, respectively (P < 0.001). The incremental cost per RARP case compared with ORP and LRP was A$442 and A$2 092, respectively, for the da Vinci S model, A$1 933 and A$3 583, respectively, for the da Vinci Si model and A$3 548 and A$5 198, respectively for the da Vinci Si dual. RARP can become cost-equivalent with ORP where ~140 cases per year are performed in the base-case scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the period studied, RARP has become the dominant approach to RP, with significantly shorter LOS and lower blood transfusion rate. This translates to a significant cost-offset, which is further enhanced by increasing the case volume, extending the lifespan of the robot and reductions in the cost of consumables and capital.