Oncologic Outcome of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy in the High-Risk Setting

A systematic review of nerve-sparing surgery for high-risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

We provide a systematic analysis of nerve-sparing surgery (NSS) to assess and summarize the risks and benefits of NSS in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We have undertaken a systematic search of original articles using 3 databases: Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Original articles in English containing outcomes of nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk PCa were included. The primary outcomes were oncological results: the rate of positive surgical margins and biochemical relapse. The secondary outcomes were functional results: erectile function (EF) and urinary continence.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The rate of positive surgical margins differed considerably, from zero to 47%. The majority of authors found no correlation between NSS and a positive surgical margin rate. The rate of biochemical relapse ranged from 9.3% to 61%. Most of the articles lacked data on odds ratio (OR) for positive margin and biochemical relapse. The presented results showed no effect of nerve sparing (NS) on positive margin (OR=0.81, 0.6-1.09) or biochemical relapse (hazard ratio [HR]=0.93, 0.52-1.64). A strong association between NSS and potency rate was observed. Without NSS, between 0% and 42% of patients were potent, with unilateral 79-80%, with bilateral - up to 90-100%. Urinary continence was not strongly associated with NSS and was relatively good in both patients with and without NSS.

CONCLUSIONS

NSS may provide benefits for patients with urinary continence and significantly improves EF in high-risk patients. Moreover, it is not associated with an increased risk of relapse in short- and middle-term follow-up. However, the advantages of using such a surgical technique are unclear.

Neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy followed by robot-assisted and minimum incision endoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: comparison of perioperative and oncological outcomes at single institution

PURPOSE

Optimal management strategies for patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) have not been established. This study aimed to estimate the impact of surgical procedures on perioperative and oncological outcomes in patients with high-risk PCa who received neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy (CHT) prior to radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we focused on patients with high-risk PCa who received neoadjuvant CHT followed by RP. The enrolled patients were divided into the following two groups according to surgical procedure: the robot-assisted RP (RARP) group and minimum incision endoscopic RP (MIE-RP) group. The primary endpoint was biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS).

RESULTS

A total of 522 high-risk PCa patients were enrolled in this study. The median operating time was significantly shorter in the MIE-RP group than in the RARP group. The median estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the RARP group than in the MIE-RP group. The rates of positive surgical margins (PSMs) were not statistically significant in either group. During the follow-up period, biochemical recurrence (BCR) without clinical recurrence occurred in 60 (23.9%) patients in the MIE-RP group and 5 (1.8%) in the RARP group. The 5-year BRFS rate was 76.5% in the MIE-RP group and 97.6% in the RARP group (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, RARP, PSM, pathological T stage, and initial prostate-specific antigen were significantly associated with BCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant CHT with subsequent RARP may decrease the risk of BCR when compared to MIE-RP.

Focal cryotherapy of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature

Radical/whole gland treatment for prostate cancer has significant side-effects. Therefore focal treatments such as cryotherapy have been used to treat localized lesions whilst aiming to provide adequate cancer control with minimal side-effects. We performed a systematic review of Pubmed/Medline and Cochrane databases' to yield 9 papers for primary focal prostate cryotherapy and 2 papers for focal salvage treatment (radio-recurrent). The results of 1582 primary patients showed biochemical disease-free survival between 71-93% at 9-70 months follow-up. Incontinence rates were 0-3.6% and ED 0-42%. Recto-urethral fistula occurred in only 2 patients. Salvage focal cryotherapy had biochemical disease-free survival of 50-68% at 3 years. ED occurred in 60-71%. Focal cryotherapy appears to be an effective treatment for primary localized prostate cancer and compares favorably to radical/whole gland treatments in medium-term oncological outcomes and side-effects. Although more studies are needed it is also effective for radio-recurrent cancer with a low complications rates.

Posterior reconstruction and outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a high-risk setting

Posterior reconstruction was found to be associated with lower degree of anastomotic leakage and enhanced urinary continence at one and three months after extrafascial laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Background and Objectives:

To detail the technique and evaluate the impact of a personal modified posterior reconstruction technique (PDR) on the outcomes of extrafascial laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (eLRP) in a consecutive series of 52 patients affected by high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa).

Methods:

From October 2007 to March 2012, 52 patients underwent PDR during eLRP for HRPCa. Fifty-four patients who underwent eLRP for HRPCa with no PDR were considered as historical controls. Mean operative time (MOT), mean catheterization time (MCT), % continence and quality of life (QoL) at a scheduled follow-up, % anastomotic leakage, % adjuvant therapy were compared between the groups. Percentage of continence and QoL were prospectively assessed by self-administered validated questionnaires (ICI-Q-SF; SF-36) at 1, 3, 6, and12 months.

Results:

PDR was associated wither higher continence rates at 1 and 3 mo (P = .028, P = .006), a lower incidence of cystographic leakage (P = .002), and an increased adjuvant radiotherapy rate (P = .008). At 1- and 3-mo interval, in the PDR group, we found a higher number of patients reporting better general health, (P = .01, P = .03) reduced role limitations due to physical health, (P = .02, P = .001), and emotional problems (P = .001, P = .02).

Conclusions:

PDR is associated with a lower degree of anastomotic leakage, and it significantly enhances urinary continence at 1 and 3 mo. The increased adjuvant radiotherapy rate and quality of life after surgery observed with our technique suggest that in the high-risk setting an early functional recovery may substantially influence the oncologic outcome of eLRP.

Comparison of positive surgical margin rates in high risk prostate cancer: open versus minimally invasive radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

We compared positive surgical margin (PSM) rates for patients with high risk prostate cancer (HRCaP) who underwent open radical retropubic (RRP), robotic (RALP), and laparoscopic (LRP) prostatectomy at a single institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of our prospectively maintained IRB approved database identifying prostate cancer patients who underwent RRP, RALP, or LRP between January 2000 and March 2010. Patients were considered to have HRCaP if they had biopsy or final pathologic Gleason score ≥ 8, or preoperative PSA ≥ 20, or pathologic stage ≥ T3a. A positive surgical margin (PSM) was defined by the presence of tumor at the inked surface of the specimen. Patients who received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and those who underwent a perineal prostatectomy were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

Of the 445 patients in this study, surgical technique for prostatectomy included RRP (n = 153), RALP (n = 152), and LRP (n = 140). PSM rate for the three groups were not different: 52.9% RRP, 50% RALP, and 41.4% LRP, (p = 0.13). The PSM rate did not differ when comparing RRP to a combined group of RALP and LRP (p = 0.16). Among patients with a PSM, there was no statistical difference between the three groups in terms of the number of patients with a pathologic stage of T3 or higher (p = 0.83). On univariate analysis, a higher preoperative PSA value was associated with a positive margin (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In this HRCaP series, the PSM rate did not differ based on the surgical approach. On univariate analysis, patients with a higher preoperative PSA value were more likely to have a PSM.

Matched comparison of outcomes following open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk patients

PURPOSE

Comparative data related to the use of open and minimally invasive surgical approaches for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remain limited. We determined outcomes of open radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted RP (RARP) in matched cohorts of patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 805 patients with high-risk PCa [prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≥8, or clinical stage ≥cT2c] were identified. A total of 407 RRP cases were propensity score (PS) matched 1:1 to 398 LRP or RARP cases to yield 3 cohorts (RARP, LRP, and RRP) of 110 patients each for analysis. PS matching variables included the following: age, clinical stage, preoperative PSA, biopsy Gleason score, surgeon experience, and nerve-sparing technique. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared with log-rank test. RFS predictor analysis was calculated within Cox regression models.

RESULTS

Pathological Gleason scores <7, =7, and >7 were found in 3.3, 50.9, and 45.8 % of patients. There were no statistically significant differences for pathological stage and positive surgical margins between surgical techniques. Mean 3-year RFS was 41.4, 77.9, and 54.1 %, for RARP, LRP, and RRP, respectively (p < 0.0001 for RARP vs. LRP). There were no significant differences for mean estimated 3-year OS for patients treated with RARP, LRP, or RRP (95.4, 98.1, and 100 %).

CONCLUSIONS

RARP demonstrated similar oncologic outcomes compared to RRP and LRP in a PS-matched cohort of patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Contemporaneous comparison of open vs minimally-invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To analyze pathological and short-term oncological outcomes in men undergoing open and minimally-invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) for high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC; prostate-specific antigen level [PSA] >20 ng/mL, ≥ cT2c, Gleason score 8-10) in a contemporaneous series.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 913 patients with HRPC were identified in the Johns Hopkins Radical Prostatectomy Database subsequent to the inception of MIRP at this institution (2002-2011) Of these, 743 (81.4%) underwent open radical retropubic prostatectomy (ORRP), 105 (11.5%) underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) and 65 (7.1%) underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) for HRPC. Appropriate comparative tests were used to evaluate patient and prostate cancer characteristics. Proportional hazards regression models were used to predict biochemical recurrence.

RESULTS

Age, race, body mass index, preoperative PSA level, clinical stage, number of positive cores and Gleason score at final pathology were similar between ORRP and MIRP. On average, men undergoing MIRP had smaller prostates and more organ-confined (pT2) disease (P = 0.02). The number of surgeons and surgeon experience were greatest for the ORRP cohort. Overall surgical margin rate was 29.4%, 34.3% and 27.7% (P = 0.52) and 1.9%, 2.9% and 6.2% (P = 0.39) for pT2 disease in men undergoing ORRP, RALRP and LRP, respectively. Biochemical recurrence-free survival among ORRP, RALRP and LRP was 56.3%, 67.8% and 41.1%, respectively, at 3 years (P = 0.6) and the approach employed did not predict biochemical recurrence in regression models.

CONCLUSIONS

At an experienced centre, MIRP is comparable to open radical prostatectomy for HRPC with respect to surgical margin status and biochemical recurrence.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

CONTEXT

Despite the large diffusion of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), literature and data on the oncologic outcome of RARP are limited.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate lymph node yield, positive surgical margins (PSMs), use of adjuvant therapy, and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival following RARP and perform a cumulative analysis of all studies comparing the oncologic outcomes of RARP and retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature was performed in August 2011, searching Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. A free-text protocol using the term radical prostatectomy was applied. The following limits were used: humans; gender (male); and publications dating from January 1, 2008. A cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager software v.4.2 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) and Stata 11.0 SE software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We retrieved 79 papers evaluating oncologic outcomes following RARP. The mean PSM rate was 15% in all comers and 9% in pathologically localized cancers, with some tumor characteristics being the most relevant predictors of PSMs. Several surgeon-related characteristics or procedure-related issues may play a major role in PSM rates. With regard to BCR, the very few papers with a follow-up duration >5 yr demonstrated 7-yr BCR-free survival estimates of approximately 80%. Finally, all the cumulative analyses comparing RARP with RRP and comparing RARP with LRP demonstrated similar overall PSM rates (RARP vs RRP: odds ratio [OR]: 1.21; p=0.19; RARP vs LRP: OR: 1.12; p=0.47), pT2 PSM rates (RARP vs RRP: OR: 1.25; p=0.31; RARP vs LRP: OR: 0.99; p=0.97), and BCR-free survival estimates (RARP vs RRP: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.9; p=0.526; RARP vs LRP: HR: 0.5; p=0.141), regardless of the surgical approach.

CONCLUSIONS

PSM rates are similar following RARP, RRP, and LRP. The few data available on BCR from high-volume centers are promising, but definitive comparisons with RRP or LRP are not currently possible. Finally, significant data on cancer-specific mortality are not currently available.