Outcomes of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer by a high volume surgeon from Australia: a case for centralisation

Propensity-matched Analysis of Open Versus Robotic Primary Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Clinical Stage II Testicular Cancer

BACKGROUND

Open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-RPLND) is the accepted standard surgical approach to treat retroperitoneal nodal disease in testis cancer. Increasingly, robotic RPLND (R-RPLND) is being performed due to the potential for lower blood loss, shorter length of stay, and accelerated recovery.

OBJECTIVE

We have performed a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis comparing the survival and perioperative outcomes of O- and R-RPLND.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Analyzing the data from all patients who underwent primary RPLND at our center between 1990 and 2022, we used PSM to create a 2:1 (O-RPLND:R-RPLND) matched cohort.

INTERVENTION

Primary O-RPLND versus R-RPLND.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was time to relapse. The secondary endpoints included operating time, length of stay, estimated blood loss (EBL), and surgical complications. Relapse-free survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank tests were used to compare perioperative outcomes of O-RPLND versus R-RPLND.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 178 patients underwent primary RPLND: 137 O-RPLND and 41 R-RPLND. After PSM, 26 patients in the R-RPLND group were matched with 38 in the O-RPLND group. After matching, no significant baseline differences were noted. After a median follow-up of 23.5 mo (interquartile range 4.4-59.2), one (3.8%) relapse was noted in the R-RPLND group versus three (7.8%) in the O-RPLND group; however, this was not significant (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.07-6.31, p = 0.7097). No in-field relapses occurred in either cohort. R-RPLND was associated with a shorter length of stay (1 vs 5 d, p < 0.0001) and lower EBL (200 vs 300 ml, p = 0.032), but longer operative time (8.8 vs 4.3 h, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

R-RPLND offers low morbidity and improved perioperative outcomes, while maintaining oncologic efficacy of the open approach.

PATIENT SUMMARY

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to compare open and robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) using a propensity score-matched system. We encourage the discussion and inclusion of primary R-RPLND into the standard of care algorithm for patients with de novo clinical stage (CS) II and relapsed CS I with CS II equivalent disease.

Testicular Cancer Treatments and Sexuality: A Narrative Review

The incidence of testicular cancer (TC) has been rapidly increasing over the past years. Diagnosis and early treatment have shown good oncological control, guaranteeing the patient different treatment approaches according to histology and tumor stage. Currently, physicians usually prioritize oncological outcomes over sexual outcomes and quality of life, considering as a first aim the overall survival of the patients; however, differently from other neoplasms, quality of life is still strongly affected among TC patients, and sexual outcomes are frequently compromised after each TC treatment. Several studies have suggested that each treatment approach may be associated with sexual dysfunctions, including erectile dysfunction, ejaculatory disorders, fertility issues, and hormonal changes. Since testicular cancer patients are more frequently young men, the subject of this work is substantial and should be analyzed in detail to help specialists in the management of this disease. The aim of the current narrative review is to generally describe every treatment for TC, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, and to establish which sexual dysfunction may be specifically associated with each therapy.

Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is an effective treatment for testicular tumors. In recent years, with the development of robotics, many urological procedures performed via standard laparoscopy have been replaced by robots. Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) versus Non-robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (NR-RPLND) in testicular cancer.

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for literature on robotic surgery for testicular germ cell tumors up to April 2023. The statistical and sensitivity analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean difference (MD), odds ratio(OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) effect indicators.

Results

Eight studies with 3875 patients were finally included in this study, 453 with R-RPLND and 3422 with open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-RPLND)/laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (L-RPLND). The results showed that R-RPLND had lower rates of intraoperative blood loss (MD = -436.39; 95% CI -707.60 to -165.19; P = 0.002), transfusion (OR = 0.06; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.26; P = 0.0001), total postoperative complication rates (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70; P = 0.002), and length of stay (MD=-3.74; 95% CI -4.69 to -2.78; P<0.00001). In addition, there were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding perioperative and oncological outcomes regarding total operative time, the incidence of postoperative complications grade≥III, abnormal ejaculation rate, lymph node yield, and postoperative recurrence rate.

Conclusions

The R-RPLND and O-RPLND/L-RPLND provide safe and effective retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. Patients with R-RPLND have less intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospitalization period, fewer postoperative complications, and faster recovery. It should be considered a viable alternative to O-RPLND/L-RPLND.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023411696.

Nerve-sparing technique in RPLND for testicular cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The management of testicular cancer has evolved over time with multimodal therapy. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND), which is a complex and potentially morbid treatment option, remains the mainstay in surgical treatment. This article reviews the surgical template, approach and anatomical considerations with regards to nerve spare in RPLND.

RECENT FINDINGS

The standard full bilateral RPLND template has evolved over time to include the area between the renal hilum, bifurcation of the common iliac vessels, and the ureters. Morbidity with regards to ejaculatory dysfunction has led to further refinements in this procedure. Advancements in anatomical understanding of the retroperitoneal structures and their relationship to the sympathetic chain and hypogastric plexus has allowed for modification of surgical templates. Further refinements in surgical nerve sparing techniques have improved functional outcomes without sacrificing oncological outcomes. Finally, extraperitoneal access to the retroperitoneum and minimally invasive platforms have been implemented to further reduce morbidity.

SUMMARY

RPLND requires strict adherence to oncological surgical principles regardless of template, approach and technique. Contemporary evidence shows that outcomes are best for advanced testis cancer patients when managed at high volume tertiary care facilities with surgical expertise and access to multidisciplinary care.

Twenty Years' Experience in Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Testicular Cancer in a Tertiary Referral Center

Background and Objectives: The aim of this article is to present a single-surgeon, open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) series for testicular cancer in a high-volume center. Materials and Methods: We reviewed data from patients who underwent RPLND performed by an experienced surgeon at our institution between 2000 and 2019. We evaluated surgical and perioperative outcomes, complications, Recurrence-Free Survival (RFS), Overall Survival (OS), and Cancer-Specific Survival (CSS). Results: RPLND was performed in primary and secondary settings in 21 (32%) and 44 (68%) patients, respectively. Median operative time was 180 min. Median hospital stay was 6 days. Complications occurred in 23 (35%) patients, with 9 (14%) events reported as Clavien grade ≥ 3. Patients in the primary RPLND group were significantly younger, more likely to have NSGCT, had higher clinical N0 and M0, and had higher nerve-sparing RPLND (all p ≤ 0.04) compared to those in the secondary RPLND group. In the median follow-up of 120 (56-180) months, 10 (15%) patients experienced recurrence. Finally, 20-year OS, CSS, and RFS were 89%, 92%, and 85%, respectively, with no significant difference in survival rates between primary vs. secondary RPLND subgroups (p = 0.64, p = 0.7, and p = 0.31, respectively). Conclusions: Open RPLND performed by an experienced high-volume surgeon achieves excellent oncological and functional outcomes supporting the centralization of these complex procedures.