Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching

Radical Prostatectomy in Kidney Transplant Recipients-A Multicenter Experience

Background and objective

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have an increased risk of developing genitourinary cancers, including prostate cancer (PCa), which is expected to become more prevalent due to an aging KTR population. Thus, knowledge of surgical outcomes, including treatment of PCa, within this unique cohort is required.

Methods

Data of 62 KTRs undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2006 and 2023 at nine urologic transplant centers were analyzed. Complications were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated, and a follow-up was conducted. Overall survival (OS), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), and death-censored graft survival were determined via the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank testing.

Key findings and limitations

Overall, 50 open radical retropubic RPs and 12 robot-assisted RPs (RARPs) were included. The intraoperative blood loss was lower after RARP, but operative time was longer. Of the patients, 50% experienced no postoperative complication, and grade ≥3 complications were observed in 14.5%. There was no graft loss related to RP. A histopathologic analysis revealed pN1 in 8.1% and positive surgical margins in 25.8% of the cases. At a median follow-up of 48.5 mo, the median OS was 128 (95% confidence interval [CI] 71.2-184.8) mo, BRFS was 106 (95% CI 55.8; 156.2) mo, and graft survival was 127 (95% CI 66.7-187.3) mo. Limitations include the retrospective design, and variations between groups and centers.

Conclusions and clinical implications

Our findings support RP as a feasible and safe treatment option for localized PCa in KTRs with acceptable oncologic outcome. Special care is required in screening and awareness for the risk of understaging.

Patient summary

This study analyzed the safety and effectiveness of two prostate cancer surgery methods-open and robot-assisted surgery-in the special group of kidney transplant recipients. Both surgical methods were performed safely with acceptable oncologic outcomes; however, sample size was too small to draw definite conclusions between the two operative methods.

Functional and oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients with history of surgery for lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic enlargement: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with history of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic enlargement (LUTS/BPE) surgery represents a controversial issue. We performed an updated systematic review and meta- analysis evaluating oncological and functional outcomes of RP in this subset of patients.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified from MEDLINE, Web of Science and the Scopus databases. The following outcomes were evaluated: incidence of positive surgical margins (PSM), incidence of biochemical recurrence (BCR), 3-mo and 1-year urinary continence (UC) rates, incidence of nerve-sparing (NS) procedures, 1-year erectile function (EF) recovery rates. We estimated pooled Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effects models. Sub-analyses were performed according to the type of RP and LUTS/BPE surgery.

RESULTS

Twenty-five retrospective studies including 11,101 patients undergoing RP were included in the analysis (2113 with history of LUTS/BPE surgery, and 8898 controls). PSM rate was significantly higher in patients with history of LUTS/BPE surgery (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.18-1.63, p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference in terms of BCR emerged between patients with or without history of LUTS/BPE surgery (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.97-2.18, p = 0.066). Three-months and 1-year UC rates were significantly lower in patients with previous LUTS/BPE surgery (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.68, p < 0.001 and OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.62, p < 0.001; respectively). Although not statistically significant differences between the two groups emerged in terms of adoption of NS procedures (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.32-1.12, p = 0.107), 1-year EF recovery was significantly lower in patients with history of LUTS/BPE procedures (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.89, p = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusions, RP in patients with history of previous LUTS/BPE surgery is associated with increased incidence of PSM, lower UC rates at both 3-months and 1-year follow-up as well as lower rates of EF recovery at 1-year follow-up.

Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

The study aims to synthesize all available prospective comparative studies and reports the latest systematic analysis and updated evidence comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) for perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were retrieved up to March 2023. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies were included, and weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) were used to evaluate the pooled results. Twenty-one articles were included in the present meta-analysis. The results indicated that compared to ORP, RARP had longer operative time (OT) (WMD: 51.41 min; 95%CI: 28.33, 74.48; p < 0.0001), reduced blood loss (WMD: -516.59 mL; 95%CI: -578.31, -454.88; p < 0.00001), decreased transfusion rate (OR: 0.23; 95%CI: 0.18, 0.30; p < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -1.59 days; 95%CI: -2.69, -0.49; p = 0.005), fewer overall complications (OR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.45, 0.83; p = 0.001), and higher nerve sparing rate (OR: 1.64; 95%CI: 1.26, 2.13; p = 0.0003), as well as was more beneficial to postoperative erectile function recovery and biochemical recurrence (BCR). However, no significant disparities were noted in major complications, postoperative urinary continence recovery, or positive surgical margin (PSM) rates. RARP was superior to ORP in terms of hospital stay, blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, nerve sparing, postoperative erectile function recovery, and BCR. It is a safe and effective surgical approach to the treatment of clinically localized PCa.

Wound infection in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with retropubic radical prostate surgery: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis investigation was executed to measure the wound infection (WI) in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RRP) compared with retropubic radical prostate surgery (RRPS). A comprehensive literature investigation till February 2023 was applied, and 1197 interrelated investigations were reviewed. The 19 chosen investigations enclosed 107 153 individuals with prostate cancer (PC) at the starting point. 72 008 of them were utilising RRP, and 35 145 were utilising RRPS. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was utilised to compute the value of the WI in RRP compared with RRPS by the dichotomous approaches and a fixed or random model. RRP had significantly lower surgical site wound infection (SSWI) (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.21-0.52, P < .001) and infected lymphoceles (ILs) (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.92, P = .03) compared with RRPS in individuals with PC. RRP had significantly lower SSWI and ILs compared with RRPS in individuals with PC. However, care must be exercised when dealing with its values because of the low sample size of some of the nominated investigations for the meta-analysis.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: the first separate systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies

BACKGROUND

Due to the lack of sufficient evidence, it is not clear whether robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) is better for prostate cancer. The authors conducted this study by separately pooling and analysing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies to compare the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between RARP and LRP.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in March 2022 using Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Two independent reviewers performed literature screening, data extraction and quality assessment according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 46 articles were included, including 4 from 3 RCTs and 42 from non-randomised studies. For RCTs, meta-analysis showed that RARP and LRP were similar in blood loss, catheter indwelling time, overall complication rate, overall positive surgical margin and biochemical recurrence rates, but quantitative synthesis of non-randomised studies showed that RARP was associated with less blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD)=-71.99, 95% CI -99.37 to -44.61, P <0.001], shorter catheterization duration (WMD=-1.03, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.22, P =0.010), shorter hospital stay (WMD=-0.41, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.13, P =0.004), lower transfusion rate (OR=0.44, 95% CI 0.35-0.56, P <0.001), lower overall complication rate (OR=0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.96, P =0.020), and lower biochemical recurrence rate (OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.92, P =0.004), compared with LRP. Both meta-analysis of RCTs and quantitative synthesis of non-randomised studies showed that RARP was associated with improved functional outcomes. From the results of the meta-analysis of RCTs, RARP was higher than LRP in terms of overall continence recovery [odds ratio (OR)=1.60, 95% CI 1.16-2.20, P =0.004), overall erectile function recovery (OR=4.07, 95% CI 2.51-6.60, P <0.001), continence recovery at 1 month (OR=2.14, 95% CI 1.25-3.66, P =0.005), 3 (OR=1.51, 95% CI 1.12-2.02, P =0.006), 6 (OR=2.66, 95% CI 1.31-5.40, P =0.007), and 12 months (OR=3.52, 95% CI 1.36-9.13, P =0.010) postoperatively, and potency recovery at 3 (OR=4.25, 95% CI 1.67-10.82, P =0.002), 6 (OR=3.52, 95% CI 1.31-9.44, P =0.010), and 12 months (OR=3.59, 95% CI 1.78-7.27, P <0.001) postoperatively, which were consistent with the quantitative synthesis of non-randomised studies. When sensitivity analysis was performed, the results remained largely unchanged, but the heterogeneity among studies was greatly reduced.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that RARP can improve functional outcomes compared with LRP. Meanwhile, RARP has potential advantages in perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

A ‘real-world’ standard for radical prostatectomy: Analysis of the British Association of Urological Surgeons Complex Operations Reports, 2016–2018

Objective:

To produce comprehensive and detailed benchmarking data allowing surgeons and patients to compare practice against, by using all recorded radical prostatectomies across a 3-year period in England.

Patients and methods:

The British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) manages the radical prostatectomy (RP) Complex Operations Database. Surgical departments upload data which they can review and amend before lockdown and data cleansing. Analysis of 2016–2018 data held on the BAUS Complex Operations Database was performed for 21,973 patients undergoing RP in England, producing procedure-specific benchmarking data. General linear models were used to assess differences in patient selection between different operative modalities. Analysis involved assessment of case selection, operative decisions and outcomes, case volume and pathological outcomes.

Results:

Using national Hospital Episode Statistics, the BAUS RP dataset was estimated 91% complete. Median age was 65 and 96% were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grades 1–2. Over 80% had RP performed in a high-volume centre (>100 annual RPs) and 88% had Gleason grade group (GGG) ⩾2 disease on biopsy. Robotic-assisted RP (RARP), laparoscopic RP (LRP) and open RP (ORP) were performed in 85%, 7.2% and 7.7% of cases, respectively. Patient and disease characteristics differed across surgical modalities. Transfusion rates were 0.14% in RARP, 0.38% in LRP and 1.8% in ORP. Increased positive surgical margin (PSM) rates were observed with increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA), GGG and T-stage, with comparable PSM rates across surgical modalities. Lymph node dissection was performed more commonly in high-risk cases (cT3, PSA > 20, GGG ⩾ 4). Pathological upstaging was common. Median length of stay was 1, 2 and 3 days for RARP, LRP and ORP, respectively. ORP had Clavien–Dindo complications ⩾3 and unplanned hospital readmissions.

Conclusion:

This analysis has enabled the first set of UK national RP standards to be produced allowing procedure, patient and disease-specific national, centre and individual comparisons. The present degree of service centralisation, operative modalities, and specific aspects of surgical practice can be observed.

Level of evidence:

2b

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an evidence-based analysis of comparative outcomes

PURPOSE

To provide a systematic analysis of the comparative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the treatment of prostate cancer based on the best currently available evidence.

METHODS

An independent systematic review of the literature was performed up to February 2021, using MEDLINE^®, EMBASE^®, and Web of Science^® databases. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) recommendations were followed to design search strategies, selection criteria, and evidence reports. The quality of the included studies was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomized controlled trials. Demographics and clinical characteristics, surgical, pathological, and functional outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were identified. Only 16 "high-quality" (RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa scale 8-9) studies were included in the meta-analysis. Among the 13,752 patients included, 6135 (44.6%) and 7617 (55.4%) were RARP and LRP, respectively. There was no difference between groups in terms of demographics and clinical characteristics. Overall and major complication (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) rates were similar in LRP than RARP group. The biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate at 12months was significantly lower for RARP (OR: 0.52; 95% CI 0.43-0.63; p < 0.00001). RARP reported lower urinary incontinence rate at 12months (OR: 0.38; 95% CI 0.18-0.8; p = 0.01). The erectile function recovery rate at 12months was higher for RARP (OR: 2.16; 95% CI 1.23-3.78; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Current evidence shows that RARP offers favorable outcomes compared with LRP, including higher potency and continence rates, and less likelihood of BCR. An assessment of longer-term outcomes is lacking, and higher cost remains a concern of robotic versus laparoscopic prostate cancer surgery.

The effect of risk factors on surgical and oncological results in high-risk prostate cancer: A multicentre study of the urooncology society, Turkey

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of risk factors and selected surgical methods on operative and oncological results of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent RP for HRPC from 13 urology centres between 1990 and 2019 was performed. Groups were created according to the risk factors of D'Amico classification. Patients with one risk factor were included in group 1 where group 2 consisted of patients with two or three risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 1519 patients were included in this study and 1073 (70.6%) patients were assigned to group 1 and 446 (29.4%) patients to group 2. Overall (biochemical and/or clinical and/or radiological) progression rate was 12.4% in group 1 and 26.5% in group 2 (P = .001). Surgical procedure was open RP in 844 (55.6%) patients and minimally invasive RP in 675 (44.4%) patients (laparoscopic and robot-assisted RP in 230 (15.1%) and 445 (29.3%) patients, respectively). Progression rates were similar in different types of operations (P = .22). Progression rate was not significantly different in patients who either underwent pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) or not in each respective group.

CONCLUSION

RP alone is an effective treatment in the majority of patients with HRPC and PLND did not affect the progression rates after RP. According to the number of pre-operative high-risk features, as the number of risk factors increases, there is a need for additional treatment.

Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy according to nadir prostate specific antigen value

The hypersensitive prostate specific antigen (PSA) test can measure in 0.01 ng/mL units, and its efficacy for screening after radical prostatectomy (RP) has been reported. In this study, we assessed patients who underwent RP to evaluate whether the nadir value affects biochemical recurrence (BCR). From 1995 to 2014, patients classified as N0 who had negative resection margins and a nadir PSA of less than 0.2 ng/mL were evaluated. The characteristics, pathological outcomes, PSA after RP, and BCR were assessed. A total of 1483 patients were enrolled. Among them, 323 (21.78%) patients showed BCR after RP. The mean age of the BCR group was 63.86±7.31 years, and while that of the no-recurrence group was 64.06±6.82 years (P = 0.645). The mean preoperative PSA of the BCR group was 9.75±6.92 ng/mL and that of the no-recurrence group was 6.71±5.19 ng/mL (P < 0.001). The mean time to nadir (TTN) in the BCR group was 4.64±7.65 months, while that in the no-recurrence group was 7.43±12.46 months (P < 0.001). The mean PSA nadir value was 0.035±0.034 ng/mL in the BCR group and 0.014±0.009 ng/mL in the no-recurrence group (P < 0.001). In multivariable Cox regression analyses, Gleason score, positive biopsy core percentages, minimal invasive surgery, nadir PSA value, and TTN were independently associated with BCR. The mean BCR occurred at 48.23±2.01 months after RP, and there was a significant difference in BCR occurrence according to the nadir PSA value (P < 0.001). A high PSA nadir value and short TTN may predict the risk of BCR after successful RP, aiding the identification of candidates for adjuvant or salvage therapies after RP.

Laparoscopic single port radical prostatectomy in the 2020: Why not? Our experience

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the feasibility, safety and advantages of Laparo-Endoscopic Single-site Surgery radical prostatectomy (LESS-RP) based on our personal experience.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Details of 520 patients were retrospectively analyzed, from 2009 to 2019. Extraperitoneal approach, with only two accesses (2.5 cm and 5 mm respectively) was used to perform radical prostatectomy. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative oncologic and functional outcomes are reported.

RESULTS

The mean age was 66.6 ± 5.6 years. Mean PSA level was 9 ± 3.5 ng/ml. According to D'Amico classification, the percentage of patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease cases were 116 (22.4%), 275 (52.8%), and 129 (24.8%) respectively. Mean operative time was 156 ± 43 min. Mean estimated blood loss was 214 ± 93 ml. Positive surgical margins (PSMs) were detected in 110 (21.2%) patients. PSM rates in pT2 and pT3 stages were 20.1% and 22.9%, respectively. The overall complication rate was 9.2%, based on the modified Clavien classification. The 12 months continence and potency rates were 90.9% and 49.1%, respectively. The biochemical recurrence rate was 6.8%, at the median follow-up time of 26.7 months (IQR 12-32).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses show that LESS-RP is a safe procedure, if performed by surgeons with adequate experience and skills. Unlike the classic laparoscopic prostatectomy, this technique allows better aesthetic and psychological results, reduced postoperative pain, and a faster return to normal daily activity with the same functional and oncological results.

Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: oncological, surgical and functional outcomes-a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The current study aimed to carry out a comprehensive meta-analysis on the existing evidence to quantify and compare the oncological, surgical and functional outcomes following radical prostatectomy between TURP group and Non-TURP group.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify relevant studies published in English up to March 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager.

RESULTS

There were 13 studies included in the present study. Our results suggest that TURP group demonstrates a significantly higher positive surgical margin rate, bladder neck reconstruction rate and overall complication rate compared with Non-TURP group (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.09-1.58, P = 0.004, I² = 0%; OR = 14.36, 95% CI 2.93-70.45, P = 0.001, I² = 81%; OR = 2.63, 95% CI 1.87-3.71, P < 0.00001, I² = 0%); whereas TURP group demonstrates a significantly lower nerve sparing rate compared with Non-TURP group (OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.22-0.43, P < 0.00001, I² = 40%); the operation time, blood loss and 1-year urinary continence rate are same between TURP group and Non-TURP group (MD = 4.25, 95% CI - 0.13 to 8.63, P = 0.06, I² = 34%; MD = 27.29, 95% CI - 10.31 to 64.90, P = 0.15, I² = 39%; OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.43-1.06, P = 0.09, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that Non-TURP group may have a great advantage over TURP group in terms of positive surgical margin rate, bladder neck reconstruction rate, overall complication rate and sparing rate. The operation time, blood loss and 1-year urinary continence rate are comparable between TURP group and Non-TURP group. Therefore, important information should be given to those patients at risk of prostate cancer that TURP procedure may increase perioperative complications in case of a following radical prostatectomy. In the meantime, our meta-analysis found that each of these four subgroups (RARP, LRP, ORP and RARP/ORP) has its own advantages or disadvantages in every pool results. So when radical prostatectomy is performed on patients with TURP history, the appropriate operation method should be selected as per the conditions of patients, doctors and hospitals.

A Meta-analysis of Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Methods

Meta-analysis was applied using Review Manager V5.3 software and the retrieved clinical trials comparing RALP with LRP for the treatment of localized prostate cancer published from 2000 to 2018 in PubMed, Ovid, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE datasets were analyzed.

Results

This meta-analysis included 16 articles, totaling 7952 patients, with 5170 RALP patients and 2782 LRP patients. Meta-analysis showed that RALP postoperative complications were fewer (P=0.0007), and the postoperative urinary continence rate was better at 1 year after surgery (P<0.00001). There was no statistical significance between RALP and LRP with regards to the positive incidence of surgical margin (P = 0.18).

Conclusion

As an emerging technology, RALP is superior to LRP for localized prostate cancer treatment in terms of postoperative complications, and postoperative urinary continence rate.

Variation in prostate surgery costs and outcomes in the USA: robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy

AIM

To compare perioperative complications, inpatient cost and length of stay between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) using National Inpatient Sample data from 2010 to 2015.

PATIENTS & METHODS

A total of 69,009 records with RARP or ORP were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression and generalized linear models.

RESULTS

The RARP had superior perioperative outcomes at a higher cost (adjusted mean difference = 2956; 95% CI: $2822-$3090) and shorter length of stay (mean difference = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.81-0.89) compared with ORP. Mean cost of RARP was lowest in urban teaching, private invest-own, high volume and northeast region hospitals and highest for black men.

CONCLUSION

Compared with ORP, RARP had significantly better perioperative outcomes at a higher cost.

Incidence and location of positive surgical margin among open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer patients: a single institutional analysis

Objective

To evaluate the positive surgical margin rates and locations in radical prostatectomy among three surgical approaches, including open radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed clinical outcomes at our institution of 450 patients who received radical prostatectomy. Multiple surgeons were involved in the three approaches, and a single pathologist conducted the histopathological diagnoses. Positive surgical margin rates and locations among the three approaches were statistically assessed, and the risk factors of positive surgical margin were analyzed.

Results

This study included 127, 136 and 187 patients in the open radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy groups, respectively. The positive surgical margin rates were 27.6% (open radical prostatectomy), 18.4% (laparoscopic radical prostatectomy) and 13.4% (robot-assisted radical prostatectomy). In propensity score-matched analyses, the positive surgical margin rate in the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was significantly lower than that in the open radical prostatectomy, whereas there was no significant difference in the positive surgical margin rates between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. In the multivariable analysis, PSA level at diagnosis and surgical approach (open radical prostatectomy vs robot-assisted radical prostatectomy) were independent risk factors for positive surgical margin. The apex was the most common location of positive surgical margin in the open radical prostatectomy and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy groups, whereas the bladder neck was the most common location in the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy group. The significant difference of positive surgical margin locations continued after the propensity score adjustment.

Conclusions

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy may potentially achieve the lowest positive surgical margin rate among three surgical approaches. The bladder neck was the most common location of positive surgical margin in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and apex in open radical prostatectomy and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Although robot-assisted radical prostatectomy may contribute to the reduction of positive surgical margin, dissection of the bladder neck requires careful attention to avoid positive surgical margins.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

Previous trials have found similar early outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy. We report functional and oncological postoperative outcomes up to 24 months after surgery for these two surgical techniques.

METHODS

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, and were aged between 35 years and 70 years were eligible and recruited from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (Brisbane, QLD, Australia). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to have either robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy or open 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 surgical treatment. Primary outcomes were urinary function (urinary domain of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]) and sexual function (sexual domain of EPIC and International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire [IIEF]) at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months and oncological outcome (biochemical recurrence and imaging evidence of progression). The trial was powered to assess health-related and domain-specific quality-of-life outcomes over 24 months. All analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000661976.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 23, 2010, and Nov 25, 2014, 326 men were enrolled, of whom 163 were randomly assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and 163 to open radical retropubic 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 and 157 in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group proceeded to surgery. At the 24-month follow-up time point, 150 men remained in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group and 146 remained in the open radical retropubic prostatectomy group. Urinary function scores did not differ significantly between robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy at 6 months post-surgery (88·68 [95% CI 86·79-90·58] vs 88·45 [86·54-90·36]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), 12 months post-surgery (90·76 [88·89-92·62] vs 91·53 [90·07-92·98]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), or 24 months post-surgery (91·33 [89·64-93·03] vs 90·86 [89·01-92·70]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001). Sexual function scores were not significantly different between robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy at 6 months post-surgery (EPIC: 37·40 [33·60-41·19] vs 38·63 [34·76-42·49], p1=0·0001, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 29·75 [26·66-32·84] vs 29·78 [26·41-33·16], p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), 12 months post-surgery (EPIC: 42·28 [38·05-46·51] vs 42·51 [38·29-46·72], p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 33·10 [29·59-36·61] vs 33·50 [29·87-37·13], p1=0·0002, p2<0·0001), or 24 months post-surgery (EPIC: 45·70 [41·17-50·23] vs 46·90 [42·20-51·60], p1=0·0003, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 33·95 [30·11-37·78] vs 33·89 [29·82-37·96], p1=0·0003, p2=0·0004). Equivalence testing on the difference between the proportion of biochemical recurrences between the two groups (13 [9%] in the open radical retropubic prostatectomy group vs four [3%] 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 prespecified margin of 10%. However, a superiority test showed that the two proportions were significantly different (p=0·0199). Equivalence testing on the proportion of patients who had imaging evidence of progression revealed that the two groups were not significantly different (p=0·2956).

INTERPRETATION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy yielded similar functional outcomes at 24 months. We advise caution in interpreting the oncological outcomes of our study because of the absence of standardisation in postoperative management between the two trial groups and the use of additional cancer treatments. Clinicians and patients should view the benefits of a robotic approach as being largely related to its minimally invasive nature.

FUNDING

Cancer Council Queensland.

Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update

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.

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Is More Beneficial for Prostate Cancer Patients: A System Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is increasingly used worldwide, but comparisons of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes among RARP, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) remain inconsistent.

Material/Methods

Systematic literature searches were conducted using EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Science Direct/Elsevier up to April 2017. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager and Stata software.

Results

We included 33 studies. Meta-analysis revealed that blood loss, transfusion rate, and positive surgical margin (PSM) rate were significantly lower following RARP compared with LRP (SMD (95% confidence interval [CI]) 0.31 [0.01, 0.61]; combined ORs (95% CI) 5.32 [1.29, 21.98]; 1.27 [1.10, 1.46]) and ORP (SMD (95% CI) 0.75 [0.30, 1.21]; and combined ORs (95% CI) 3.44 [1.21, 9.79]); positive surgical margin (PSM) rates were significantly lower following RARP compared with LRP (combined ORs (95% CI) 1.27 [1.10, 1.46]), but not ORP. Operation time was also shorter for RARP than for LRP. The rates of nerve-sparing, recovery of complete urinary continence, and recovery of erectile function were significantly higher following RARP compared with LRP (combined ORs (95% CI) 0.55 [0.31, 0.95]; 0.66 [0.55, 0.78]; 0.46 [0.30, 0.71]) and ORP (combined ORs (95% CI) 0.36 [0.21, 0.63]; 0.33 [0.15, 0.74]; 0.65 [0.37, 1.14]).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrates that RARP results in better overall outcomes than LRP and ORP in terms of blood loss, transfusion rate, nerve sparing, urinary continence and erectile dysfunction recovery, and suggests that RARP offers better results than LRP and ORP in treatment of prostate cancer. However, studies with larger sample sizes and long-term results are needed.

Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments for patient-centered outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA Compliant)

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.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has lower biochemical recurrence than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To assess the effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

Existing systematic reviews were updated to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RARP. Electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, Kmbase, and others, were searched through July 2014. The quality of the selected systematic reviews was assessed by using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-Amstar) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed by using Revman 5.2 (Cochrane Community) and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 2.0 (CMA; Biostat). Cochrane Q and I2 statistics were used to assess heterogeneity.

Results

Two systematic reviews and 16 additional studies were selected from a search performed of existing systematic reviews. These included 2 randomized controlled clinical trials and 28 nonrandomized comparative studies. The risk of complications, such as injury to organs by the Clavien-Dindo classification, was lower with RARP than with LRP (relative risk [RR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23–0.85; p=0.01). The risk of urinary incontinence was lower (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31–0.60; p<0.000001) and the potency rate was significantly higher with RARP than with LRP (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.11–1.70; I²=78%; p=0.003). Regarding positive surgical margins, no significant difference in risk between the 2 groups was observed; however, the biochemical recurrence rate was lower after RARP than after LRP (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48–0.73; I²=21%; p<0.00001).

Conclusions

RARP appears to be a safe and effective technique compared with LRP with a lower complication rate, better potency, a higher continence rate, and a decreased rate of biochemical recurrence.

Removing the specimen with traction during robotic radical prostatectomy does not cause a positive surgical margin

BACKGROUND/AIM

The aim of this study was to gauge whether removal of a specimen with traction during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy causes a positive surgical margin or not.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and sixty-nine patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from 2009 to 2011 were included in the study. After dividing the patients into two groups, we recorded their characteristics and pre-op/post-op evaluations.

RESULTS

There were 111 and 58 patients in groups 1 (with traction) and 2 (without traction), respectively. We evaluated the patients' ages, follow-up time, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, pre-op and post-op Gleason score values, pathological stage, positive surgical margin rates, and biochemical PSA recurrence rates. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for age, pre-op PSA values, BMI, pre-op and post-op Gleason scores, positive surgical margin rates and biochemical recurrence rates. There was a significant difference between prostate weight, tumor volume, and clinical stage.

CONCLUSION

Removing the specimen with traction during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy does not cause a positive surgical margin. The incision should be as small as possible for cosmetic appearance.

Comparison of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically update evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, KMbase, and others, were searched, collecting data from January 1980 to August 2013. The quality of selected systematic reviews was assessed using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews and the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

A total of 61 studies were included, including 38 from two previous systematic reviews rated as best available evidence and 23 additional studies that were more recent. There were no randomized controlled trials. Regarding safety, the risk of complications was lower for RARP than for RRP. Among functional outcomes, the risk of urinary incontinence was lower and potency rate was significantly higher for RARP than for RRP. Regarding oncologic outcomes, positive margin rates were comparable between groups, and although biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were lower for RARP than for RRP, recurrence-free survival was similar after long-term follow up.

CONCLUSION

RARP might be favorable to RRP in regards to post-operative complications, peri-operative outcomes, and functional outcomes. Positive margin and BCR rates were comparable between the two procedures. As most of studies were of low quality, the results presented should be interpreted with caution, and further high quality studies controlling for selection, confounding, and selective reporting biases with longer-term follow-up are needed to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of RARP.

High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Role of Radical Prostatectomy and Radiation Therapy

Up to 12% of European men aged 55-69 years diagnosed with prostate cancer have high-risk disease and thus are at increased risk of mortality. There remains a lack of consensus on definitive treatment for prostate cancer, although both radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy are frequently utilized. Furthermore, the different types of radiation and surgical options also increase the complexity of deciding on a single treatment, as does the use of multimodal treatment plans. Here, we provide an overview of radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy in treating high-risk prostate cancer.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: An update on functional and oncologic outcomes, techniques, and advancements in technology

The robotic platform has revolutionized the management of prostate cancer over the last 15 years. Several techniques have been developed to improve functional and oncologic outcomes, including meticulous apical and posterior dissection, nerve sparing techniques, bladder neck and urethral length sparing, and anastomotic reconstruction. Future developments involving novel single-site, robotic technology will undoubtedly further the field of minimally invasive urology. These topics are reviewed within this article.

The surgical learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single surgeon with 500 cases in Taiwan, China

To analyze the learning curve for cancer control from an initial 250 cases (Group I) and subsequent 250 cases (Group II) of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) performed by a single surgeon. Five hundred consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer received RALP and were evaluated. Surgical parameters and perioperative complications were compared between the groups. Positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) were assessed as cancer control outcomes. Patients in Group II had significantly more advanced prostate cancer than those in Group I (22.2% vs 14.2%, respectively, with Gleason score 8–10, P= 0.033; 12.8% vs 5.6%, respectively, with clinical stage T3, P= 0.017). The incidence of PSM in pT3 was decreased significantly from 49% in Group I to 32.6% in Group II. A meaningful trend was noted for a decreasing PSM rate with each consecutive group of 50 cases, including pT3 and high-risk patients. Neurovascular bundle (NVB) preservation was significantly influenced by the PSM in high-risk patients (84.1% in the preservation group vs 43.9% in the nonpreservation group). The 3-year, 5-year, and 7-year BCR-free survival rates were 79.2%, 75.3%, and 70.2%, respectively. In conclusion, the incidence of PSM in pT3 was decreased significantly after 250 cases. There was a trend in the surgical learning curve for decreasing PSM with each group of 50 cases. NVB preservation during RALP for the high-risk group is not suggested due to increasing PSM.

Models of assessment of comparative outcomes of robot-assisted surgery: best evidence regarding the superiority or inferiority of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

The widespread dissemination of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) occurred despite the absence of high-level evidence supporting its safety and efficacy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. This study aims at systematically evaluating the models adopted in scientific reports assessing the comparative effectiveness of RARP versus open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Although several retrospective observational studies have assessed the comparative effectiveness of RARP and ORP, currently no published randomized data are available to comprehensively evaluate this issue. Furthermore, well-designed prospective investigations are needed to ultimately assess the benefits of RARP compared with other treatment modalities in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Risk Factors for Intraprostatic Incision into Malignant Glands at Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Histologically identified intraprostatic incision (IPI) into malignant glands is associated with an increase in biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy (RP). However, the predictor of IPI is poorly evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk factors for IPI into cancer during RP for clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Between January 1993 and July 2013, 19 986 men with clinically localized PCa underwent RP at our institution. This study includes 14 434 cases that had complete clinicopathologic data. IPI was defined as an iatrogenic incision into the prostate resulting in the presence of malignant glands at the inked surgical margin, regardless of accompanying pathologic features.

INTERVENTION

Open, retropubic, robot-assisted laparoscopic and pure laparoscopic RP.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted for risk factors of IPI in RP specimens.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The overall incidence of IPI into malignant tissue was noted in 410 (2.8%) cases. In multivariable analysis, obesity, lower prostate weight, surgeon experience, and pure laparoscopic RP were associated with a higher risk of IPI. The odds ratios (OR) for body mass index and prostate weight were 1.05 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.08; p<0.001) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-0.99, p<0.001), respectively. The ORs for surgeon experience (>250 cases) and pure laparoscopic RP compared to open RP were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.90, p=0.005) and 2.05 (95% CI, 1.35-3.11; p=0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of IPI during RP is higher in men with obesity and lower prostate weight. In addition, a pure laparoscopic RP and the early series of each surgeon were associated with a higher risk of IPI. However, tumor characteristics were not associated with the IPI occurrence.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Intraprostatic incision occurrence is associated with obesity, small prostate, and surgeon experience and laparoscopic technique but not Gleason score and tumor stage.

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.

Incidence of positive surgical margins after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: Does the surgeon's experience have an influence on all pathological stages?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to analyze the clinical and surgical features of patients who underwent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at our institution, and the impact of the surgeon's experience in the oncological results related to pathological stage.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An analysis of 300 RARP consecutively performed by the same urologist was conducted. Patients were divided into 3 groups of 100 patients in chronological order, according to surgery date. All patients had organ-confined clinical stage. Variables which could impact in positive margins rates were analyzed. Finally, positive surgical margins (PSM) in regard to pathological stage and surgeon's experience were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in variables which could impact in PSM rates. The overall PSM rate was 21%, with 28% in the first group, 20% in the second, and 16% in the third (P = .108). Significant lineal decreasing tendency was observed (P = .024). In pT2 patients, the overall PSM rate was 16.6%, with 27%, 13.8%, and 7.3% in each group respectively (P = .009). A significant difference was found between group 1 and group 3 (P = .004). In pT3 patients, the surgeon's experience was not significantly associated with margin reductions with an overall PSM rate of 27.7% (28.2%, 28.6%, and 26.7% in each group respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical and surgical features in our patients did not vary over time. We found a significant reduction of PSM related to surgeon's experience in pT2 patients. Contrariwise, the margin status remained stable despite increasing experience in pT3 patients.

Localised prostate cancer: clinical and cost-effectiveness of new and emerging technologies

In contrast to pharmacological interventions that undergo rigorous clinical testing, recent technological advances in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) have particularly been introduced and driven by economic incentives rather than high-quality clinical evidence. In this review we summarise the clinical and cost-effectiveness of new and emerging technologies for localised PCa. We emphasise particularly on robotic prostatectomy, new developments in radiotherapy, novel technologies in focal therapy such as cryosurgery and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) has similar oncologic outcomes to open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP); however, patients who undergo RALRP are more likely to have improved short-term potency rates. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton-beam therapy (PBT) have similar oncologic outcomes to external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT). IMRT has exhibited an improved gastrointestinal side effect profile compared to EBRT. PBT is not cost-effective compared to other radiotherapy modalities. Early studies of focal therapies in localised PCa have yielded positive results. Treatment decisions should be driven by cancer risk and patient preference rather than by financial incentives or availability of technology.

[Prostate cancer surgical margin: review by the CCAFU (Oncology Committee of the French Association of Urology)]

OBJECTIVE

Literature showed the impact of surgical margin status on prognosis after radical prostatectomy (mostly on biochemical survival). Margin status is an easy self-evaluation of surgical practice to assess. The aim of this paper was to define what a positive surgical margin (PSM) is and how to prevent the occurrence, to precise the impact on survival and how to treat.

METHOD

A literature analysis with Pubmed has been performed to 2012, furthermore conclusions of the main congresses with selection committee and review publication have also been studied.

RESULTS

PSM is defined as "tumor cells touching the ink on the specimen edge". The most frequent reported incidence is between 15 to 20%. Margin status remains one of the major criteria to determine the need of adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery. Quality of life is not or only lightly modified by radiotherapy with the current techniques. Adjuvant radiotherapy improves biological survival but is synonymous with overtreatment in many times. Salvage radiotherapy has to be quickly performed after Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) relapse (PSA<1 ng/mL even<0.5 ng/mL).

CONCLUSION

This literature review did not allow to suggest superiority of one surgical technique over another. In the same way, the kind of dissection i.e. bladder neck or neurovascular bundle preservation does no clearly modify PSM rate. However, it seems logical to "customize" dissection according to prostate cancer characteristics (D'Amico criteria for instance) guided with multiparametric MRI. Intrafascial dissection has to be applied only to low risk. Lastly, the debate between adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy is always ongoing.

Comparison of robot-assisted and open retropubic radical prostatectomy for risk of biochemical progression in men with positive surgical margins

OBJECTIVE

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a minimally invasive alternative to open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RP), and is reported to offer equivalent oncologic outcomes while reducing perioperative morbidity. However, the technique of extirpation can differ based on the usage of thermal energy and coagulation during RARP, which may alter the risk of finding a positive surgical margin (PSM) as cautery may destroy residual cancer cells. We sought to evaluate whether the method of surgery (RP vs RARP) affects the rate of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in patients with PSMs.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The Columbia University Urologic Oncology Database was reviewed to identify patients who underwent RP and RARP from 2000 to 2010 and had a PSM on final pathology. BCR was defined as a postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥0.2 ng/mL. The Kaplan-Meier analysis was utilized to calculate BCR rates based on the method of surgery. Cox regression analysis was performed to determine if the method of surgery was associated with BCR.

RESULTS

We identified 3267 patients who underwent prostatectomy, of which 910 (28%) had a PSM. Of those with a PSM, 337 patients had available follow-up data, including 229 who underwent RP (68%) and 108 who underwent RARP (32%). At a mean follow-up time of 37 months for the RP group, 103 (46%) patients demonstrated BCR; at a mean follow-up time of 44 months for the RARP group, 62 (57%) patients had a BCR (p=0.140). Two-year BCR-free rates for RP vs RARP were 65% and 49%, respectively (log-rank p<0.001). However, after controlling for age, PSA, grade, and year of surgery, the surgical method was not significantly associated with increased risk of BCR (HR 1.25; p=0.29).

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm the noninferiority of RARP to RP with regard to patients with PSMs. As such, all patients with a PSM at RP are at high risk for BCR and should be followed in the same manner regardless of the surgical approach.