Functional Impact of Neuro-Vascular Bundle Preservation in High Risk Prostate Cancer without Compromising Oncological Outcomes: A Propensity-Modelled Analysis

Nerve sparing (NS) is a surgical technique to optimize functional outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). However, it is not recommended in high risk (HR) cases because of the risk of a positive surgical margin that may increase the risk of cancer recurrence. In the last two decades there has been a change of perspective to the effect that in well-selected cases NS could be an oncologically safe option with better functional outcomes. Therefore, we aim to compare the functional outcomes and oncological safety of NS during RP in men with HR disease. A total of 1340 patients were included in this analysis, of which 12% (n = 158) underwent non-NSRP and 39% (n = 516) and 50% (n = 666) uni- and bilateral NSRP, respectively. We calculated a propensity score and used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to balance the baseline characteristics of Pca patients undergoing non-NSRP and those having uni- and bilateral NSRP, respectively. NS improved functional outcomes; after IPTW, only 3% of patients having non-NSRP reached complete erectile function recovery (without erectile aid) at 24 months, whereas 22% reached erectile function recovery (with erectile aid), while 87% were continent. Unilateral NS increased the probability of functional recovery in all outcomes (OR 1.1 or 1.2, respectively), bilateral NS slightly more so (OR 1.1 to 1.4). NSRP did not impact the risk of any recurrence (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.73-1.34, p = 0.09), and there was no difference in survival for men who underwent NSRP (HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.39-1.08). There was no difference in cancer-specific survival (0.56, 95%CI 0.29-1.11). Our study found that NSRP significantly improved functional outcomes and can be safely performed in carefully selected patients with HR-PCa without compromising long term oncological outcomes.

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: learning curves and outcomes from an Australian perspective

Background

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been a treatment for men who suffer from intermediated to high-risk prostate cancer in Australia since 2003. The primary outcomes in relation to learning curves in robotic surgery have been extensively researched in overseas populations, but there is no study from a cohort of Australian surgeons performing RARP. This study aims to highlight the effect of RARP learning curves on primary surgical outcomes in a high-volume Australian centre.

Methods

A retrospective audit of all RARP performed at Epworth Healthcare from 2016 to 2021 was performed. The primary outcome data collected included operating time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), and positive surgical margins (PSM). Exclusion criteria were applied. Positive outcomes were set at OT 240 min, blood loss 310 mL, and negative surgical margins.

Results

A total of 3969 cases were analysed for a cohort of 53 surgeons. Of these surgeons, 24 surgeons have performed >50 operations to be able to undergo learning curve analysis. The median OT was 229 min, the median blood loss was 353 mL, and most cases had negative surgical margins (>1 mm, n = 3681, 92.7%). The mean learning curve transition point was 65 cases. There was a significant difference in the EBL and rate of PSM for the higher volume cohort (p = 0.002 and <0.0001, respectively).

Conclusion

We perform a retrospective study of all RARP performed at a high-volume Australian centre. Higher volume surgeons demonstrate that primary outcomes improve with a higher caseload (EBL, PSM). Learning curve transition points for RARP are comparable to international high-volume surgeons. Learning curve data could form the benchmark for RARP training and skills development.

Evaluation of Biochemical Recurrence and Correlation with Various Parameters After Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: a Single Center Experience

Introduction

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) is widely used as an early end point to assess treatment success and frequently prompts the initiation of secondary therapy after radical prostatectomy. We conducted an observational, ambispective study to evaluate BCR after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for clinically localized prostate cancer. We also analyzed correlation of BCR with pre-operative PSA level, D'Amico classification, pathological stage, post-operative GS, and positive surgical margins after RARP.

Material and Methods

A total of 90 patients with clinically localized carcinoma prostate (≤ T 2), who underwent RARP between April 2012 and April 2017 at our institute with 3 year of minimum follow-up were included in our study. Patients having locally advanced disease on clinical staging or died of unrelated cause in follow up or lost to follow up were excluded from study. Patients who had persistent detectable PSA (> 0.20 ng/ml) at 6 week with a second confirmatory level of PSA greater than 0.2 ng/ml at 3rd month were excluded from study.

Results

The age of the patient ranges from 46 to 79 years with the mean age of 65.36 ± 6.55 years. The mean PSA was 24.36 ± 26.68 ng/ml with range between 1.8 and 126.6 ng/ml. Nine patients (10%) developed BCR at 1-year follow-up and 81 patients were BCR-free. Thus, 1-year BCRFS and BCR rate were 90% and 10%, respectively in our study. Total 17 patients (18.9%) developed BCR during a 2-year period and 73 patients were free of BCR. Thus, 2-year BCRFS and BCR rate were 81.1% and 18.9%, respectively. A total of 29 patients (32.2%) had BCR and 61 patients were free of BCR at 3 years of follow-up. Thus, overall 3-year BCR rate and 3-year BCRFS rate were 32.2% and 67.8%, respectively. There was significant correlation of BCR with pre-operative PSA level, D'Amico classification, pathological stage, post-operative GS, and positive surgical margins.

Conclusions

There is relative paucity of data regarding the BCR rate after RARP in the Indian scenario. The BCR rate in our study was similar to previously published Western and limited Indian data on RARP series in localized prostate cancer. There was significant correlation of BCR with PSA, post-operative GS, pathological stage, PSM, and D'Amico classification.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer with seminal vesicle invasion: a multi-institutional study with a minimum 5-year follow-up

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) vs. open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in pathologically proven prostate cancer with seminal vesicle invasion (SVI).

METHODS

We performed a cohort study involving men who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer with SVI. We adjusted the confounders for RARP versus open surgery using the stabilized inverted probability of treatment weighting. Multivariable survival regression analysis was used to compare the treatment effect of RARP vs. ORP on biochemical recurrence (BCR) and clinical progression (CP).

RESULTS

Between January 2000 and December 2012, 272 of 510 men (53.3%) underwent RARP at four tertiary hospitals in Korea. The median follow-up in the entire cohort was 75.7 months (interquartile range, 58.9-96.6 months). Among 389 BCR events, 205 (75.4%) and 184 (77.3%) occurred in the robot-assisted and open groups, respectively. The 5-year BCR-free survival was 22.2% and 20.5% among men who underwent RARP and ORP, respectively (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-1.10; P = 0.29 by the log-rank test). Ninety-nine patients experienced CP (55 and 44 in the RARP and open groups, respectively), representing Kaplan-Meier estimated 5-year event-free rates of 82.1% and 86.1% in the RARP and open groups, respectively, (HR 1.20; 95% CI 0.80-1.79; P = 0.39).

CONCLUSION

The long-term outcomes of RARP for prostate cancer with SVI were comparable to those of open surgery in this large multi-institutional study. However, this result should be confirmed by well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the treatment of patients with clinically high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer: single surgeons functional and oncologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Optimal treatment approaches for high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer remain controversial and there are currently no standard treatments. These patients with high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer are usually offered radiotherapy in combination with hormonal therapy. We report functional and oncologic outcomes of patients who underwent primary robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and assess the role of RARP in patients with high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.

METHODS

This study included 188 patients with high-risk localized (clinical stage T2c or a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level > 20 ng/mL or a biopsy Gleason score ≥ 8) and/or locally advanced (any PSA, cT3-4 or cN+) prostate cancer who underwent RARP between July 2013 and May 2020. Functional outcomes including postoperative continence and potency were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after RARP. Oncologic outcomes comprised positive surgical margins (PSMs), biochemical recurrence (BCR), BCR-free survival, and clinical recurrence (CR)-free survival rates at 1 and 3 years.

RESULTS

The median operative time was 185 (interquartile range [IQR] 130-260) minutes. Based on postoperative pathology, the rates of PSMs in the entire cohort and in those with stage pT2 disease were 26.6% and 8.5%, respectively. The continence and potency rates at 12 months were 88.3% and 56.4%, respectively. The BCR rate was 22.3%, and the median time to BCR was 10.5 (IQR 3.5-26.9) months. The 1- and 3-year BCR-free survival rates were 87.6% and 78.7%, respectively, and the 1- and 3-year CR-free survival rates were 97.5% and 90.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with clinically high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer treated with primary RARP remained BCR-free and CR-free during the 1- and 3-year follow-up, demonstrating the good functional outcomes with RARP. RARP was a safe and feasible minimally invasive surgical alternative to radiotherapy or hormonal therapy in select patients with high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. These results should be validated to assure the reproducibility of measurements in prospective randomized-controlled studies on primary RARP.

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.

Prostatectomies for localized prostate cancer: a mixed comparison network and cumulative meta-analysis

No consensus has been attained regarding the utility of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). We carried out a network meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis comparing RRP, LRP and RALRP on peri-operative and functional outcome measures. Electronic databases were searched for either randomized clinical trials or cohort studies comparing RALRP either with LRP or RRP in patients with localized PCa. Outcome measures were as follows: overall, pT2 and pT3-positive surgical margins (PSMs); biochemical recurrence (BCR); complication rates; estimated blood loss; blood transfusion rate; continence and potency rates; duration of catheterization and hospital stay. Publication bias, risk of bias and inconsistency were assessed. Inverse heterogeneity model was used for analysis. A total of 45 studies were included for the final analysis. We observed that RALRP and LRP did not differ significantly from RRP with regard to the following outcomes: overall PSM; pT2 and pT3 PSMs; OT; complication rate; continence and potency rates; total blood loss and hospital stay. Duration of catheterization was significantly shorter in RALRP than LRP and RRP while significant reductions in the need for blood transfusion and BCR were observed for both RALRP and LRP in comparison with RRP. To conclude, similar functional, operative and oncologic outcomes were observed for both RALRP and LRP compared to RRP.

Prediction of organ-confined disease after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically locally-advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the preoperative predictive factors that could identify subsets of favorable patients who can be possibly cured with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) alone in locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPCa). Our study was designed to identify clinical predictors of pathologic organ-confined disease (pOCD) in RARP setting.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2013, clinicopathological and oncological data from 273 consecutive men undergoing robot-assisted RP with extended PLND for clinically LAPCa were reviewed in a single-institution, retrospectively. After exclusion of patients who received neoadjuvant hormone treatment before surgery, 186 subjects satisfied the final inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Fourty-three patients (23.1% of total cohort) with preoperative clinically LAPCa patients were down-staged to pOCD following RARP. Preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, preoperative PSAD, positive core percent, maximal tumor volume in any core, and biopsy Gleason score were significantly associated with down-staging into pOCD following RARP. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that lower preoperative PSA (≤10 ng/mL) and maximal tumor volume in any core (≤70%) were independent predictors of pOCD following RARP.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 23% of preoperative clinically LAPCa patients were down-staged to pOCD following RARP. Preoperative PSA and maximal tumor volume in any biopsy core might be useful clinical predictors of pOCD in clinically LAPCa patients in RARP setting.

Long-term patient outcomes from the first year of a robotic surgery program using multi-surgeon implementation

INTRODUCTION

There is concern that surgical quality initially declines during the learning phase of robotic surgery. At our institution, we used a multi-surgeon programmatic approach to the introduction of robotic surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes of patients treated during the first year of our program.

METHODS

This is a historical cohort of all radical prostatectomy patients during a one-year period. Baseline, perioperative, and long-term followup data were prospectively and retrospectively collected. Treatment failure was a composite of any postoperative radiation, androgen-deprivation, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥0.2.

RESULTS

During the study period, 225 radical prostatectomy procedures were performed (104 robotic and 121 open). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (p>0.05). All patients were continent and 74% were potent prior to surgery. Mean estimated blood loss (280 cc vs. 760 cc; p<0.001) and blood transfusion (0% vs. 8.3%; p=0.002) was lower in the robotic cohort. Non-transfusion complications were similar between groups (13% vs. 12%; p=0.7). Mean hospital stay was shorter in the robotic cohort (1.4 vs. 2.5 days). There was no difference in overall positive margin rate (38% vs. 43%; p=0.4) or treatment failure at a median followup of 3.5 years (p=0.4). Robotically treated patients were more often continent (89% vs. 77%; p=0.02) and potent (48% vs. 32%; p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Using an inclusive multi-surgeon approach, robotic pros-tatectomy was introduced safely at a Canadian academic institution.

Differences in Effectiveness and Use of Robotic Surgery in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Colectomy

BACKGROUND

We compared patient outcomes of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and laparoscopic colectomy without robotic assistance for colon cancer or nonmalignant polyps, comparing all patients, obese versus nonobese patients, and male versus female patients.

METHODS

We used the 2013-2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data to examine a composite outcome score comprised of mortality, readmission, reoperation, wound infection, bleeding transfusion, and prolonged postoperative ileus. We used propensity scores to assess potential heterogeneous treatment effects of RAS by patient obesity and sex.

RESULTS

In all, 17.1% of the 10,844 of patients received RAS. Males were slightly more likely to receive RAS. Obese patients were equally likely to receive RAS as nonobese patients. In comparison to nonRAS, RAS was associated with a 3.1% higher adverse composite outcome score. Mortality, reoperations, wound infections, sepsis, pulmonary embolisms, deep vein thrombosis, myocardial infarction, blood transfusions, and average length of hospitalization were similar in both groups. Conversion to open surgery was 10.1% lower in RAS versus nonRAS patients, but RAS patients were in the operating room an average of 52.4 min longer. We found no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) by obesity status and gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Worse patient outcomes and no differential improvement by sex or obesity suggest more cautious adoption of RAS.

Heterogeneous oncologic outcomes according to surgical pathology in high-risk prostate cancer: implications for better risk stratification and preoperative prediction of oncologic outcomes

PURPOSE

To evaluate the better risk stratification based on surgical pathology, and to predict oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) with a better scoring system in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

METHODS

We evaluated high-risk PCa patients (PSA >20 ng/ml, ≥cT3a, or Gleason score 8-10) who underwent RP between 2007 and 2013 at our institute. We classified patients into three groups according to their pathologic outcomes: favorable (pT2, Gleason score ≤7, and node negative), intermediate (specimen-confined disease (pT2-3a, node negative PCa with negative surgical margins) but not in the favorable group), and unfavorable (the remaining patients). We developed a risk stratification scoring system to predict prognostic outcomes after RP and validated our scoring system to estimate its predictive accuracy.

RESULTS

Among a total of 356 patients, 95 (26.7%), 115 (32.3%), and 146 (41%) were in the favorable, intermediate, and unfavorable prognostic groups, respectively. The 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates of the patients in each group were 87.8, 64.6, and 41.4%, respectively. We developed a scoring system based on preoperative PSA, clinical stage, percentage of tumor positive core, and percentage of cores with a Gleason score 8-10. This demonstrated internally and externally validated concordance indices of 0.733 and 0.772, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Using our scoring system, we can predict which patients with high-risk PCa would benefit more from RP. Thus, this system can be used in patient counseling to determine an optimal treatment strategy for high-risk PCa.

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.

Robotic radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer: current perspectives

Around 20%–30% of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) still have high-risk PCa disease (HRPC) that requires aggressive treatment. Treatment of HRPC is controversial, and multimodality therapy combining surgery, radiation therapy, and androgen deprivation therapy have been suggested. There has been a trend toward performing radical prostatectomy (RP) in HRPC and currently, robot-assisted laparoscopic RP (RARP) has become the most common approach. Number of publications related to robotic surgery in HRPC is limited in the literature. Tissue and Tumor characteristics might be different in HRPC patients compared to low-risk group and increased surgical experience for RARP is needed. Due to the current literature, RARP seems to have similar oncologic outcomes including surgical margin positivity, biochemical recurrence and recurrence-free survival rates, additional cancer therapy needs and lymph node (LN) yields with similar complication rates compared to open surgery in HRPC. In addition, decreased blood loss, lower rates of blood transfusion and shorter duration of hospital stay seem to be the advantages of robotic surgery in this particular patient group. RARP in HRPC patients seems to be safe and technically feasible with good intermediate-term oncologic results, acceptable morbidities, excellent short-term surgical and pathological outcomes and satisfactory functional results.

Safety of selective nerve sparing in high risk prostate cancer during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

D'Amico high risk prostate cancer is associated with higher incidence of extra prostatic disease. It is recommended to avoid nerve sparing in high risk patients to avoid residual cancer. We report our intermediate term oncologic and functional outcomes in patients with preoperative D'Amico high risk prostate cancer, who underwent selective nerve sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Between Jan 2008 till June 2013, 557 patients underwent RARP for D'Amico high risk prostate cancer. The criteria for nerve sparing were as follows-complete: non palpable disease with <3 cores involvement on prostate biopsy; partial: non palpable disease with <4 cores involvement on prostate biopsy; none: clinically palpable disease with ≥4 cores involvement on prostate biopsy and intraoperative visual cues of locally advanced disease (loss of dissection planes, focal bulge of prostatic capsule). Degree of nerve sparing (NS) was graded intraoperatively by the surgeon independently at either side as side specific margins were assessed to predict subjectivity of the intraoperative judgment. Various data were collected and analyzed. Of 557 patients who underwent RARP 140 underwent complete (group 1), 358 patients underwent partial (group 2), and 59 patients underwent non-nerve-sparing procedure (group 3). There were no difference in preoperative characteristic between the groups (p = 0.678), but group 3 had higher Gleason score sum (p = 0.001), positive cores on biopsy (p = 0.001) and higher t stage (p = 0.001). Postoperatively Extra prostatic extension (p = 0.001), seminal vesicle invasion (p = 0.001), and tumor volume (p < 0.001) were higher in Group 3. Side specific positive surgical margins (PSMs) rates were higher for non-nerve-sparing compared to partial and complete nerve sparing RARP (p < 0.001; overall PSMs = 25.2 %). On univariate and multivariate analysis, nerve sparing did not affect PSMs (p > 0.05). The overall biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate at mean follow-up of 24.3 months was 19.21 %. The continence rate at 3 month was significantly higher in complete NS group in comparison to non-NS group (p = 0.020), however, this difference was not statistically significant at 1 year. Similarly, mean time to continence was significantly lower in complete NS group in comparison to non-NS group (p = 0.030). The potency rate was significantly higher and mean time to potency was significantly lower in complete NS group in comparison to non-NS group (p = 0.010 and 0.020, respectively). In high risk prostate cancer patients, selective nerve sparing during RARP, using the preoperative clinical variables (clinical stage and positive cores on biopsy) and surgeon's intraoperative perception, could provide reasonable intermediate term oncologic, functional outcomes (continence and potency) with acceptable perioperative morbidity and positive surgical margins rate. Use of these preoperative factors and surgeon's intraoperative judgment can appropriately evaluate high risk prostate cancer patients for nerve sparing RARP.

Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Locally-advanced Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on the role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

To describe our surgical technique of extrafascial RARP and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) in locally advanced PCa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-four patients with clinical stage ≥T3 undergoing RARP with ePLND at three European centers between 2011 and 2015 were retrospectively evaluated.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

Surgery was performed using the DaVinci Si system. The anatomically defined ePLND included nodes overlying the external iliac axis, those in the obturator fossa, and around the internal iliac artery up to the ureter. RARP was performed using an extrafascial approach where the Denonvillers' fascia was dissected free and left on the posterior surface of the seminal vesicles.

MEASUREMENTS

Perioperative outcomes consisted of operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complications occurred within 30 d after surgery. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as two consecutive prostate-specific antigen values ≥0.2ng/ml. Kaplan-Meier analyses assessed time to BCR and clinical recurrence. Multivariable Cox regression analyses assessed predictors of BCR.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Median operative time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were 230min, 200ml, and 6 d. Overall, 12 (12.7%) patients experienced complications and five (5.3%), four (4.3%), and three (3.2%) patients had Clavien I, II, and III/IV complications. Overall, 72 (76.6%), 35 (37.2%), and 30 (32.3%) patients had pT3/4, pN1, and positive margins. The median number of nodes removed was 16. Overall, 19 (20.2%) and 21 (22.3%) patients received adjuvant radiotherapy and hormonal therapy. The median follow-up was 23.5 mo. At 3-yr follow-up, the BCR- and clinical recurrence-free survival rates were 63.3% and 95.8%. Pathologic stage, Gleason score, and positive margins represented predictors of BCR (all p≤0.03). Our study is limited by its retrospective nature and by the follow-up duration.

CONCLUSIONS

RARP represents a well-standardized, safe, and oncological effective option in patients with locally advanced PCa. Pathologic stage, Gleason score, and positive margins should be considered to select patients for multimodal approaches.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Robot-assisted surgery represents a well-standardized, safe, and oncological effective option in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Two out of three patients treated with this approach are free from recurrence at 3-yr follow-up. Pathologic stage, Gleason score, and positive surgical margins represent predictors of BCR and should be considered to select patients for multimodal approaches.

The role of radical prostatectomy in high-risk localized, node-positive and metastatic prostate cancer

A lack of quality evidence comparing management strategies confounds complex treatment decisions for patients with high-risk prostate cancers. No randomized trial comparing surgery to radiation has been successfully completed. Despite inherent selection biases, however, observational and registry data suggest improved outcomes for patients initially managed with prostatectomy. As consensus shifts away from aggressive treatment for low-risk disease and toward multimodal treatment of locally advanced and metastatic disease, there is renewed interest in surgery for local control in patients presenting with high-risk localized, node-positive and minimally metastatic disease. The objective of this review is to examine the evidence evaluating clinical outcomes of patients with high-risk clinically localized, node-positive and metastatic prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy.

Intermediate-term cancer control outcomes in prostate cancer patients treated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional analysis

PURPOSE

Cancer control outcomes following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for prostate cancer (PCa) remain inadequately addressed over intermediate-term (≥5-year) follow-up. We examined biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS), clinical recurrence-free survival (CRFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in a multi-institutional cohort of men undergoing RARP for localized PCa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 5670 PCa patients undergoing RARP ± pelvic lymph node dissection as primary treatment modality at three tertiary care centers between 2001 and 2010 were analyzed. BCRFS, CRFS, and CSS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards model tested their association with available preoperative and postoperative parameters.

RESULTS

43.6 and 15.1 % of patients had D'Amico intermediate- and high-risk disease, respectively. Over a mean (median) follow-up of 56 (50.4) months, 797 men had a BCR, 78 men had CR, and 32 men died of PCa. Actuarial BCRFS, CRFS, and CSS, respectively, were 83.3, 98.6, and 99.5 % at 5-year; 76.5, 97.5, and 98.7 % at 8-year; and 73.3, 96.7, and 98.4 % at 10-year follow-ups. Only 1.7 % of patients received any adjuvant treatment. Preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and biopsy Gleason score (GS) were independent clinical predictors of BCRFS, CRFS, and CSS, while postoperatively positive surgical margin, pathological GS, pathological stage, and lymph node invasion were significantly associated with BCR and CR (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer control outcomes of RARP appear comparable to those reported for open and laparoscopic RP in previous literature, despite low overall rate of adjuvant treatment. Disease severity and preoperative PSA may aid in risk prognostication and defining postoperative follow-up protocols.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer

Since its introduction in the year 2000, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) rapidly diffused, and nowadays roughly 70% of all the radical prostatectomies in the USA are performed using this approach. Interestingly, the broad dissemination of RARP occurred in the absence of comprehensive data coming from prospective randomized trials supporting the superiority of RARP versus the conventional open RP (ORP). Only observations originating from retrospective institutional or large population-based cohorts exist with respect to the comparative effectiveness of the two surgical techniques. What we have learned is that, given an adequate learning curve, RARP leads to better perioperative and long-term functional outcomes compared with ORP, without any compromise to cancer control outcomes. That being said, the substantially higher costs associated with the use of robotics cannot be ignored.

Comparative analysis of oncologic outcomes for open vs. robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer

Purpose

To evaluate the oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), we compared the surgical margin status and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) rates between retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and RARP.

Materials and Methods

A comparative analysis was conducted of high-risk PCa patients who underwent RRP or RARP by a single surgeon from 2007 to 2013. High-risk PCa was defined as clinical stage≥T3a, biopsy Gleason score 8-10, or prostate-specific antigen>20 ng/mL. Propensity score matching was performed to minimize selection bias, and all possible preoperative and postoperative confounders were matched. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess the 5-year BCRFS, and Cox regression models were used to evaluate the effect of the surgical approach on biochemical recurrence.

Results

A total of 356 high-risk PCa patients (106 [29.8%] RRP and 250 [70.2%] RARP) were included in the final cohort analyzed. Before adjustment, the mean percentage of positive cores on biopsy and pathologic stage were poorer for RRP versus RARP (p=0.036 vs. p=0.054, respectively). The unadjusted 5-year BCRFS rates were better for RARP than for RRP (RRP vs. RARP: 48.1% vs. 64.4%, p=0.021). After adjustment for preoperative variables, the 5-year BCRFS rates were similar between RRP and RARP patients (48.5% vs. 59.6%, p=0.131). The surgical approach did not predict biochemical recurrence in multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

Five-year BCRFS rates of RARP are comparable to RRP in high-risk PCa. RARP is a feasible treatment option for high-risk PCa.

RARP in high-risk prostate cancer: use of multi-parametric MRI and nerve sparing techniques

To examine the outcomes of patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated by robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and evaluate the value of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in estimating tumor stage, extracapsular extension, and grade, and the application of nerve sparing (NS) techniques. Patient demographics, preoperative imaging, surgical parameters, pathological features, functional and recurrence outcomes were collected retrospectively in patients with high-risk PCa who underwent RARP between December 2009 and October 2013. Pathological whole mount slides to assess NS were compared with potency, recovery of continence, and surgical margins (SM). Forty-four cases of high-risk PCa were identified with a median followup of 24 months and positive surgical margins (PSM) rate of 14%. Continence returned in 86%, with potency rate of 58%. Of the 25 cases with a preoperative multi-parametric MRI, MRI improved clinical staging from 28% to 88%, respectively. Following risk stratification of NS by microscopic analysis of whole mount pathology, patients with Group A (bilateral NS), Group B (unilateral NS), Group C (partial NS), and Group D (non-NS) had 100%, 92%, 91%, and 50% continence rates, and 100%, 80%, 45%, and 0% potency rates, respectively, with an inverse correlation to PSM. RARP in men with high-risk PCa can achieve favorable oncologic and functional outcomes. Preoperative MRI may localize high-grade tumors and improve clinical staging. Extent of NS is influenced by clinical staging and may balance potency and continence with PSMs.

Role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the management of high-risk prostate cancer

We aimed to evaluate the role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in the management of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), with a focus on oncological, functional and perioperative outcomes. Further, we also aimed to briefly describe our novel modification to conventional RARP that allows immediate organ retrieval and examination for intra-operative surgical margin assessment. A literature search of PubMed was performed for articles on the management of high-risk PCa. Papers written in English and concerning clinical outcomes following RARP for locally advanced and high-risk PCa were selected. Outcomes data from our own center were also included. A total of 10 contemporary series were evaluated. Biopsy Gleason score ≥ 8 was the most common cause for classification of patients into the high-risk PCa group. Biochemical failure rate, in the few series that looked at long-term follow-up, varied from 9% to 26% at 1 year. The positive surgical margin rate varied from 12% to 53.3%. Urinary continence rates varied from 78% to 92% at 1 year. The overall complication rates varied from 2.4% to 30%, with anastomotic leak and lymphocele being the most common complications. Long-term data on oncological control following RARP in high-risk patients is lacking. Short-term oncological outcomes and functional outcomes are equivalent to open radical prostatectomy (RP). Safety outcomes are better in patients undergoing RARP when compared with open RP. Improved tools for predicting the presence of organ-confined disease (OCD) are available. High-risk patients with OCD would be ideal candidates for RARP and would benefit most from surgery alone.

Current status of radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer

Despite the wide application of prostate-specific antigen-based screening leading to a profound stage migration in prostate cancer (PC), a significant percentage of men are still being diagnosed with clinically high-risk disease that requires aggressive treatment. Optimal management in these patients remains challenging, and strong advocates for radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, and, increasingly, a multimodal approach abound. Currently, surgery for high-risk PC is frequently applied. RP offers an attractive opportunity for tumor excision either as a definitive management or as a first step in multimodal therapy. Nevertheless, this approach is still controversial. In this review, we discuss the current evidence for the role of RP in this clinical setting, including surgical considerations and outcomes. The role of robot-assisted RP, which is increasingly utilized in Korea in this clinical scenario, is discussed.

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy vs. Open Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP) remains the "gold standard" for surgical treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a robotic surgery used worldwide. The aim of this study is to collect the data available in the literature on RARP and ORP, and further evaluate the overall safety and efficacy of RARP vs. ORP for the treatment of clinically localized PCa. A literature search was performed using electronic databases between January 2009 and October 2013. Clinical data such as operation duration, transfusion rate, positive surgical margins (PSM), nerve sparing, 3- and 12-month urinary continence, and potency were pooled to carry out meta-analysis. Six studies were enrolled for this meta-analysis. The operation duration of RARP group was longer than that of ORP group (weighted mean difference = 64.84). There was no statistically significant difference in the transfusion rate, PSM rate, and between RARP and ORP (transfusion rate, OR = 0.30; PSM rate, OR = 0.94). No significant difference was seen in 3- and 12-month urinary continence recovery (3 months, OR = 1.32; 12 months, OR = 1.30). There was a statistically significant difference in potency between the 3- and 12-month groups (3 months, OR = 2.80; 12 months, OR = 1.70). RARP is a safe and feasible surgical technique for the treatment of clinically localized PCa owing to the advantages of fewer perioperative complications and quicker patency recovery.

Feasibility of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for very-high risk prostate cancer: surgical and oncological outcomes in men aged ≥70 years

Purpose

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection (RALP-PLND) is a feasible treatment option for high-risk prostate cancer (HPCa), but remains controversial for very high-risk prostate cancer (VHPCa). We aimed to assess the feasibility of RALP-PLND in men ≥70 years with VHPCa features by comparing outcomes to those of HPCa.

Methods

Among patients aged ≥70 years who underwent RALP-PLND between 2005 and 2012, 101 HPCa patients (31%) (PSA≥20 ng/mL or biopsy Gleason 8–10 or cT3a) and 53 VHPCa patients (16%) (≥cT3b or cN1) were identified. Perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes were compared between groups.

Results

Perioperative outcomes including operative time (P=0.917), estimated blood loss (P=0.181), and complications (P=0.239) were comparable. Due to Gleason score downgrading, 19% of HPCa and 4% of VHPCa were actually of intermediate risk. VHPCa revealed higher LN involvements (P=0.002). Discrepancy between clinical and pathological nodal status was more frequent in VHPCa (36% vs. 7%, P<0.01). Nodal metastasis would have been missed in 23% patients without PLND, while 13% of cN1 patients were shown to be metastasis-free by PLND. Continence rates were lower for VHPCa (32% vs. 56%, P=0.013). Although biochemical recurrence-free survival rates were comparable (P=0.648), risk for later adjuvant treatments was higher for VHPCa patients (14% vs. 34%, P<0.01).

Conclusions

RALP-PLND is a feasible option for VHPCa in elderly patients with satisfactory oncologic outcomes; however, functional outcomes were not as favorable. Patients who are unable to accept the risk of adjuvant therapy and its side effects or incontinence should be deterred from surgical treatment, and other options such as radiation therapy could be an alternative.

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.

Is robot-assisted radical prostatectomy safe in men with high-risk prostate cancer? Assessment of perioperative outcomes, positive surgical margins, and use of additional cancer treatments

INTRODUCTION

Despite a rapid dissemination of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) over open radical prostatectomy (ORP), to date no study has compared perioperative outcomes between the two approaches in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of RARP in this setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Overall, 1,512 patients with high-risk PCa within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End RESULTS (SEER) Medicare-linked database diagnosed between 2008 and 2009 were abstracted. Patients were treated with RARP or ORP. Postoperative complications, blood transfusions, prolonged length of stay (pLOS), positive surgical margins, and additional cancer therapy rates were compared. Propensity-score matched analyses and logistic regression models fitted with generalized estimating equations for clustering among hospitals were performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 706 (46.7%) and 806 (53.3%) patients underwent ORP and RARP, respectively. Following propensity-matched analyses, 706 patients remained. No differences were observed in complications (P=0.6), positive surgical margins (P=0.4), or additional therapy after surgery (P=0.2) between patients treated with RARP and ORP; however, RARP was associated with lower rates of transfusions and shorter hospitalization (all P<0.001). In multivariable analyses, patients undergoing RARP were less likely to receive a blood transfusion (P=0.002) or to experience pLOS (P<0.001) compared with men treated with ORP.

CONCLUSIONS

RARP and ORP have comparable complications, positive surgical margins, and additional cancer therapy rates in high-risk PCa. RARP is associated with lower rates of blood transfusions and shorter hospital stays. These findings suggest that RARP is safe and feasible even in this clinical scenario.

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.

Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience

OBJECTIVES

To compare oncological outcomes of a consecutive retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) series performed by a single surgeon who had performed >750 prior RRPs and was starting to perform RARPs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected longitudinal data of 277 RRP and 730 RARP cases over a 5-year period were retrospectively analyzed. The RARP series were divided into 3 subgroups (1st, <250 cases; 2nd, 250-500; and 3rd, >500) according to the surgical period. The positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) rates were compared at each pathological stage.

RESULTS

The pT2 PSM rates showed no significant difference between the RRP (7.8%) and RARP series (1st, 9.5%; 2nd, 14.1%; and 3rd, 9.8%) throughout the study period (P = 0.689, 0.079, and 0.688, respectively). Although the pT3 PSM rates of the 1st (50.6%) and 2nd RARP series (50.0%) were higher than that of the RRP series (36.0%; P = 0.044 and P = 0.069, respectively), the 3rd RARP series had a comparable pT3 PSM rate (32.4%, P = 0.641). The 3-year BCRFS rates of the RRP and RARP series were similar at each pathological stage (pT2, 92.1 vs. 96.8%, P = 0.517; pT3, 60.0 vs. 67.3%, P = 0.265, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The pT2 PSM and short-term BCRFS rates were similar between RRP and RARP, and RARP showed comparable pT3 PSM rate with RRP after >500 cases of surgical experience. Our data suggest that an experienced robotic surgeon at a high-volume center may achieve comparable oncological outcomes with open prostatectomy even in locally advanced disease.