Functional and Oncological Outcomes Following Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer With a Large Prostate Volume: A Retrospective Analysis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Ups

Ten-year functional and oncological outcomes of a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Among prostate cancer (PCa) treatment options, mini-invasive surgical approaches have gained a wide diffusion in the last decades. The aim of this study was to present oncological, functional, and quality of life data after 10 years of follow-up of a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) (ISRCTN11552140) comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) for the treatment of PCa.

METHODS

Patients with localized PCa were randomized to undergo LRP or RARP between January 2010 and January 2011. Functional (continence and potency) and oncological (prostate-specific antigen, biochemical recurrence [BCR] and BCR-free survival [BCRFS]) variables were evaluated. BCRFS curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Machine learning partial least square-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) was used to identify the variables characterizing more the patients who underwent RARP or LRP.

RESULTS

Seventy-five of the originally enrolled 120 patients remained on follow-up for 10 years; 40 (53%) underwent RARP and 35 (47%) LRP. Continence and potency recovery rates did not show significant differences (p = 0.068 and p = 0.56, respectively), despite a Δ12% for continence and Δ8% for potency in favor of the robotic approach. However, the quality of continence (in terms of International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form [ICIQ-SF] score) and erection (in terms of International Index of Erectile Function-5 [IIEF-5] score) was significantly better after 10 years in the robotic group (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001). PLS-DA revealed that LRP was characterized by the worst functional-related outcomes analyzing the entire follow-up period. Four (10%) and six (17%) patients experienced BCR in RARP and LRP groups, respectively (p = 0.36), with an overall 10-year BCR-free survival of 88% and 78% (p = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable continence and potency rates were observed between RARP and LRP after a 10-year follow-up. However, the RARP group exhibited superior totally dry rate and erection quality. No difference in terms of oncological outcomes was found.

Prostate Volume Influence on Postoperative Outcomes for Patients Undergoing RARP: A Monocentric Serial Analysis of 500 Cases

Elevated prostate volume is considered to negatively influence postoperative outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We aim to investigate the influence of prostate volume on readmissions and complications after RARP. Methods: A total of 500 consecutive patients who underwent RARP between April 2019 and August 2022 were included. Patients were dichotomized into two groups using a prostate volume cut-off of 50 mL (small and normal prostate (SNP) n = 314, 62.8%; large prostate n = 186, 37.2%). Demographic, baseline, and perioperative data were analyzed. The postoperative complications and readmission rates within 90 days after RARP were compared between groups. A univariate linear analysis was performed to investigate the association between prostate volume and other relevant outcomes. Results: Patients with larger prostates had a higher IPSS score, and therefore, more relevant LUTS at the baseline. They had higher ASA scores (p = 0.015). They also had more catheter days (mean 6.6 days for SNP vs. 7.5 days for LP) (p = 0.041). All oncological outcomes were similar between the groups. Although statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.062), a trend for minor complications in patients with larger prostates, n = 37/186 (19.8%) for the LP group vs. n = 37/314 (11.7%) in the SNP group, was observed. Namely, acute urinary retention and secondary anastomosis insufficiency. Major complications with an SNP (4.4%) and LP (3.7%) (p = 0.708) and readmissions with an SNP (6.25%) and LP (4.2%) (p = 0.814) were infrequent and distributed equally between the groups. In univariate analysis, prostate volume could solely predict a longer console time (p = 0.005). Conclusions: A higher prostate volume appears to have minimal influence on the perioperative course after RARP. It can prolong catheter days and increase the incidence of minor complications such as acute urinary retention. However, it might predict minor changes in operating time. Yet, prostate volume has less influence on major complications, readmissions, or oncological results.

Retzius-sparing robotic prostatectomy is associated with higher positive surgical margin rate in anterior tumors, but not in posterior tumors, compared to conventional anterior robotic prostatectomy

Objectives

The analysis of the oncological outcomes and postoperative continence recovery between conventional robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (cRARP) and Retzius-sparing RARP (rsRARP), and the effect of the tumor location on them.

Materials and methods

A total of 317 patients who underwent cRARP (n = 228) or rsRARP (n = 89) from August 2017 to July 2020 were assessed. Patients were categorized into groups based on the tumor location by pathology. Positive surgical margin (PSM) rates and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survivals and continence recovery were compared between the two procedures.

Results

Patient age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, clinical stages, and Gleason score were not significantly different between the two groups. There was no significant difference in PSM rates (25.8% vs. 33.7%, p = 0.13) or BCR-free survivals (p = 0.28) between cRARP and rsRARP in patients. When tumor was located in the anterior lesion in the prostatectomy pathology, rsRARP was associated with significantly higher PSM rates than cRARP (53.3% in rsRARP vs. 27.0% in cRARP, p = 0.0086), while BCR-free survival did not vary significantly (hazard ratio: 2.15, p = 0.11). When tumors were identified in the posterior in prostatectomy pathology, PSM rates (28.8% in rsRARP vs. 24.7% in cRARP, p = 0.59) or BCR-free survivals (hazard ratio: 0.78, p = 0.51) did not differ significantly between the two groups. rsRARP yielded superior continence recovery in all time points compared to cRARP, which was not affected by the pathological tumor location.

Conclusion

In posterior tumors, rsRARP results in similar oncological outcomes as cRARP with superior continence recovery, while in anterior tumors, rsRARP may associate with higher PSM rate, combined with improved continence recovery.

Functional Preservation and Oncologic Control following Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Intermediate- and High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

AIM

To evaluate the urinary continence (UC), erectile function, and cancer control obtained following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) for intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

232 patients bearing intermediate- and high-risk localized PCa were enrolled in this study. Perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes were analyzed after applying the propensity score matched method.

RESULTS

Within the matched cohort, the RARP group was corrected with a significantly shorter mean operative time than the LRP group (p < 0.001). Patients in the RARP arm were also at a lower risk of ≤ Grade II complications than those in the LRP group (p = 0.036). Meanwhile, the proportions of transfusion and ≥ Grade II complications in the RARP group were similar to those in the LRP group (p = 0.192 and p = 1.000, respectively). No significant differences regarding the rates of pT3 disease and positive surgical margin existed between the two groups. RARP versus LRP tended to a significantly higher percentage of UC recovery within the follow-up period. Significant differences were also found between the RARP and LRP arms in terms of erectile function at postoperative 6 months and the last follow-up (p = 0.013 and p = 0.009, respectively). Statistical comparability in biochemical recurrence-free survival was observed between the two groups (p = 0.228).

CONCLUSIONS

For the surgical management of intermediate- and high-risk localized PCa, RARP tended to a lower risk of ≤ Grade II complications and superior functional preservation without cancer control being compromised than LRP.

Independent Factors Affecting Postoperative Short-Term Urinary Continence Recovery after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Background

Our team had firstly applied the transvesical approach to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients afflicted with localized prostate cancer (PCa). The present study aims to present the postoperative recovery of urinary continence (UC) following the anterior, transvesical, and posterior approaches to RARP for localized PCa and evaluate the independent predictors to early UC recovery after RARP.

Methods

Patients harboring localized PCa and receiving anterior, transvesical, and posterior approaches to RARP between January 2017 and June 2020 were enrolled in this analysis. Results on UC recovery were compared between these three approaches with the Kaplan–Meier method. All clinical and pathological variables were further analyzed via univariable and multivariable regression analysis to determine the independent factors contributing to short-term UC recovery after RARP.

Results

A total of 135, 73, and 66 instances were included in the anterior, transvesical, and posterior groups, respectively. Over the postoperative follow-up period, both the transvesical and posterior approaches showed an advantage over the anterior approach in promoting postoperative UC recovery (both p values <0.001). Three months after surgery, 55 (40.7%), 4 (5.5%), and 5 (7.6%) patients failed to UC in the anterior, transvesical, and posterior groups, respectively. Patient age, preoperative PSA, prostate volume, biopsy Gleason score, surgical approach, extended lymph node dissection technique, nerve-sparing technique, and positive lymph node were related to UC status based on univariable analyses (p < 0.05). Multivariable analysis results point patient age, prostate volume, surgical approach, and nerve-sparing technique as independent factors that affect postoperative UC recovery after RARP.

Conclusions

The application of transvesical approach to RARP for localized PCa could obtain promising outcomes in terms of postoperative UC recovery. In addition, surgical strategies encompassing the nerve-sparing technique and the Retzius-sparing procedures, namely, the transvesical or posterior approach, during RARP could independently enable early achievement of postoperative continence.