1
|
Repka MC, Sholklapper T, Zwart AL, Danner M, Ayoob M, Yung T, Lei S, Collins BT, Kumar D, Suy S, Hankins RA, Kishan AU, Collins SP. Prognostic utility of biopsy-based PTEN and ERG status on biochemical progression and overall survival after SBRT for localized prostate cancer. Front Oncol 2024; 14:1381134. [PMID: 38585005 PMCID: PMC10995255 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1381134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2024] [Accepted: 03/12/2024] [Indexed: 04/09/2024] Open
Abstract
Introduction/background Phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) genomic deletions and transmembrane protease, serine 2/v-ets avian erthyroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (ERG) rearrangements are two of the most common genetic abnormalities associated with prostate cancer. Prior studies have demonstrated these alterations portend worse clinical outcomes. Our objective is to evaluate the impact of biopsy-determined PTEN losses and TMPRSS2-ERG fusion on biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients who receive SBRT for localized prostate cancer. Methods/materials Patients received SBRT for localized prostate cancer on a prospective quality-of-life (QoL) and cancer outcomes study. For each patient, the single biopsy core with the highest grade/volume of cancer was evaluated for PTEN and ERG abnormalities. Differences in baseline patient and disease characteristics between groups were analyzed using ANOVA for age and χ2 for categorical groupings. bPFS and OS were calculated using the Kaplan Meier (KM) method with Log-Rank test comparison between groups. Predictors of bPFS and OS were identified using the Cox proportional hazards method. For all analyses, p <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Ninety-nine consecutive patients were included in the analysis with a median follow-up of 72 months. A statistically significant improvement in bPFS (p = 0.018) was observed for wild type ERG patients with an estimated 5-year bPFS of 94.1% vs. 72.4%. Regarding PTEN mutational status, significant improvements in were observed in both bPFS (p = 0.006) and OS (p < 0.001), with estimated 5-year bPFS rates of 91.0% vs. 67.9% and 5-year OS rates of 96.4% vs. 79.4%. When including both ERG and PTEN mutational status in the analysis, there were statistically significant differences in both bPFS (p = 0.011) and OS (p < 0.001). The estimated 5-year bPFS rates were 100%, 76.6%, 72.9%, and 63.8% for patients with ERG+/PTEN+, ERG-/PTEN+, ERG+/PTEN-, and ERG-/PTEN- phenotypes respectively. The estimated 5-year OS rates were 93.9%, 100%, 80.0%, and 78.7% for patients with ERG+/PTEN+, ERG-/PTEN+, ERG+/PTEN-, and ERG-/PTEN- phenotypes respectively. Conclusion ERG rearrangements and PTEN deletions detected on biopsy samples are associated with poorer oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer patients treated with SBRT and merit further study in a dedicated prospective trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael C. Repka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Tamir Sholklapper
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Alan L. Zwart
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Malika Danner
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Marilyn Ayoob
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Thomas Yung
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Siyuan Lei
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Brian T. Collins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tampa General Hospital, Tampa, FL, United States
| | - Deepak Kumar
- Julius L Chambers Research Institute, North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Simeng Suy
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Ryan A. Hankins
- Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Amar U. Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Health, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Sean P. Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Simhal RK, Sholklapper TN, Simhal AK, Zwart AL, Danner MT, Kumar D, Aghdam N, Suy S, Hankins RA, Kowalczyk KJ, Collins SP. Association of baseline self-reported fatigue with overall survival after stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Front Oncol 2022; 12:1015264. [PMID: 36620537 PMCID: PMC9816795 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1015264] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2022] [Accepted: 11/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) has emerged as a definitive therapy for localized prostate cancer (PCa). However, more data is needed to predict patient prognosis to help guide which patients will benefit most from treatment. The FACIT-Fatigue (FACIT-F) is a well validated, widely used survey for assessing fatigue. However, the role of fatigue in predicting PCa survival has yet to be studied. Herein, we investigate the role of FACIT-F as a baseline predictor for overall survival (OS) in patients undergoing SBRT for localized PCa. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of 1358 patients who received SBRT monotherapy between January 2008 to April 2021 at an academic, tertiary referral center. FACIT-F scores (range 0 to 52) were summed for patients who answered all 13-items on the survey. FACIT-F total scores of ≥35 represented severe fatigue. Patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy were excluded. Differences in fatigue groups were evaluated using chi-squared tests. OS rates were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and predictors of OS were evaluated using Cox proportional hazard method. Results Baseline full FACIT-F scores and survival data was available for 891 patients. 5-year OS was 87.6% and 95.2%, respectively, for the severely fatigued and non-fatigued groups. Chi-squared analysis of fatigue groups showed no significant difference in the following categories: D'Amico risk group, age, ethnicity, grade group, T-stage, or PSA density. Severe fatigue was associated with a significant decrease in OS (hazard ratio 2.76; 95%CI 1.55 - 4.89). The Cox proportional hazard model revealed that age and FACIT-F were both statistically significant (p <0.05). Conclusion Baseline FACIT-F scores are significantly associated with OS. Higher FACIT-F scores, representing less fatigued patients, are associated with an overall survival benefit. These results indicate that the FACIT-F survey could serve as an additional metric for clinicians in determining prognostic factors for patients undergoing SBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rishabh K. Simhal
- School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States,*Correspondence: Rishabh K. Simhal,
| | | | - Anish K. Simhal
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States
| | - Alan L. Zwart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Malika T. Danner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Deepak Kumar
- Julius L. Chambers Research Institute, North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Nima Aghdam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Simeng Suy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Ryan A. Hankins
- School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States,Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Keith J. Kowalczyk
- School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States,Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Sean P. Collins
- School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States,Department of Radiation Oncology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Repka MC, Creswell M, Lischalk JW, Carrasquilla M, Forsthoefel M, Lee J, Lei S, Aghdam N, Kataria S, Obayomi-Davies O, Collins BT, Suy S, Hankins RA, Collins SP. Rationale for Utilization of Hydrogel Rectal Spacers in Dose Escalated SBRT for the Treatment of Unfavorable Risk Prostate Cancer. Front Oncol 2022; 12:860848. [PMID: 35433457 PMCID: PMC9008358 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.860848] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2022] [Accepted: 03/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
In this review we outline the current evidence for the use of hydrogel rectal spacers in the treatment paradigm for prostate cancer with external beam radiation therapy. We review their development, summarize clinical evidence, risk of adverse events, best practices for placement, treatment planning considerations and finally we outline a framework and rationale for the utilization of rectal spacers when treating unfavorable risk prostate cancer with dose escalated Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael C Repka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Michael Creswell
- Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Jonathan W Lischalk
- Department of Radiation Oncology at New York University (NYU) Long Island School of Medicine, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYCyberKnife, New York, NY, United States
| | - Michael Carrasquilla
- Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Matthew Forsthoefel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapy Centers of Kentuckiana, Louisville, KY, United States
| | - Jacqueline Lee
- Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Siyuan Lei
- Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Nima Aghdam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Shaan Kataria
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arlington & Reston Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA, United States
| | - Olusola Obayomi-Davies
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Wellstar Kennestone Hospital, Marietta, GA, United States
| | - Brian T Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Simeng Suy
- Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Ryan A Hankins
- Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Sean P Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sholklapper TN, Creswell ML, Payne AT, Markel M, Pepin A, Carrasquilla M, Zwart A, Danner M, Ayoob M, Yung T, Collins B, Kumar D, Aghdam N, Suy S, Hankins RA, Kowalczyk K, Collins SP. Patient-Reported Financial Burden Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. Front Oncol 2022; 12:852844. [PMID: 35402242 PMCID: PMC8990911 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.852844] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2022] [Accepted: 02/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction and Objectives In patients with localized prostate cancer, 5-fraction, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been found to offer comparable oncologic outcomes and potential for improved treatment compliance compared to conventional, 40-plus fraction radiation therapy (RT). Recent studies of oncologic patient experiences have highlighted both the impact of therapy-associated financial toxicity (FT) on treatment adherence and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Methods A cross-sectional assessment of FT after SBRT was performed using the 12-item COST questionnaire. The total questionnaire score (range 0–44) was used to evaluate the FT grade (0–3), with a higher COST value representing lower grade. The patient zip code was used to approximate the distance from the index hospital. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the average COST score (0–4) are performed. Results The response rate was 57.5% (332 of 575 consented patients) with 90.7%, 8.2%, and 1.1% experiencing grade 0, 1, and 2 FT, respectively, with no grade 3. Unemployment or disability, non-white race, low income, and concurrent hormonal therapy were associated with a statistically significant worse FT (lower COST value) on univariate and multivariate analyses (p < 0.05). Education level and insurance status significant were evaluated on univariate analysis only. There was a non-statistically significant difference in age, marital status, time since treatment, and distance from the index hospital. Conclusions SBRT was associated with low FT. However, statistically significant socioeconomic disparities in FT remain despite ultra-hypofractionated treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Alexandra T Payne
- Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Michael Markel
- Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Abigail Pepin
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Michael Carrasquilla
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Alan Zwart
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Malika Danner
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Marilyn Ayoob
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Thomas Yung
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Brian Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Deepak Kumar
- Julius L. Chambers Biomedical Biotechnology Research Institute, North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Nima Aghdam
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Simeng Suy
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Ryan A Hankins
- Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Keith Kowalczyk
- Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Sean P Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Carrasquilla M, Creswell ML, Pepin AN, Wang E, Forsthoefel M, McGunigal M, Bullock E, Lei S, Collins BT, Lischalk JW, Esposito G, Aghdam N, Kumar D, Suy S, Leger P, Hankins RA, Dawson NA, Collins SP. Rationale for Involved Field Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy-Enhanced Intermittent Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Hormone-Sensitive Nodal Oligo-Recurrent Prostate Cancer Following Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy. Front Oncol 2021; 10:606260. [PMID: 33537236 PMCID: PMC7848164 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.606260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2020] [Accepted: 11/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Lymph node recurrent prostate cancer is a common clinical scenario that is likely to increase significantly with the widespread adoption of novel positron emission tomography (PET) agents. Despite increasing evidence that localized therapy is disease modifying, most men with lymph node recurrent prostate cancer receive only systemic therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). For men who receive localized therapy the intent is often to delay receipt of systemic therapy. Little evidence exists on the optimal combination of local and systemic therapy in this patient population. In this hypothesis generating review, we will outline the rationale and propose a framework for combining involved field SBRT with risk adapted intermittent ADT for hormone sensitive nodal recurrent prostate cancer. In patients with a limited number of nodal metastases, involved field stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) may have a role in eliminating castrate-resistant clones and possibly prolonging the response to intermittent ADT. We hypothesize that in a small percentage of patients, such a treatment approach may lead to long term remission or cure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Carrasquilla
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | | | - Abigail N. Pepin
- George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Edina Wang
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Matthew Forsthoefel
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Mary McGunigal
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Elizabeth Bullock
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Siyuan Lei
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Brian T. Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Jonathan W. Lischalk
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Giuseppe Esposito
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Nima Aghdam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Deepak Kumar
- Biotechnology Research Institute, North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Simeng Suy
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Paul Leger
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Ryan A. Hankins
- Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Nancy A. Dawson
- Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Sean P. Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Egan J, Marhamati S, Carvalho FLF, Davis M, O'Neill J, Lee H, Lynch JH, Hankins RA, Hu JC, Kowalczyk KJ. Retzius-sparing Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Leads to Durable Improvement in Urinary Function and Quality of Life Versus Standard Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Without Compromise on Oncologic Efficacy: Single-surgeon Series and Step-by-step Guide. Eur Urol 2020; 79:839-857. [PMID: 32536488 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2020] [Accepted: 05/12/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) has been shown to improve continence. However, questions remain regarding feasibility and generalizability of technique and outcomes. OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of 140 consecutive standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) versus RS-RARP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A total of 70 S-RARPs were performed followed by 70 RS-RARPs. Demographic, pathologic, and functional outcomes were compared preoperatively and through 12 mo. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP) was used to compare functional outcomes. Logistic and linear regression analyses were utilized to analyze variables associated with EPIC-CP urinary incontinence and overall quality of life (QOL) scores, and oncologic outcomes. Cox regression analysis was used to analyze incontinence at 12 mo. SURGICAL PROCEDURE RS-RARP versus S-RARP. MEASUREMENTS Patient and tumor characteristics (age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Gleason group, clinical stage, and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score), perioperative outcomes (console time, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, and length of stay), oncologic outcomes (positive surgical margin [PSM], and biochemical recurrence), overall and 12-mo continence rates (zero pads and zero to one safety pad), time to continence, potency (erection sufficient for sexual activity), EPIC-CP urinary incontinence, sexual function, and overall QOL scores. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Median follow-up for S-RARP versus RS-RARP was 46.3 versus 12.3 mo. RS-RARP versus S-RARP had improved overall continence rates at total follow-up (95.7% vs 85.7%, p = 0.042) and 12-mo follow-up (97.6% vs 81.4%, p = 0.002), and faster return to continence (zero to one safety pad, 44 vs 131 d, p < 0.001). RS-RARP EPIC-CP urinary incontinence and overall QOL scores remained significantly better at 12 mo. There were no differences in overall PSM rates, although RS-RARP had lower rates of nonfocal PSMs. There were no differences in sexual function. In multivariate analysis, RS-RARP was significantly associated with improved 12-mo EPIC-CP urinary incontinence and improved QOL scores, but was not associated with PSM or biochemical recurrence. Limitations include retrospective study design and unequal follow-up; however, significantly better RS-RARP continence at 12 mo is striking despite fewer patients attaining 12-mo follow-up. CONCLUSIONS RS-RARP significantly improves early and long-term continence without compromising oncologic outcomes and leads to overall improved QOL. PATIENT SUMMARY Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is an emerging technique for robotic radical prostatectomy that improves urinary function and quality of life without compromising cancer control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jillian Egan
- Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Shawn Marhamati
- Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Filipe L F Carvalho
- Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Meghan Davis
- Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - John O'Neill
- Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Harry Lee
- Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - John H Lynch
- Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Ryan A Hankins
- Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Jim C Hu
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Keith J Kowalczyk
- Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Watson MJ, Sidana A, Diaz AW, Siddiqui MM, Hankins RA, Bratslavsky G, Linehan WM, Metwalli AR. Repeat Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Characteristics, Complications, and Renal Functional Outcomes. J Endourol 2016; 30:1219-1226. [PMID: 27650937 DOI: 10.1089/end.2016.0517] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Multifocal and hereditary kidney cancers often require repeated ipsilateral nephron sparing procedures with higher blood loss and complication rates compared to first time renal surgery. Consequently, many surgeons avoid minimally invasive techniques in the setting. We present the characteristics, complications, and short-term renal functional outcomes of patients who underwent a repeat robotic partial nephrectomy (rRPNx). MATERIALS AND METHODS A database was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomies between January 2007 and December 2013. Selection criteria for the rRPNx cohort included patients who had undergone at least two ipsilateral renal surgeries, with the second procedure being an rRPNx. All other patients comprised the initial robotic partial nephrectomy (iRPNx) group. RESULTS One hundred twenty-four patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy during the study period were identified. rRPNx constituted 26 (21%) of the total cases. Age of the rRPNx cohort was similar (p = 0.56), but number of tumors resected was two-fold greater in the rRPNx group (p = 0.44). Neither surgery time nor renal clamp time was significantly longer in either group (p = 0.18 and p = 0.65, respectively). Importantly, estimated blood loss (EBL) was significantly larger than in the iRPNx group (p = 0.01). Both groups had similar intravenous pain medication administration durations (p = 0.32), but postsurgical length of stay was greater for the rRPNx patients (p = 0.011). There were no significant differences in clavian complication rates (p = 0.17-0.39), with the exception of urine leak which occurred more frequently in the rRPNx group (p = 0.01). There was no difference in percent change in serum creatinine or estimated glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.89 and p = 0.67, respectively). CONCLUSIONS rRPNx is safe and feasible in select patients. EBL, postoperative lengths of stay, and urine leak were the only factors significantly associated with rRPNx compared to iRPNx. Patient 3-month follow-up revealed excellent and comparable outcomes between the two groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew J Watson
- 1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Abhinav Sidana
- 1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Annerleim Walton Diaz
- 1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland
| | - M Minhaj Siddiqui
- 2 Department of Urology, University of Maryland , Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Ryan A Hankins
- 3 Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital , Washington, District of Columbia
| | | | - W Marston Linehan
- 1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Adam R Metwalli
- 1 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|