» Articles » PMID: 23356747

A Case-mix-adjusted Comparison of Early Oncological Outcomes of Open and Robotic Prostatectomy Performed by Experienced High Volume Surgeons

Overview
Journal BJU Int
Specialty Urology
Date 2013 Jan 30
PMID 23356747
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To compare early oncological outcomes of robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) performed by high volume surgeons in a contemporary cohort.

Methods: We reviewed patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer by high volume surgeons performing RALP or ORP. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL or PSA ≥ 0.05 ng/mL with receipt of additional therapy. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and BCR using a predictive model (nomogram) based on preoperative stage, grade, volume of disease and PSA. To explore the impact of differences between surgeons, multivariable analyses were repeated using surgeon in place of approach.

Results: Of 1454 patients included, 961 (66%) underwent ORP and 493 (34%) RALP and there were no important differences in cancer characteristics by group. Overall, 68% of patients met National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for intermediate or high risk disease and 9% had lymph node involvement. Positive margin rates were 15% for both open and robotic groups. In a multivariate model adjusting for preoperative risk there was no significant difference in BCR rates for RALP compared with ORP (hazard ratio 0.88; 95% CI 0.56-1.39; P = 0.6). The interaction term between nomogram risk and procedure type was not statistically significant. Using NCCN risk group as the covariate in a Cox model gave similar results (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.47-1.17; P = 0.2). The interaction term between NCCN risk and procedure type was also non-significant. Differences in BCR rates between techniques (4.1% vs 3.3% adjusted risk at 2 years) were smaller than those between surgeons (2.5% to 4.8% adjusted risk at 2 years).

Conclusions: In this relatively high risk cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy we found no evidence to suggest that ORP resulted in better early oncological outcomes then RALP. Oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy may be driven more by surgeon factors than surgical approach.

Citing Articles

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

Wang J, Hu K, Wang Y, Wu Y, Bao E, Wang J J Robot Surg. 2023; 17(6):2617-2631.

PMID: 37721644 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01714-8.


Impact of Robotic Technologies on Prostate Cancer Patients' Choice for Radical Treatment.

Esperto F, Cacciatore L, Tedesco F, Testa A, Calle P, Ragusa A J Pers Med. 2023; 13(5).

PMID: 37240964 PMC: 10220733. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13050794.


A Study of 57 Patients with Prostate Cancer to Compare Outcomes of Estimated Blood Loss and Postoperative Pain Between Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy and Standard Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy.

Lee D, Hwang B, Kwon J, Kim O, Hong J, Kim H Med Sci Monit. 2023; 29:e939584.

PMID: 36890716 PMC: 10012766. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.939584.


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

Du Y, Long Q, Guan B, Mu L, Tian J, Jiang Y Med Sci Monit. 2018; 24:272-287.

PMID: 29332100 PMC: 5776881. DOI: 10.12659/msm.907092.


Surgical method influences specimen margins and biochemical recurrence during radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Srougi V, Bessa Jr J, Baghdadi M, Nunes-Silva I, Batista da Costa J, Garcia-Barreras S World J Urol. 2017; 35(10):1481-1488.

PMID: 28243789 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-017-2021-9.


References
1.
Mohler J, Bahnson R, Boston B, Busby J, DAmico A, Eastham J . NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010; 8(2):162-200. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0012. View

2.
Barocas D, Salem S, Kordan Y, Herrell S, Chang S, Clark P . Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol. 2010; 183(3):990-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.017. View

3.
Di Pierro G, Baumeister P, Stucki P, Beatrice J, Danuser H, Mattei A . A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol. 2010; 59(1):1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.026. View

4.
Feifer A, Elkin E, Lowrance W, Denton B, Jacks L, Yee D . Temporal trends and predictors of pelvic lymph node dissection in open or minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2011; 117(17):3933-42. PMC: 3136649. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25981. View

5.
Vickers A, Bianco F, Cronin A, Eastham J, Klein E, Kattan M . The learning curve for surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy: implications for margin status as an oncological end point. J Urol. 2010; 183(4):1360-5. PMC: 2861336. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.015. View