Changing Trends in Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Inverse Stage Migration-A Retrospective Analysis

Overview

Journal Prostate Int

Date 2021 Oct 25

PMID 34692589

Citations 3

Authors

Harshit Garg

Amlesh Seth

Prabhjot Singh

Rajeev Kumar

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: With increasing availability of data on outcomes of surgery for prostate cancer, the profile of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has changed over the past decade. This impacts the decision-making process for surgeons and patients, particularly in low-incidence regions of Asia. Our institution was among the first in Asia to acquire a Vinci surgical robot in 2005. We evaluated the changes in the clinical and pathology profile of patients undergoing RARP at our institution over the past 15 years (2005-2019).

Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing RARP between April 2005 and December 2019 was conducted from the hospital database. The patients were divided into two groups; patients undergoing RARP from April 2005 to December 2012 (Group I, first 8 years) and January 2013 to December 2019 (Group II, next 7 years). The perioperative characteristics were compared between these two groups to assess changes in their profile and outcome.

Results: Four hundred forty-seven patients were included in this study; 244 (54.6%) in Group I and 203 (45.4%) in Group II. The median prostate specific antigen in Group II was significantly higher than that in Group I (14.5 vs. 11.7 ng/ml, = 0.016). Unfavorable pathological characteristics, i.e., Gleason Grade ≥3, perineural invasion, and the margin positivity rate increased substantially from 18.5% to 37.5%, 20.5% to 36.9%, and 15.2% to 26.6%, respectively, in Group II compared with Group I. More patients in Group II received adjuvant therapy than in Group I ( < 0.001).

Conclusion: There has been a change in profile of patients undergoing RARP and patients with more unfavorable disease characteristics such as higher prostate specific antigen and tumor grade are undergoing surgery. In line with international trends, the number of patients with low-grade disease undergoing surgery has substantially decreased. Multimodal treatment with adjuvant therapy is increasingly used, particularly in high-risk disease.

Citing Articles

Quadrifecta outcomes and their predictors following robotic radical prostatectomy: a study of newly established robotic center in India.

Aggarwal A, Singh M, Choudhary G, Singh V, Sandhu A, Bhirud D J Robot Surg. 2023; 17(5):2271-2277.

PMID: 37310526 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01622-x.

Urinary tract infection after radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy on the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer: a population-based study.

Hyun J, Ha M, Oh S, Tae J, Chi B, Chang I BMC Cancer. 2023; 23(1):395.

PMID: 37138203 PMC: 10157974. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-10869-4.

Current treatment patterns within 1 year after prostate cancer diagnosis in Korean patients over 75 years old: a retrospective multicenter study.

Park D, Kang H, Kwon S, Seo Y, Lee K, Hoon Kim B Prostate Int. 2023; 11(1):34-39.

PMID: 36910903 PMC: 9995689. DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2022.08.003.

References

Iadeluca L, Mardekian J, Chander P, Hopps M, Makinson G . The burden of selected cancers in the US: health behaviors and health care resource utilization. Cancer Manag Res. 2017; 9:721-730. PMC: 5713681. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S143148. View

Qi R, Moul J . High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Role of Radical Prostatectomy and Radiation Therapy. Oncol Res Treat. 2015; 38(12):639-44. DOI: 10.1159/000441736. View

Schroder F, Hugosson J, Roobol M, Tammela T, Zappa M, Nelen V . Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014; 384(9959):2027-35. PMC: 4427906. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0. View

Tsang C, Lai T, Lam W, Ho B, Ng A, Ma W . Is prostate specific antigen (PSA) density necessary in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance and what should be the cutoff in the Asian population?. Prostate Int. 2019; 7(2):73-77. PMC: 6664316. DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2018.03.002. View

McClintock T, Wang Y, Cole A, Chung B, Kibel A, Chang S . Contemporary trends in the utilisation of radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2018; 122(5):726-728. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14411. View

Ahlering T, Huynh L, Kaler K, Williams S, Osann K, Joseph J . Unintended consequences of decreased PSA-based prostate cancer screening. World J Urol. 2018; 37(3):489-496. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2407-3. View

Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko A, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse L, Vaarala M . MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378(19):1767-1777. PMC: 9084630. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993. View

Silberstein J, Vickers A, Power N, Fine S, Scardino P, Eastham J . Reverse stage shift at a tertiary care center: escalating risk in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2011; 117(21):4855-60. PMC: 3181272. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26132. View

Hongo F, Okihara K, Kitamura K, Fujihara A, Yamada Y, Shiraishi T . Prostate cancer meeting the Japanese active surveillance criteria and diagnosed by community-based prostate-specific antigen screening: A 21-year follow-up study. Int J Urol. 2019; 26(8):827-832. DOI: 10.1111/iju.14037. View

10.

Moyer V . Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157(2):120-34. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459. View

11.

Kim S, Tilburt J, Karnes R, Ziegenfuss J, Han L, Shah N . Variation in treatment recommendations of adjuvant radiation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer by physician specialty. Urology. 2013; 82(4):807-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.04.060. View

12.

Gnanapragasam V, Thurtle D, Srinivasan A, Volanis D, George A, Lophatananon A . Evolution and oncological outcomes of a contemporary radical prostatectomy practice in a UK regional tertiary referral centre. BJU Int. 2016; 118(5):779-784. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13513. View

13.

Swindle P, Eastham J, Ohori M, Kattan M, Wheeler T, Maru N . Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2008; 179(5 Suppl):S47-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.137. View

14.

Schiffmann J, Haese A, Boehm K, Salomon G, Steuber T, Heinzer H . Ten-year experience of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the road from cherry-picking to standard procedure. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2016; 69(1):69-75. DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02563-7. View

15.

Sharma V, Meeks J . Open conversion during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: impact on perioperative complications and predictors from national data. J Urol. 2014; 192(6):1657-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.06.029. View

16.

Kaushal R, Das C, Singh P, Dogra P, Kumar R . Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsies increase the rate of cancer detection in populations with a low incidence of prostate cancer. Investig Clin Urol. 2019; 60(3):156-161. PMC: 6495042. DOI: 10.4111/icu.2019.60.3.156. View

17.

Luzzago S, Rosiello G, Pecoraro A, Deuker M, Stolzenbach F, Mistretta F . Contemporary Rates and Predictors of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer. J Endourol. 2020; 34(5):600-607. DOI: 10.1089/end.2020.0074. View

18.

Jaulim A, Srinivasan A, Hori S, Kumar N, Warren A, Shah N . A comparison of operative and margin outcomes from surgeon learning curves in robot assisted radical prostatectomy in a changing referral practice. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018; 100(3):226-229. PMC: 5930106. DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2018.0001. View

19.

Walsh P, Lepor H . The role of radical prostatectomy in the management of prostatic cancer. Cancer. 1987; 60(3 Suppl):526-37. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19870801)60:3+<526::aid-cncr2820601515>3.0.co;2-9. View

20.

Gerber G, Thisted R, Chodak G, Schroder F, FROHMULLER H, Scardino P . Results of radical prostatectomy in men with locally advanced prostate cancer: multi-institutional pooled analysis. Eur Urol. 1997; 32(4):385-90. View