NeuroSAFE in Radical Prostatectomy Increases the Rate of Nerve-sparing Surgery Without Affecting Oncological Outcome

Overview

Journal BJU Int

Specialty Urology

Date 2022 May 10

PMID 35536200

Authors

Margaretha A van der Slot

Michael A den Bakker

Tamara S C Tan

Sebastiaan Remmers

Martijn B Busstra

Melanie Gan

Sjoerd Klaver

John B W Rietbergen

Charlotte F Kweldam

Mike Kliffen

Karen E Hamoen

Leo M Budel

Natascha N T Goemaere

Jozien Helleman

Chris H Bangma

Monique J Roobol

Geert J L H van Leenders

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the impact of intra-operative neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) on the rate of nerve-sparing surgery (NSS) and oncological outcome in a large radical prostatectomy (RP) cohort.

Patients And Methods: Between January 2016 and December 2020, 1756 prostate cancer patients underwent robot-assisted RP, of whom 959 (55%) underwent this with NeuroSAFE and 797 (45%) without (control cohort). In cases where NeuroSAFE showed tumour in the margin, a secondary resection was performed. The effect of NeuroSAFE on NSS and positive surgical margin (PSM) status was analysed using logistic regression. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS).

Results And Limitations: Patients in the NeuroSAFE cohort had a higher tumour grade (P < 0.001) and clinical stage (P < 0.001) than those in the control cohort. NeuroSAFE enabled more frequent NSS for both pT2 (93% vs 76%; P < 0.001) and pT3 disease (83% vs 55%; P < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, NeuroSAFE resulted in more frequent unilateral (odds ratio [OR] 3.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.90-5.30; P < 0.001) and bilateral (OR 5.22, 95% CI 3.90-6.98; P < 0.001) NSS. While the PSM rate decreased from 51% to 42% in patients with pT3 stage disease (P = 0.031), NeuroSAFE was not an independent predictor of PSM status (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.06; P = 0.2) in the entire cohort. Patients who underwent NeuroSAFE had better BCRFS compared to the control cohort (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.84; P = 0.002). This study is limited by its comparison with a historical cohort and lack of functional outcomes.

Conclusions: NeuroSAFE enables more unilateral and bilateral NSS without negatively affecting surgical margin status and biochemical recurrence. This validation study provides a comprehensive overview of the implementation, evaluation and intra-operative decision making associated with NeuroSAFE in clinical practice.

Citing Articles

Fluorescence confocal microscopy for margin assessment in prostatectomy: IP8-FLUORESCE study protocol.

Mayor N, Light A, Silvanto A, Cullen E, Ng P, Badreldin A BJU Int. 2024; 135(3):502-509.

PMID: 39548928 PMC: 11842882. DOI: 10.1111/bju.16588.

Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Ditonno F, Bologna E, Licari L, Franco A, Cannoletta D, Checcucci E Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024; .

PMID: 39232095 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00891-3.

Feasibility of Diffuse Reflection Spectroscopy for Intraoperative Margin Assessment During Prostatectomy.

de Roode L, de Boer L, Da Silva Guimaraes M, van Leeuwen P, van der Poel H, Dashtbozorg B Eur Urol Open Sci. 2024; 67:62-68.

PMID: 39229364 PMC: 11369370. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.07.112.

Nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy using the neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE): results after 20 years of experience.

Ambrosini F, Preisser F, Tilki D, Heinzer H, Salomon G, Michl U Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024; .

PMID: 38862777 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00851-x.

Predicting contralateral extraprostatic extension in unilateral high-risk prostate cancer: a multicentric external validation study.

Diamand R, Roche J, Lacetera V, Simone G, Windisch O, Benamran D World J Urol. 2024; 42(1):247.

PMID: 38647728 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04966-7.

References

Beyer B, Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Boehm K, Adam M, Schiffmann J . A feasible and time-efficient adaptation of NeuroSAFE for da Vinci robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014; 66(1):138-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.014. View

Arroyo C, Martini A, Wang J, Tewari A . Anatomical, surgical and technical factors influencing continence after radical prostatectomy. Ther Adv Urol. 2019; 11:1756287218813787. PMC: 6329031. DOI: 10.1177/1756287218813787. View

Dinneen E, Haider A, Grierson J, Freeman A, Oxley J, Briggs T . NeuroSAFE frozen section during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: peri-operative and histopathological outcomes from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility randomized controlled trial. BJU Int. 2020; 127(6):676-686. DOI: 10.1111/bju.15256. View

Preisser F, Marchioni M, Nazzani S, Bandini M, Tian Z, Saad F . Trend of Adverse Stage Migration in Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 1(2):160-168. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.03.006. View

Preisser F, Coxilha G, Heinze A, Oh S, Chun F, Sauter G . Impact of positive surgical margin length and Gleason grade at the margin on biochemical recurrence in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Prostate. 2019; 79(16):1832-1836. DOI: 10.1002/pros.23908. View

Kates M, Sopko N, Han M, Partin A, Epstein J . Importance of Reporting the Gleason Score at the Positive Surgical Margin Site: Analysis of 4,082 Consecutive Radical Prostatectomy Cases. J Urol. 2015; 195(2):337-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.002. View

Tal R, Alphs H, Krebs P, Nelson C, Mulhall J . Erectile function recovery rate after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis. J Sex Med. 2009; 6(9):2538-46. PMC: 4097184. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01351.x. View

Hatzichristodoulou G, Wagenpfeil S, Weirich G, Autenrieth M, Maurer T, Thalgott M . Intraoperative frozen section monitoring during nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: evaluation of partial secondary resection of neurovascular bundles and its effect on oncologic and functional outcome. World J Urol. 2015; 34(2):229-36. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1623-3. View

Mottet N, van den Bergh R, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch M, De Santis M . EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2020; 79(2):243-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042. View

10.

Mirmilstein G, Rai B, Gbolahan O, Srirangam V, Narula A, Agarwal S . The neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) approach to nerve sparing in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a British setting - a prospective observational comparative study. BJU Int. 2017; 121(6):854-862. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14078. View

11.

Dev H, Wiklund P, Patel V, Parashar D, Palmer K, Nyberg T . Surgical margin length and location affect recurrence rates after robotic prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2014; 33(3):109.e7-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.11.005. View

12.

Sooriakumaran P, Ploumidis A, Nyberg T, Olsson M, Akre O, Haendler L . The impact of length and location of positive margins in predicting biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. BJU Int. 2013; 115(1):106-13. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12483. View

13.

Rocco B, Sighinolfi M, Sandri M, Eissa A, Elsherbiny A, Zoeir A . Is Extraprostatic Extension of Cancer Predictable? A Review of Predictive Tools and an External Validation Based on a Large and a Single Center Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients. Urology. 2019; 129:8-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.03.019. View

14.

Rocco B, Sarchi L, Assumma S, Cimadamore A, Montironi R, Reggiani Bonetti L . Digital Frozen Sections with Fluorescence Confocal Microscopy During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Surgical Technique. Eur Urol. 2021; 80(6):724-729. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.03.021. View

15.

Tewari A, Srivastava A, Huang M, Robinson B, Shevchuk M, Durand M . Anatomical grades of nerve sparing: a risk-stratified approach to neural-hammock sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int. 2011; 108(6 Pt 2):984-92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10565.x. View

16.

Schiavina R, Bianchi L, Lodi S, Cercenelli L, Chessa F, Bortolani B . Real-time Augmented Reality Three-dimensional Guided Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Preliminary Experience and Evaluation of the Impact on Surgical Planning. Eur Urol Focus. 2020; 7(6):1260-1267. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.08.004. View

17.

Porpiglia F, Amparore D, Checcucci E, Autorino R, Manfredi M, Iannizzi G . Current Use of Three-dimensional Model Technology in Urology: A Road Map for Personalised Surgical Planning. Eur Urol Focus. 2018; 4(5):652-656. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.09.012. View

18.

Brimo F, Partin A, Epstein J . Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis. Urology. 2010; 76(5):1206-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.090. View

19.

Avulova S, Zhao Z, Lee D, Huang L, Koyama T, Hoffman K . The Effect of Nerve Sparing Status on Sexual and Urinary Function: 3-Year Results from the CEASAR Study. J Urol. 2017; 199(5):1202-1209. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.037. View

20.

Noel J, Spencer N, Lodia S, Karim S, Taneja S, Moghanchizadeh D . Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: outcomes from 500 consecutive cases in the UK. J Robot Surg. 2021; 16(4):951-956. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01324-2. View