"Urethral-Sparing" Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Critical Appraisal of the Safety of the Technique Based on the Histologic Characteristics of the Prostatic Urethra

Overview

Journal Curr Oncol

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Oncology

Date 2023 Jan 20

PMID 36661731

Authors

Anastasios D Asimakopoulos

Filippo Annino

Gaia Colalillo

Richard Gaston

Thierry Piechaud

Alessandro Mauriello

Umberto Anceschi

Filippo Borri

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The prostatic urethra (PU) is conventionally resected during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP). Recent studies demonstrated the feasibility of the extended PU preservation (EPUP).

Aims: To describe the histologic features of the PU.

Methods: The PU was evaluated using cystoprostatectomy and RALP specimens. Cases of PU infiltration by prostate cancer or distortion by benign hyperplastic nodules were excluded. The thickness of the chorion and distance between the urothelium and prostate glands were measured. Prostate-specific antigen expression in the PU epithelium was evaluated with immunohistochemistry. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results: Six specimens of PU were examined. Histologically, the following layers of the PU were observed: (1) urothelium with basal membrane, (2) chorion, and (3) prostatic peri-urethral fibromuscular tissue. The chorion measures between 0.2 and 0.4 mm. There is not a distinct urethral muscle layer, but rather muscular fibers that originate near the prostatic stroma and are distributed around the PU. This muscular tissue appears to be mainly represented in the basal and apical urethra, but not in the middle urethra. The mean distance between the chorion and prostatic glands is 1.74 mm, with significant differences between base of the prostate, middle urethral portion, and apex (2.5 vs. 1.49 vs. 1.23 mm, respectively). PSA-expressing cells are abundant in the PU epithelium, coexisting with urothelial cells.

Conclusions: The exiguity of thickness of the PU chorion, short distance from glandular tissue, and coexistence of PSA-expressing cells in the epithelium raise important concerns about the oncologic safety of EPUP.

Citing Articles

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy by Lateral Approach: Technique, Reproducibility and Outcomes.

Socarras M, Rivas J, Reinoso Elbers J, Esposito F, Llanes Gonzalez L, Monsalve D Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(22).

PMID: 38001702 PMC: 10670058. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15225442.

Anterior Sphincter-sparing Suturing of the Vesicourethral Anastomosis During Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy.

Antonelli L, Afferi L, Mattei A, Fankhauser C Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023; 52:109-114.

PMID: 37213237 PMC: 10192927. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.04.007.

References

Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M . Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009; 55(5):1037-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.036. View

Asimakopoulos A, Topazio L, De Angelis M, Agro E, Pastore A, Fuschi A . Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized comparison on immediate continence rates. Surg Endosc. 2018; 33(7):2187-2196. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6499-z. View

Hammerer P, Huland H . Urodynamic evaluation of changes in urinary control after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 1997; 157(1):233-6. View

Barry M, Gallagher P, Skinner J, Fowler Jr F . Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicare-age men. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(5):513-8. PMC: 3295553. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.8621. View

Mizutani Y, Uehara H, Fujisue Y, Takagi S, Nishida T, Inamoto T . Urinary continence following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Association with postoperative membranous urethral length measured using real-time intraoperative transrectal ultrasonography. Oncol Lett. 2012; 3(1):181-184. PMC: 3362547. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2011.446. View

Prabhu V, Sivarajan G, Taksler G, Laze J, Lepor H . Long-term continence outcomes in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013; 65(1):52-7. PMC: 4062360. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.08.006. View

McNeal J . The zonal anatomy of the prostate. Prostate. 1981; 2(1):35-49. DOI: 10.1002/pros.2990020105. View

Nunez Bragayrac L, Hussein A, Attwood K, Pop E, James G, Osei J . Feasibility and continence outcomes of extended prostatic urethral preservation during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019; 23(2):286-294. PMC: 8389087. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-019-0173-y. View

Donovan J, Hamdy F, Lane J, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Walsh E . Patient-Reported Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(15):1425-1437. PMC: 5134995. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606221. View

10.

Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T, Salomon G, Engel O, Michl U . Full functional-length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011; 60(2):320-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.040. View

11.

Kohl S, Balaji K, Smith L, Wilson N, Johansson S, Sterrett S . Clinical significance of benign glands at surgical margins in robotic radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 2007; 69(6):1112-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.02.048. View

12.

Hamada A, Razdan S, Etafy M, Fagin R, Razdan S . Early return of continence in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using modified maximal urethral length preservation technique. J Endourol. 2014; 28(8):930-8. DOI: 10.1089/end.2013.0794. View

13.

Coelho R, Chauhan S, Palmer K, Rocco B, Patel M, Patel V . Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a review of current outcomes. BJU Int. 2009; 104(10):1428-35. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08895.x. View

14.

van der Kwast T, Amin M, Billis A, Epstein J, Griffiths D, Humphrey P . International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol. 2010; 24(1):16-25. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.156. View

15.

Heesakkers J, Farag F, Bauer R, Sandhu J, Ridder D, Stenzl A . Pathophysiology and Contributing Factors in Postprostatectomy Incontinence: A Review. Eur Urol. 2016; 71(6):936-944. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.09.031. View

16.

Cambio A, Evans C . Minimising postoperative incontinence following radical prostatectomy: considerations and evidence. Eur Urol. 2006; 50(5):903-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.009. View

17.

van Randenborgh H, Paul R, Kubler H, Breul J, Hartung R . Improved urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy with preparation of a long, partially intraprostatic portion of the membraneous urethra: an analysis of 1013 consecutive cases. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2004; 7(3):253-7. DOI: 10.1038/sj.pcan.4500726. View

18.

Son D, Ro J, Kang M, Jang W, Cho Y . Histology and distribution of prostatic tissue on prostatic urethral margins: evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens and implications on frozen section analysis. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2011; 16(2):79-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2011.07.007. View

19.

Wilson A . The prostate gland: a review of its anatomy, pathology, and treatment. JAMA. 2014; 312(5):562. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.279650. View

20.

Sanda M, Dunn R, Michalski J, Sandler H, Northouse L, Hembroff L . Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(12):1250-61. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa074311. View