Long-Term Oncological Outcomes After Nerve-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Single-Center, Two-Arm Prospective Study

Overview

Journal Diagnostics (Basel)

Specialty Radiology

Date 2024 Apr 26

PMID 38667449

Authors

Lorenzo Spirito

Francesco Chessa

Anna Hagman

Anna Lantz

Giuseppe Celentano

Rodolfo Sanchez-Salas

Roberto La Rocca

Mats Olsson

Olof Akre

Vincenzo Mirone

Peter Wiklund

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aims: To compare the oncological outcomes of patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer undergoing nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Methods: Between November 2002 and December 2018, we prospectively recorded the data of patients undergoing RARP for high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) at our tertiary referral center. NSS (nerve-sparing surgery) was carefully offered on the basis of the preoperative clinical characteristics of the patients and an intraoperative assessment. The patients were stratified into two groups: nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing groups (yes/no). Radical prostatectomies were performed by 10 surgeons with a robot-assisted technique using a daVinci surgical system. The primary oncological outcome evaluated was biochemical recurrence (BCR). The secondary oncological outcomes assessed were positive surgical margins (PSMs) and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

Results: A total of 779 patients were included in the study: 429 (55.1%) underwent NSS while 350 (44.9%) underwent non-NSS. After a mean (±SD) follow-up of 192 (±14) months, 328 (42.1%) patients developed BCR; no significant difference was found between the NSS and non-NSS groups (156 vs. 172; = 0.09). Both our univariable and multivariable analyses found that the nerve-sparing approach was not a predictor of BCR ( > 0.05). Kaplan-Mayer survival curves for BCR showed no significant difference among the non-NSS, unilateral NSS, and bilateral NSS groups (log rank test = 0.6). PSMs were reported after RARPs for 254 (32.6%) patients, with no significant difference between the NSS and non-NSS group (143 vs. 111; = 0.5). In the subgroup of 15 patients who died during the follow-up period, mean (±SD) CSS was 70.5 (±26.1) months, with no significant difference between the NSS and non-NSS groups (mean CSS: 70.3 vs. 70.7 months).

Conclusions: NSS does not appear to negatively impact the oncological outcomes of patients with high-risk PCa. Randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm our promising findings.

References

Sooriakumaran P, Pavan N, Wiklund P, Roach 3rd M . Surgery Versus Radiation for High-risk Prostate Cancer: The Fight Continues. But Is It Time To Call a Draw and Reach Consensus?. Eur Urol. 2019; 75(4):556-557. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.12.032. View

Greco F, Hoda M, Wagner S, Reichelt O, Inferrera A, Magno C . Bilateral vs unilateral laparoscopic intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: evaluation of surgical and functional outcomes in 457 patients. BJU Int. 2010; 108(4):583-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09836.x. View

Shin T, Lee Y . Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with clipless intrafascial neurovascular bundle-sparing approach: surgical technique and one-year functional and oncologic outcomes. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):17595. PMC: 7573617. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-74513-y. View

Cornford P, van den Bergh R, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch M, De Santis M . EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2020 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2020; 79(2):263-282. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.046. View

Kishan A, Karnes R, Romero T, Wong J, Motterle G, Tosoian J . Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes Among Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Adverse Clinicopathologic Features. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4(7):e2115312. PMC: 8251338. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.15312. View

Kumar A, Patel V, Panaiyadiyan S, Bhat K, Moschovas M, Nayak B . Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Current perspectives. Asian J Urol. 2021; 8(1):2-13. PMC: 7859364. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2020.05.012. View

Delloglio P, Tappero S, Longoni M, Buratto C, Scilipoti P, Secco S . Retzius-sparing Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy in High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients: Results from a Large Single-institution Series. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022; 38:69-78. PMC: 8898917. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.02.007. View

Mossanen M, Nepple K, Grubb 3rd R, Androile G, Kallogjeri D, Klein E . Heterogeneity in Definitions of High-risk Prostate Cancer and Varying Impact on Mortality Rates after Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 1(2):143-148. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.004. View

Choo R, Danjoux C, Gardner S, Morton G, Szumacher E, Loblaw D . Prospective study evaluating postoperative radiotherapy plus 2-year androgen suppression for post-radical prostatectomy patients with pathologic T3 disease and/or positive surgical margins. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 75(2):407-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.11.007. View

10.

Abdollah F, Sood A, Sammon J, Hsu L, Beyer B, Moschini M . Long-term cancer control outcomes in patients with clinically high-risk prostate cancer treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a multi-institutional study of 1100 patients. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(3):497-505. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.020. View

11.

Asimakopoulos A, Miano R, Lorenzo N, Spera E, Vespasiani G, Mugnier C . Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: comparison of pentafecta rates for a single surgeon. Surg Endosc. 2013; 27(11):4297-304. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-3046-9. View

12.

Tavukcu H, Aytac O, Atug F . Nerve-sparing techniques and results in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Investig Clin Urol. 2016; 57(Suppl 2):S172-S184. PMC: 5161020. DOI: 10.4111/icu.2016.57.S2.S172. View

13.

Deng W, Chen R, Zhu K, Cheng X, Xiong Y, Liu W . Functional Preservation and Oncologic Control following Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Intermediate- and High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis. J Oncol. 2021; 2021:4375722. PMC: 8714374. DOI: 10.1155/2021/4375722. View

14.

. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013; 310(20):2191-4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053. View

15.

Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Badani K, Fumo M, Bhandari M . Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2006; 51(3):648-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.055. View

16.

Jazayeri S, Weissman B, Samadi D . Outcomes following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: Pentafecta and Trifecta achievements. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2017; 70(1):66-73. DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02909-5. View

17.

Ou Y, Yang C, Kang H, Chang K, Wang J, Hung S . Pentafecta Outcomes of 230 Cases of Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy with Bilateral Neurovascular Bundle Preservation. Anticancer Res. 2015; 35(9):5007-13. View