Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer

Oncological and functional outcomes of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: An 18-years, single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

To present a retrospective analysis on the oncological and functional outcomes of a single-center experience on a large series of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (eLRP) with an extended follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Herein we present a retrospective review of patients who underwent eLRP. Oncological and functional follow-up data were collected by means of outpatient visits and telephone interviews, assessing overall mortality and biochemical recurrence-free survival. Patients with clinical T4 stage prostate cancer (PCa), previous surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), previous androgen deprivation, radiotherapy, concomitant chemotherapy and/or experimental therapies, and with insufficient follow-up data were excluded. Preoperative data recorded were age, body mass index, ultrasound prostate volume, preoperative PSA and clinical stage of PCa. Operative data (operative time, nerve sparing technique and any perioperative complication) and pathological findings were obtained by consulting the surgical and pathological reports. Oncological and functional follow-up were collected during follow-up visits and telephone interview.

RESULTS

Between January 2001 and December 2019, overall 938 eLRP were performed at our Institution. The median follow-up was 132 months. 69.7% of the patients had complete dataset. The estimated overall biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival was 71.4% at 5 years and 58.9% at 10 years. Cancer specific survival was 84,5%. Erectile function was preserved in the most of patients as postoperative IIEF-5 score within 12 months after surgery was > 12 in the 82.1%. About the urinary incontinence, 0.76% of the patients presented severe incontinence (continued and persistent loss of urine) and 7.0% were mildly incontinent (using up to one pad per day). Conclusions; eLRP has shown oncological and functional results comparable to other minimally invasive techniques and to open radical prostatectomy (ORP), with favorable perioperative outcomes than the open technique and a reduced complication rate.

Misconduct in research integrity: Assessment the quality of systematic reviews in Cochrane urological cancer review group

OBJECTIVE

Cochrane Library provides a powerful and authoritative database to aid medical decision making. We aimed to evaluate the quality of clinical trials and systematic reviews recorded in the Cochrane urology cancers group.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This analytic cross-sectional study was conducted on 44 published systematic reviews of the Cochrane urology group which were published until May 2020. In the current study, we selected the urological cancer reviews. All types of biases in the understudied randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of these systematic reviews were evaluated using the Cochrane appraisal checklist. We also separated and stratified the types of biases in the included studies. In addition, the quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 44 systematic reviews and their understudied 340 RCTs were evaluated. On the basis of the JBI appraisal checklist results, 93.2% of systematic reviews had high quality. In terms of the quality of understudied RCTs in these reviews, the common prevalent risk of bias of the understudied RCTs or quasi- RCTs was unclear selection bias (allocation concealment and random sequence generation). The highest risk of bias was seen in the blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias).

CONCLUSION

Although most Cochrane urological cancer reviews had high quality, performance bias was the highest one in their understudied RCTs. Regarding it and considering the increasing unclear risk of detection, attrition, and reporting biases, it is obvious that they have structural deficiencies; therefore, it is recommended to observe integrity principles for preventing research misconduct.

Posterior musculofascial reconstruction in robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Delayed recovery of urinary continence is a major adverse effect of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in men undergoing prostate cancer treatment. To address this issue, a number of surgical techniques have been designed to reconstruct the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter, which is responsible for urinary continence after removal of the prostate; however, it is unclear how well they work.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of posterior musculofascial reconstruction RALP compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 12 March 2021. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants were randomized to undergo variations of posterior musculofascial reconstruction RALP versus no posterior reconstruction during RALP for clinically localized prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. Primary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery within one week after catheter removal, at three months after surgery, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery at six and twelve months after surgery, potency recovery twelve months after surgery, positive surgical margins (PSM), and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search identified 13 records of eight unique RCTs, of which six were published studies and two were abstract proceedings. We included 1085 randomized participants, of whom 963 completed the trials (88.8%). All participants had either cT1c or cT2 or cT3a disease, with a mean prostate-specific antigen level of 8.15 ng/mL. Primary outcomes Posterior reconstruction RALP (PR-RALP) may improve urinary continence one week after catheter removal compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.73; I² = 42%; studies = 5, participants = 498; low CoE) although the CI also includes the possibility of no effect. Assuming 335 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 84 more men per 1000 (33 fewer to 244 more) reporting urinary continence recovery.  Posterior reconstruction may have little to no effect on urinary continence three months after surgery compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.14; I² = 67%; studies = 6, participants = 842; low CoE). Assuming 701 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 14 fewer men per 1000 (112 fewer to 98 more) reporting urinary continence after three months. PR-RALP probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.92; I² = 0%; studies = 6, participants = 835; moderate CoE). Assuming 25 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP experience a serious adverse event at this time point, this corresponds to six fewer men per 1000 (17 fewer to 23 more) reporting serious adverse events.  Secondary outcomes PR-RALP may result in little to no difference in recovery of continence 12 months after surgery compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.07; I² = 25%; studies = 3, participants = 602; low CoE). Assuming 918 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 18 more men per 1000 (18 fewer to 64 more) reporting urinary continence recovery.  We are very uncertain about the effects of PR-RALP on recovery of potency 12 months after surgery compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26; I² = 3%; studies = 2, participants = 308; very low CoE). Assuming 433 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are potent at this time point, this corresponds to nine more men per 1000 (78 fewer to 113 more) reporting potency recovery.  PR-RALP may result in little to no difference in positive surgical margins compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.33; I² = 50%; studies = 3, participants = 517; low CoE). Assuming 130 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have a positive surgical margin, this corresponds to 31 more men per 1000 (46 fewer to 173 more) reporting positive surgical margins.  PR-RALP may result in little to no difference in biochemical recurrence compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.52; I² = 0%; studies = 2, participants = 468; low CoE). Assuming 70 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have experienced biochemical recurrence at this time point, this corresponds to 25 more men per 1000 (18 fewer to 107 more) reporting biochemical recurrence.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found evidence that PR-RALP may improve early continence one week after catheter removal but not thereafter. Meanwhile, adverse event rates are probably not impacted and surgical margins rates are likely similar. This review was unable to determine if or how these findings may be impacted by the person's age, nerve-sparing status, or clinical stage. Study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency lowered the certainty of evidence for the outcomes assessed.

Comparison of Acute and Chronic Surgical Complications Following Robot-Assisted, Laparoscopic, and Traditional Open Radical Prostatectomy Among Men in Taiwan

IMPORTANCE

Few studies have evaluated long-term surgical complications in patients with prostate cancer (PC) who receive open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

OBJECTIVE

To examine the perioperative and postoperative surgical complications among patients with PC who underwent ORP, LRP, or RARP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included patients who received a diagnosis of resectable PC and underwent RP between January 1 and December 31, 2015. Participants were enrolled in the Taiwan Cancer Registry. The index date was the date of surgery, and the follow-up duration was the period from the index date to December 31, 2018. Data analysis was performed in September 2020.

EXPOSURES

ORP, LRP, or RARP.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Two multivariate mixed models accounting for hospital clusters were fitted to ascertain the association of RARP with treatment outcomes (ie, hospital stay, blood transfusion, postoperative pain, erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and hernia); general linear regression models were used for continuous outcomes, the amount of blood transfused, and hospital stay, and logistic regression models were used for analyzing postoperative outcomes and surgical complications.

RESULTS

Of the 1407 patients included in this study, 315 (22.4%) received ORP (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [6.8] years), 276 (19.6%) received LRP (mean [SD] age, 66.8 [6.4] years), and 816 (58.0%) received RARP (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [6.7] years). Mean (SD) follow-up in the full cohort was 36.7 (4.6) months. No statistically significant differences were observed in age, clinical tumor stage, pathological tumor stage, Gleason score, Gleason grade group, preoperative prostate-specific antigen concentration, D'Amico risk classification, and hospital level. A shorter hospital stay was observed for patients undergoing RARP vs those undergoing ORP (mean [SE] difference, -1.64 [0.22] days; P < .001) and LRP (mean [SE] difference, -0.57 [0.23] days; P = .01). Patients undergoing RARP had lower odds of receiving a blood transfusion (RARP vs ORP: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.25; 95% CI, 0.17-0.36; RARP vs LRP: aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.91). For postoperative pain, RARP was associated with a decrease in the odds of moderate to severe postoperative pain for as long as 12 weeks compared with both ORP and LRP (eg, RARP vs LRP at week 12: aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.85; P = .02). The aORs for RARP vs those for ORP and LRP in the third year after RP were, for erectile dysfunction, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.45-0.92) and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.36-0.98), respectively; for urinary incontinence, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.65-0.99) and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.86), respectively; and for hernia, 0.51 (95% CI, 0.31-0.84) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.46-0.92), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, undergoing RARP was associated with fewer acute and chronic postoperative complications than undergoing ORP or LRP.

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with the Senhance® robotic platform: single center experience

OBJECTIVE

To describe our institution's initial experience with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using the Senhance^® robotic system.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective analysis of 127 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies was performed. Patient demographics, preoperative and intraoperative parameters, histopathological examination results, intraoperative and early postoperative complications were obtained and analyzed.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 61.0 ± 6.36 (from 37 to 73) years, with a mean body mass index of 26.2 ± 3.79 kg/m². Of 127 patients, 16.5% (n = 21) underwent a pelvic lymph node dissection, 29.1% (n = 37) underwent one sided or bilateral nerve sparing. Post-operative extracapsular invasion (≥ pT3) was found in 15% (n = 19) of the cases and a Gleason score ≥ 7 in 74.8% of all patients. Our median operative time was 180 ± 41.98 min [interquartile range (IQR) 150-215], and median blood loss was 250 ± 236 (IQR 175-430) ml. Of 127 patients, 33.9% (n = 43) had positive margins, of them 28.7% in pT2 and 57.9% in pT3. Fifteen patients (11.8%) experienced complications, of them only three had Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3. Operation time decreased by about 60 min and estimated blood loss decreased by about 200 ml from the initial experience of each surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic prostatectomy using a Senhance^® robotic system is feasible, and warrants further study to determine whether it can improve patient outcomes.

Patient surgical satisfaction after da Vinci® single-port and multi-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: propensity score-matched analysis

The da Vinci^® single-port (SP) and multiport (Xi) approaches to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) are described by different authors in the literature, primarily comparing short-term outcomes of both modalities. To our knowledge, this is the first article comparing the surgical perspective and satisfaction of patients who underwent RARP with the SP and Xi platforms. To determine the patient surgical perspective and satisfaction in terms of pain control, return to normal activity, and overall results of surgery for two groups who underwent SP and Xi radical prostatectomy. The data from 71 consecutive patients who underwent SP RARP in a single center from June 2019 to April 2020 was compared to 875 patients who underwent Xi RARP in the same period. A single surgeon performed all procedures with a transperitoneal technique. After a propensity score match, two groups of 71 patients (SP and Xi) were selected and compared in the study. Patients were contacted by phone by two interviewers and a questionnaire was administered in English or Spanish. Patients were instructed not to disclose the type of robotic surgery they underwent, as interviewers were blinded to that information. A validated Surgical Satisfaction Questionnaire (SSQ-8) was used, along with an additional question from our institution asking about the satisfaction with the number of incision sites (GRI-1). Data were analyzed as continuous and discrete variables to compare the differences between the Xi and SP cohorts. A response rate of 85.9% (n = 61) in the Xi group and 73.2% (n = 52) in the SP group was captured. Overall satisfaction with surgical results was 80% and 88% in the Xi and SP cohorts, respectively. No statistical difference in responses was found between the Xi and SP cohorts for SSQ-8. However, GRI-1 demonstrated a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001) in terms of number of scars that favors the SP approach. Limitations of this study are the small sample size and recall bias. We found no statistical difference between the groups regarding the answers for SSQ-8 questionnaire; both groups were very satisfied. When assessing the number of incision sites with the GRI-1 question, patients who underwent MP had lower satisfaction rates compared to SP. These patients perceived the number of scars and their appearance as reason for lower satisfaction. We believe that future studies should consider patient’s postoperative perspective when adopting new platforms in order to combine adequate treatment with patient expectations. We performed a study assessing the postoperative satisfaction and perspectives of two groups of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy with two different robots (SP and Xi). There was no difference in patient satisfaction with the results of either the da Vinci^® SP or Xi RARP except for the patients’ perception on their number of scars, which favored the SP group.

A Novel Set of Immune-associated Gene Signature predicts Biochemical Recurrence in Localized Prostate Cancer Patients after Radical Prostatectomy

Background: Decision-making regarding biochemical recurrence (BCR) in localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients after radical prostatectomy (RP) mainly relies on clinicopathological parameters with a low predictive accuracy. Currently, accumulating evidence suggests that immune-associated genes (IAGs) play irreplaceable roles in tumorigenesis, progression and metastasis. Considering the critical role of immune in PCa, we therefore attempted to identify the novel IAGs signature and validate its prognostic value that can better forecast the risk for BCR and guide clinical treatment. Methods: RNA-sequencing and corresponding clinicopathological data were downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database and the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) was utilized to screen out the candidate module closely related to BCR, and univariate and LASSO Cox regression analyses were performed to build the gene signature. Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis, time-dependent receiver operating curve (ROC), independent prognostic analysis and nomogram were also applied to evaluate the prognostic value of the signature. Besides, Gene ontology analysis (GO), Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) were used to explore potential biological pathways. Results: A total of six IAGs (SSTR1, NFATC3, NRP1, TUBB3, IL1R1, GDF15) were eventually identified and used to establish a novel IAGs signature. The Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that patients with low-risk scores had longer recurrence-free survival (RFS) than those with high-risk scores in both GSE70769 and TCGA cohorts. Further, our signature was also proven to be a valuable independent prognostic factor for BCR. We also constructed a nomogram based on the gene signature and related clinicopathologic features, which excellently predict 1-year, 3-year and 5-year prognosis of localized PCa patients after RP. Moreover, functional enrichment analysis demonstrated the vital biological processes, and stratified GSEA revealed that a crucial immune-related pathway (T cell receptor signaling pathway) was notably enriched in the high-risk group. Conclusions: We successfully developed a novel robust IAGs signature that is powerful in BCR prediction in localized PCa patients after RP, and created a prognostic nomogram. In addition, the signature might help clinicians in selecting high-risk subpopulation, predicting survival status of patients and promoting more individualized therapies than traditional clinical factors.

Diffusion and adoption of the surgical robot in urology

Over the last two decades, robotic surgery has become a mainstay in hospital systems around the world. Leading this charge has been Intuitive Surgical Inc.’s da Vinci robotic system (Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Through its innovative technology and unique revenue model, Intuitive has installed 4,986 robotic surgical systems worldwide in the last two decades. The rapid rate of adoption and diffusion of the surgical robot has been propelled by many important industry-specific factors. In this review, we propose a model that explains the successful adoption of robotic surgery due to its three core groups: the surgeon, the hospital administrator, and the patient.

Preoperative multiparametric MRI does not lower positive surgical margin rate in a large series of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

To optimize functional outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), surgical preservation of the neurovascular bundle is desired. However, nerve-sparing surgery (NSS) is only feasible in the absence of extraprostatic tumour extension (T-stage 3) to avoid the risk of positive surgical margins (PSM). Multiparametric magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly performed for primary prostate cancer and provides information on local tumour stage. In this study, we evaluated whether the availability of information from MRI influenced the incidence of PSM. A total of 523 patients undergoing RARP for localized prostate cancer in a single Dutch reference centre for prostate-cancer surgery were retrospectively evaluated (2013-2017). Patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes were retrieved. Patients were stratified according to the presence of a preoperative MRI. The incidence of PSM and proportion of patients receiving NSS was analysed using Chi-square tests and logistic regression analysis. N = 139 of 523 (26.6%) patients had a preoperative MRI scan available. Patients with MRI had identical preoperative characteristics compared to the patients without MRI, except for a higher percentage of patients having a prostate-specific antigen value ≥ 20 ng/mL (20.1% versus 9.4%, p = 0.004). PSM were present in 107/384 (27.9%) patients without MRI compared to 36/139 (25.9%) patients with an MRI scan before surgery (p = 0.66). Unilateral NSS was performed more often in the MRI group (26.6% vs. 11.7%), but NSS on both sides was more frequently performed in patients without MRI (57.6% versus 69.8%) (p < 0.001). MRI was not associated with PSM in multivariate analysis (p = 0.265). Preoperative mpMRI imaging was not associated with lower rates of positive surgical margins in patients undergoing RARP for localized prostate cancer.

Options for Curative Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most frequently occurring malignancy among men in Germany, with 60 000 new cases each year. Three of every four tumors are detected at an early, localized stage, when various curative treatment strategies are possible.

METHODS

A selective search of the literature in PubMed accompanied by consideration of guidelines from Germany and other countries.

RESULTS

Owing to the usually prolonged natural course of localized prostate cancer, local treatment is recommended for patients with a life expectancy of at least 10 years. The established treatments with curative intent are radical prostatectomy, percutaneous radiotherapy, and brachytherapy, with active surveillance as a further option for patients with low-risk disease. The eventual choice of treatment is determined by tumor stage, risk group, comorbidities, and patient preference. Conversations with the patient must cover not only the oncological outcome but also the potential adverse effects of the different treatment options. Depending on the procedure, urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and inflammation of the bladder and/or rectum may be frequently occurring complications.

CONCLUSION

A number of curative and other treatments are available for patients with localized prostate cancer. The goal is to identify the appropriate option for each individual patient by means of detailed discussion.

The role of body mass index on quality indicators following minimally-invasive radical prostatectomy

Purpose

We sought to determine the role of body mass index (BMI) on quality indicators, such as length of stay and readmission. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried to examine the effect of obesity, defined as BMI >30, on outcomes after Minimally Invasive Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy (MI-RRP).

Materials and Methods

Utilizing the NSQIP database, patient records were identified using the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 55866 (laparoscopy, surgical prostatectomy, radical retropubic) during a 10-year period (2007–2017). Obesity was classified according to the CDC classification. Chi-square tests were utilized to evaluate BMI distribution by surgery year. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship of BMI with length of stay (LOS) and hospital readmission within 30 days, after controlling for preoperative variables.

Results

Records of 49,238 patients who have undergone MI-RRP during 2007–2017 were evaluated. Mean yearly BMI rose from 28.5 to 29.2, while the percentage of surgical patients with BMI >30 rose by 5% (33% to 38%; p<0.0001) over the study period. Obese patients demonstrated higher morbidity, prolonged LOS, and increased readmission rates after MI-RRP. Obesity severity correlated negatively with quality indicators in a graded fashion.

Conclusions

Obesity rates in patients undergoing MI-RRP increased from 2007–2017. Obese patients are at increased risk of morbidity, prolonged LOS, and readmission within 30 days, following MI-RRP. These patients should not be excluded from MI-RRP; rather, physicians should discuss these increased risks with their patients. Proper weight loss strategies should be instituted preoperatively to mitigate these risks.

Latest Comprehensive Medical Resource Consumption in Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic and Traditional Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated long-term medical monetary cost in patients with prostate cancer (PC) receiving open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest and longest follow-up study to examine medical monetary cost in patients with PC undergoing ORP, LRP, or RARP. After adjustment for confounders, the medical monetary cost in the RARP group was the least compared with that in the ORP and LRP groups.

PURPOSE

To estimate long-term medical resource consumption among patients with prostate cancer (PC) receiving open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants were men enrolled in the Taiwan Cancer Registry with localized PC diagnosis who received radical prostatectomy. After adjustment for confounders, a generalized linear mixed model was used to determine significant differences in the number of urology outpatient clinic visits required, proportion of patients being hospitalized for urinary diseases or surgical complications, and medical reimbursement for urinary diseases or surgical complications following ORP, LRP, or RARP in the first, second, and third years. Results: No differences were observed in the median number of urology outpatient clinic visits between the three types of surgical modalities up to the second year after ORP, LRP, and RARP (median: 15, 10, and seven visits, respectively; p < 0.001), but significant differences were observed in the third year. Similarly, with RARP (10.9% versus 18.7% in ORP and 9.8% in LRP; p = 0.0014), the rate of hospitalization for urinary diseases or surgical complications decreased in the third year. Medical reimbursement for urinary diseases or surgical complications reduced after RARP compared with that for ORP and LRP, with approximately 22% reduction in the first year (p = 0.0052) and 20-40% reduction in the third year (p value = 0.0024).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical resource consumption in the RARP group was less compared with those in the ORP and LRP groups.

Short-Periods of Pre-Warming in Laparoscopic Surgery. A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating Current Clinical Practice

Background: Pre-warming prevents perioperative hypothermia. We evaluated the current clinical practice of pre-warming and its effects on temperature drop and postoperative complications; Methods: This prospective, observational pilot study examines clinical practice in a tertiary hospital on 99 patients undergoing laparoscopic urological surgery. Pre-warming was performed in the pre-anesthesia room. Patients were classified into three groups: P 0 (non-prewarmed), P 5–15 (pre-warming 5–15 min) and P > 15 (pre-warming 15–30 min). Tympanic temperature was recorded in the pre-anesthesia room, prior to anesthesia induction, and in the PACU. Esophageal temperature was recorded intraoperatively. The occurrence of shivering, pain intensity, length of stay in PACU, and postoperative complications during hospital stay were also recorded; Results: After pre-warming, between-group difference in body temperature was higher in P > 15 than in P 0 (0.4 °C, 95% CI 0.14–0.69, p = 0.004). Between P 5–15 and P 0 difference was 0.2 °C (95% CI 0.04–0.55, p = 0.093). Temperature at the end of surgery was higher in pre-warmed groups [mean between-group difference 0.5 °C (95% CI 0.13–0.81, p = 0.007) for P 5–15; 0.9 °C (95% CI 0.55–1.19, p < 0.001) for P > 15]. Pain and shivering was less common in pre-warmed groups. Postoperative transfusions and surgical site infections were lower in P > 15; Conclusion: Short-term pre-warming prior to laparoscopic urological surgery decreased temperature perioperative drop and postoperative complications.

New Evolution of Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: A Single Center Experience with PERUSIA Technique

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the standard surgical treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer in patients with a life expectancy of at least 10 years. In a recent prospective study, we described the PERUSIA (Posterior, Extraperitoneal, Robotic, Under Santorini, Intrafascial, Anterograde) technique, which is an extraperitoneal full nerve sparing robotic RP, showing its feasibility and safety. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the peri-operative, oncologic, and functional outcomes of the PERUSIA technique. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 454 robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies (RARP) performed using the PERUSIA technique from January 2012 to October 2019. We evaluated perioperative outcomes (operative time, estimated blood loss, catheterization time, complication rate, length of stay), oncological (positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence), and functional outcomes in terms of urinary continence and sexual potency. The overall complication rate was 16%, positive surgical margins were 8.1%, and biochemical recurrence occurred in 8.6% at median follow-up of 47 months. Urinary continence was achieved in 69% of cases the day after the removal of the catheter, in 92% at 3 months, and in 97% at 12 months after surgery. The average rate of sexual potency was 72% and 82% respectively 3 and 12 months after surgery. Our findings show that the PERUSIA technique is a safe extraperitoneal approach to perform a full nerve sparing technique providing exciting functional outcomes.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncological and functional robotic-assisted surgical procedures

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in surgical activity to avoid nosocomial contamination. Robotic-assisted surgery safety is uncertain, since viral dissemination could be facilitated by gas environment. We assessed the impact and safety of the COVID-19 pandemic on robotic-assisted surgery. Data were collected prospectively during lockdown (March 16th–April 30th 2020) in 10 academic centres with robotic surgical activity and was compared to a reference period of similar length. After surgery, patients with suspected COVID-19 were tested by RT-PCR. During the COVID-19 lockdown we evidenced a 60% decrease in activity and a 49% decrease in oncological procedures. However, the overall proportion of oncological surgeries was significantly higher during the pandemic (p < 0.001). Thirteen (7.2%) patients had suspected COVID-19 contamination, but only three (1.6%) were confirmed by RT-PCR. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant decrease in robotic-assisted surgery. Robotic approach was safe with a low rate of postoperative COVID-19 contamination.

Effects of 1-Year Hospital Volume on Surgical Margin and Biochemical-Failure-Free Survival in Patients Undergoing Robotic versus Nonrobotic Radical Prostatectomy: A Nationwide Cohort Study from the National Taiwan Cancer Database

Simple Summary

Limited evidence exists regarding the effects of hospital volume (i.e., number of patients with PC receiving robotic RP per year) on the oncologic outcomes of biochemical-failure-free survival (BFS) and positive surgical margin (PSM) between patients with prostate cancer (PC) undergoing robotic or nonrobotic radical prostatectomy (RP). This is the first study to include large sample size, long follow-up time, and consistent covariates of patients with PC receiving different surgical techniques for RP and investigate whether hospital volume affects BFS and PSM. Hospital volume significantly improved BFS and PSM rates in robotic RP, but not in nonrobotic RP. When patients with PC wish to receive robotic RP, we suggest that the surgery be performed in a high-volume hospital (>50 patients/year).

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the effect of hospital volume on positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical-failure-free survival (BFS) rates in patients with prostate cancer (PC) undergoing robotic-assisted or nonrobotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP). Patients and Methods: The patients were men collected in the National Taiwan Cancer Registry diagnosed as having PC without distant metastasis who received RP from 44 multi-institutes in Taiwan. The logistic regression method was used to analyze the risk from RP to PSM in included patients with hospital volume (i.e., number of patients with PC receiving robotic RP per year), and the Cox proportional hazards method was used to analyze the time from the index date to biochemical recurrence. Results: After propensity score adjustment, compared with hospitals with >100 patients/year, the adjusted odds ratios (aORs; 95% confidence intervals) of PSM in the robotic RP group in hospitals with 1–25, 26–50, and 51–100 patients/year were 2.25 (2.10–3.11), 1.42 (1.25–2.23), and 1.33 (1.13–2.04), respectively (type III p < 0.0001). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the aORs of PSM were 1.29 (1.07–1.81), 1.07 (0.70–1.19), and 0.61 (0.56–0.83), respectively, for patients receiving robotic RP compared with nonrobotic RP within hospitals with 1–25, 26–50, and 51–100 patients/year, respectively. Compared with hospitals with >100 patients/year, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of biochemical failure in the robotic RP group were 1.40 (1.04–1.67), 1.34 (1.06–1.96), and 1.31 (1.05–2.15) in hospitals with 1–25, 26–50, and 51–100 patients/year, respectively. Conclusions: Hospital volume significantly affected PSM and BFS in robotic RP, but not in nonrobotic RP. When patients with PC want to receive robotic RP, it should be performed in a relatively high-volume hospital (>100 patients/year).

Return to work following laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal cancer: Findings from AlaCaRT-Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial

BACKGROUND

Maintaining employment for adults with cancer is important, however, little is known about the impact of surgery for rectal cancer on an individual's capacity to return to work (RTW). This study aimed to determine the impact of laparoscopic vs. open resection on RTW at 12 months.

METHODS

Analyses were undertaken among participants randomized in the Australian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT), with work status available at baseline (presurgery), and 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics estimated the effect of surgery on RTW in any capacity, or return to preoperative work status at 12 months.

RESULTS

About 228 of 449 (51%) surviving trial participants at 12 months completed work status questionnaires; mean age was 62 years, 66% males, 117 of these received laparoscopic resection (51%). Of 228, 120 were employed at baseline (90 full-time, 30 part-time). Overall RTW in 120 participants in paid work at baseline was 78% (84% laparoscopic, 70% open surgery). Those employed full-time were more likely to RTW at 12 months (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.02-12.31). Those with distant metastases at baseline were less likely to RTW (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, <0.01-0.83). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a higher rate of RTW but did not reach statistical significance (OR 2.88; 95% CI, 0.95-8.76).

CONCLUSIONS

Full-time work presurgery and the presence of metastatic disease predicts RTW status at 12 months. A laparoscopic-assisted surgical approach to rectal cancer may facilitate more patients to RTW, however, larger sample sizes are likely needed to confirm this result.

There Are No Differences in Positive Surgical Margin Rates or Biochemical Failure-Free Survival among Patients Receiving Open, Laparoscopic, or Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: A Nationwide Cohort Study from the National Cancer Database

Simple Summary

Few studies have evaluated oncologic outcomes in patients with prostate cancer (PC) receiving open, laparoscopic, or robotic radical prostatectomy (RP). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first and largest study to examine PSM and BFS rates in patients with PC undergoing open, laparoscopic, or robotic RP. After adjustment for confounders, no significant differences in PSM or BFS were noted among the patient groups.

Abstract

Purpose: To estimate the rates of positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical failure–free survival (BFS) among patients with prostate cancer (PC) receiving open, laparoscopic, or robotic radical prostatectomy (RP). Patients and Methods: The patients were men enrolled in the Taiwan Cancer Registry diagnosed as having PC without distant metastasis who received RP. After adjustment for confounders, logistic regression was used to model the risk of PSM following RP. After adjustment for confounders, Cox proportional regression was used to model the time from the index (i.e., surgical) date to biochemical recurrence. Results: The adjusted odds ratios (95% CIs) of PSM risk after propensity score adjustment for laparoscopic versus open, robotic versus open, and robotic versus laparoscopic RP 95% CIs were 1.25 (0.88 to 1.77; p = 0.2064), 1.16 (0.88 to 1.53; p = 0.2847), and 0.93 (0.70 to 1.24; p = 0.6185), respectively. The corresponding adjusted hazard ratios (95% CIs) of risk of biochemical failure after propensity score adjustment were 1.16 (0.93 to 1.47; p = 0.1940), 1.10 (0.83 to 1.47; p = 0.5085), and 0.95 (0.74 to 1.21; p = 0.6582). Conclusions: No significant differences in PSM or BFS were observed among patients receiving open, laparoscopic, or robotic RP.

Trends in Oncology: an Updated Review of Minimally Invasive Surgery vs. Traditional Open Surgery

Objective: To review the recent trends in methodology for the most frequent oncological surgeries. More specifically, this paper will compare the minimally invasive methods to the conventional open method. It aims to find out whether minimally invasive surgeries are feasible treatments for certain types of cancers.

Methods: A review of retrospective studies searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library etc. was used to identify the studies published on this topic within a period of 6 years. Oncologic outcomes, postoperative complications/outcomes, and intraoperative outcomes were the main variables in the comparison to the surgical methods under review.

Conclusion: Despite the recent controversy with minimally invasive surgery being contraindicated for cervical cancer, it is still an acceptable method for other types of common cancers. However, there are limitations to the approach, and the surgeon should make a prudent selection between minimally invasive and open surgery depending on the type of tumor and patient characteristics. Further studies, especially with randomized control trials, must be conducted.

A Novel Apoptosis-Related Gene Signature Predicts Biochemical Recurrence of Localized Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy

Background: Nowadays, predictions of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients after radical prostatectomy (RP) are mainly based on clinical parameters with a low predictive accuracy. Given the critical role of apoptosis in PCa occurrence and progression, we aimed to establish a novel predictive model based on apoptosis-related gene signature and clinicopathological parameters that can improve risk stratification for BCR and assist in clinical decision-making. Methods: Expression data and corresponding clinical information were obtained from four public cohorts, one from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset and three from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) dataset. Weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) was performed to identify candidate modules closely correlated to BCR, and univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were utilized to build the gene signature. Time-dependent receiver operating curve (ROC) and Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis were used to assess the prognostic value. Finally, we analyzed the expression of genes in the signature and validated the results using quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR). Results: The novel gene signature we established exhibited a high prognostic value and was able to act as an independent risk factor for BCR [Training set: P < 0.001, hazard ratio (HR) = 7.826; Validation set I: P = 0.006, HR = 2.655; Validation set II: P = 0.003, HR = 4.175; Validation set III: P < 0.001, HR = 3.008]. Nomogram based on the gene signature and clinical parameters was capable of distinguishing high-risk BCR patients. Additionally, functional enrichment analysis showed several enriched pathways and biological processes, which might help reveal the underlying mechanism. The expression results of qRT-PCR were consistent with TCGA results. Conclusion: The apoptosis-related gene signature could serve as a powerful predictor and risk factor for BCR in localized PCa patients after RP.

Comparison of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: Initial experience of a single surgeon

Objective:

In this study, we aimed to make a comprehensive comparison of the first hundred robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) cases of a single surgeon in a high-volume center.

Methods:

Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative data were collected retrospectively. Perioperative, oncological data and functional results in the first year were compared between the two groups. There were 204 RARPs between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2019, and 755 RRPs between April 1, 2007 and December 31, 2019.

Results:

While the operation time was in favor of the open group (117 vs 188 min, p<0.001), the estimated blood loss (328 vs 150 ml, p<0.001), blood transfusion rate (12 vs 2, p=0.021), and re-operation rate (6 vs 0, p=0.001) were in favor of the robotic group. Mean length of hospital stay (5.4 vs 3.1, p<0.001), urine leak rate (11 vs 2, p=0.033), complication rate (37 vs 16, p=0.018), and the 12th month continence rate (67 vs 85, p=0.002) were better in the robotic group.

Conclusions:

RARP may provide better perioperative outcomes and lower complication rates after the surgeon factor is eliminated in the early period. Since our case group includes the initial 100 patients, studies with larger patient groups with longer follow-up are needed to adapt these early results to general outcomes.

Review of the evidence for robotic-assisted robotic cystectomy and intra-corporeal urinary diversion in bladder cancer

Radical cystectomy, pelvic lymph node dissection and urinary diversion is the gold-standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The surgery is both complex and highly morbid. Robotic cystectomy is now in its 16th year with established techniques and sufficient research maturity to enable comparison with its open counterpart. The present review focuses on the current evidence for robotic cystectomy and assesses various metrics including oncological, perioperative, functional, surgeon-specific and cost outcomes. The review also encapsulates the current evidence for intra-corporeal urinary diversion and its current status in the cystectomy arena.

Association of surgical approach and prolonged opioid prescriptions in patients undergoing major pelvic cancer procedures

BACKGROUND

The rise in deaths attributed to opioid drugs has become a major public health problem in the United States and in the world. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with a faster postoperative recovery and our aim was to investigate if the use of MIS was associated with lower odds of prolonged opioid prescriptions after major procedures.

METHODS

Retrospective study using the IBM Watson Health Marketscan® Commerical Claims and Encounters Database investigating opioid-naïve cancer patients aged 18-64 who underwent open versus MIS radical prostatectomy (RP), partial colectomy (PC) or hysterectomy (HYS) from 2012 to 2017. Propensity weighted logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the independent effect of surgical approach on prolonged opioid prescriptions, defined as prescriptions within 91-180 days of surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 6838 patients underwent RP (MIS 85.5%), 4480 patients underwent PC (MIS 61.6%) and 1620 patients underwent HYS (MIS 41.8%). Approximately 70-80% of all patients had perioperative opioid prescriptions. In the weighted model, patients undergoing MIS were significantly less likely to have prolonged opioid prescriptions in all three surgery types (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.737, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.595-0.914, p = 0.006; OR 0.728, 95% CI 0.600-0.882, p = 0.001; OR 0.655, 95% CI 0.466-0.920, p = 0.015, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The use of the MIS was associated with lower odds of prolonged opioid prescription in all procedures examined. While additional studies such as clinical trials are needed for further confirmation, our findings need to be considered for patient counseling as postoperative differences between approaches do exist.

Preoperative Predictors of Biochemical Recurrence-Free Survival in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Following Radical Prostatectomy

Background: D'Amico high-risk prostate cancer (Pca) patients experience poor and heterogeneous oncological outcomes. This heterogeneity highlights a need to extensively explore factors associated with poor outcomes to guide decision-making. Objective: To assess predictors of biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival in high-risk patients following radical prostatectomy (RP), and subsequently establish a model predicting outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively identified D'Amico high-risk non-metastatic Pca patients who underwent RP between 2013 and 2019 in our hospital. We collected data including PSA level, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score (GS), number of D'Amico high-risk factors (RF), the inflammatory status (Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR], derived NLR [dNLR], platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio [PLR] and LDH). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to analyze BCR-free survival. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards model to evaluate the association between clinicopathological parameters and BCR-free survival. Results: The median follow-up time for the 101 patients' cohort was 26 months (range: 3-81 months). The number of RF (1RF vs. ≥2RF), biopsy GS (<8 vs. ≥8), clinical stage (≤cT2c vs. >cT2c), pathological stage, and the presence of adverse pathological features were significant predictors of BCR (P < 0.05). Other parameters including inflammatory status (dNLR, NLR, PLR, and LDH) were not of predictive value. On multivariable analysis, biopsy GS (<8 vs. ≥8; HR 2.439) and clinical stage (≤cT2c vs. >cT2c; HR 3.271) were the independent predictors of BCR. Based on these two independent predictors, patients were stratified into three risk subgroups: favorable (0 risk factor; 47% of patients), intermediate (1 risk factor; 42 %), unfavorable (2 risk factors; 11%). The intermediate and unfavorable subgroups have a significantly shorter median BCR-free survival compared to the favorable subgroup (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Several factors are associated with BCR. Clinical stage (≤cT2c vs. >cT2c) and biopsy GS (<8 vs. ≥8) are the independent predictors of BCR. The stratification of high-risk patients into risk subgroups based on these two predictors shows that the intermediate and unfavorable subgroups have a significantly shorter median BCR-free survival compared to the favorable subgroup. The preoperative stratification model may help urologists and patients during decision-making. In non-metastatic high-risk patients, preoperative inflammatory markers (NLR, dNLR, PLR, and LDH) are not of prognostic value.

Impact of inflammatory bowel disease on radical prostatectomy outcomes and costs of care

Background

Recent studies suggest an association between prostate cancer and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our objectives were to investigate clinical and financial impacts of IBD on radical prostatectomy (RP) and to determine the impact of surgical approach on our findings.

Methods

The Premier Hospital Database was queried for patients who underwent RP from 2003 to 2017. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the independent impact of IBD on complications and readmission rates. We determined 90-day readmissions and examined 90-day hospital costs adjusted to 2019 US dollars with multivariable quantile regression models.

Results

Our study population included 262,189 men with prostate cancer, including 3,408 (1.3%) with IBD. There were higher odds for any complication for IBD patients compared with non-IBD controls for RP (15.64% vs. 10.66%). Patients with IBD had overall complication rates of 14.1% (P < 0.05) for open surgery and 17.2% for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (P < 0.01). Between 2013 and 2017, the IBD cohort had significantly more complications (odds ratios (ORs): 2; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5 to 2.67; P < 0.0001), was more likely to have surgical costs in the top quartile (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.23 to 2.1; P < 0.01), and had higher readmission rates (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.06; P = 0.01).

Conclusions

The IBD cohort who underwent MIS had the highest complication rates. Hospital readmissions and surgical costs were significantly higher for the IBD cohort who underwent RP between 2013 and 2017, when a minimally invasive approach was more prevalent than an open approach. These findings may be important when deciding which surgical approach to take when performing RP on men with IBD.

Single-night stay for open radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of an enhanced care pathway on length of stay (LOS) for open radical prostatectomy (RP) given that robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is not available to all patients in Canada.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all RPs performed. An enhanced care pathway was established for RPs in 2011. Patients were compared in the period before (2005-2010) and after (2011-2019) the introduction of the pathway.

RESULTS

During the study period, 581 RPs were performed by a single surgeon with a median followup of 66.9 months (range 3-176). A total of 211 (36.3%) RPs were performed from 2005-2010, while 370 (63.9%) were performed from 2011-2019. The median age at RP was 65 years (range 44-81). Following the introduction of an enhanced care pathway, there were significant decreases in intraoperative blood loss (350 ml vs. 200 ml; p=0.0001) and the use of surgical drains (90% vs. 9.5%; p=0.0001). The median LOS over the whole study period was one day (range 1-7), which significantly decreased with the enhanced care pathway (3 vs. 1 day; p=0.0001). Since introducing the enhanced care pathway in 2011, 344 (93%) patients were discharged day 1 following surgery. There were no differences in post-discharge presentations to the emergency department (5.7% vs. 9%; p=0.15) or 30-day readmission rates (3.8% vs. 3.8%; p=1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

A single-night stay for open RP is safe and achievable for most patients. A dedicated, multifaceted pathway is required to attain targets for a safe and timely discharge.

Retzius-sparing versus standard robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is widely used to surgically treat clinically localized prostate cancer. It is typically performed using an approach (standard RALP) that mimics open retropubic prostatectomy by dissecting the so-called space of Retzius anterior to the bladder. An alternative, Retzius-sparing (or posterior approach) RALP (RS-RALP) has been described, which is reported to have better continence outcomes but may be associated with a higher risk of incomplete resection and positive surgical margins (PSM).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of RS-RALP compared to standard RALP for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to June 2020. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials where participants were randomized to RS-RALP or standard RALP for clinically localized prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified and abstracted data from the included studies. Primary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery within one week after catheter removal, at three months after surgery, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery six and 12 months after surgery, potency recovery 12 months after surgery, positive surgical margins (PSM), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS), and urinary and sexual function quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search identified six records of five unique randomized controlled trials, of which two were published studies, one was in press, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 571 randomized participants, of whom 502 completed the trials. Mean age of participants was 64.6 years and mean prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 ng/mL. About 54.2% of participants had cT1c disease, 38.6% had cT2a-b disease, and 7.1 % had cT2c disease. Primary outcomes RS-RALP probably improves continence within one week after catheter removal (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 2.14; I² = 0%; studies = 4; participants = 410; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 335 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 248 more men per 1000 (137 more to 382 more) reporting continence recovery. RS-RALP may increase continence at three months after surgery compared to standard RALP (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.68; I² = 86%; studies = 5; participants = 526; low-certainty evidence). Assuming 750 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 224 more men per 1000 (41 more to 462 more) reporting continence recovery. We are very uncertain about the effects of RS-RALP on serious adverse events compared to standard RALP (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.17; studies = 2; participants = 230; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes There is probably little to no difference in continence recovery at 12 months after surgery (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04; I² = 0%; studies = 2; participants = 222; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 982 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 10 more men per 1000 (29 fewer to 39 more) reporting continence recovery.  We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on potency recovery 12 months after surgery (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.80; studies = 1; participants = 55; very low-certainty evidence).  RS-RALP may increase PSMs (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.20; I² = 0%; studies = 3; participants = 308; low-certainty evidence) indicating a higher risk for prostate cancer recurrence. Assuming 129 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have positive margins, this corresponds to 123 more men per 1000 (25 more to 284 more) with PSMs. We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on BCRFS compared to standard RALP (hazard ratio (HR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.60; I² = 32%; studies = 2; participants = 218; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review indicate that RS-RALP may result in better continence outcomes than standard RALP up to six months after surgery. Continence outcomes at 12 months may be similar. Downsides of RS-RALP may be higher positive margin rates. We are very uncertain about the effect on BCRFS and potency outcomes. Longer-term oncologic and functional outcomes are lacking, and no preplanned subgroup analyses could be performed to explore the observed heterogeneity. Surgeons should discuss these trade-offs and the limitations of the evidence with their patients when considering this approach.

Clinical impact of psoas muscle volume on the development of inguinal hernia after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Sarcopenia, a syndrome characterized by the loss of skeletal muscle mass, has attracted attention in the field of oncology, as it reflects poor nutritional status. The present study aimed to determine the risk factors for postoperative inguinal hernia (PIH) development after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) for prostate cancer, and discuss whether sarcopenia could be used as a sensitive predictor of PIH.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 147 patients who underwent RARP at our institution. The psoas muscle volume (PMV), as an indicator of sarcopenia, was quantified from computed tomography images using a 3-dimensional image analysis system. Multivariate cox regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of PIH, including pre- and peri-operative factors.

RESULTS

The mean PMV was 393 cm³, and the correlation coefficient between PMV and body mass index was 0.37 (p < 0.01). The PIH-free rate at 2 years postoperatively was 78.2% among all patients. The multivariate analysis revealed that a PMV < 350 cm³ was a significant risk factor for PIH (p = 0.03; hazard ratio 2.19). Body mass index, age, prostate volume, lymph node dissection, nerve sparing, rectus muscle thickness, and console time were not related to PIH development. The PIH-free rate at 2 years postoperatively was 83.4% and 68.9% in patients with a PMV ≥ 350 cm³ and < 350 cm³, respectively (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PIH occurred significantly more frequently in patients with a PMV < 350 cm³ than in patients with a PMV ≥ 350 cm³, and a low PMV was an independent risk factor for PIH. Thus, urologists should pay attention to the cumulative incidence of IH after RARP, especially in patients with a PMV < 350 cm³.

Oncological and functional outcomes in patients over 70 years of age treated with robotic radical prostatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to report on the safety (complications) and efficacy (oncological and functional outcomes) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), performed at our institution, in patients aged over 70.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Review of our prospectively collected database [Cancer Information Systems (CAISIS)] identified two hundred and fifteen (215) patients, aged > 70, who underwent RARP for localized prostate cancer between July 2003 and August 2017. A propensity score-matched analysis, with multiple covariates, was performed to stratify the patients into Age ≤ 70 and Age > 70 comparison groups.

RESULTS

Apart from Age (mean ± SD years: 73.5 ± 2.1 vs 59.5 ± 5.9, p < 0.0001) and nerve-sparing status, the two groups were evenly matched for all covariates (p values > 0.05). Median follow-up was 10.6 years. There were no 90-day mortalities in either group. Minor complications (Clavien ≤ 2) were more common in the Age > 70 group (p = 0.0002). Operating room time (p = 0.83), length of hospital stay (p = 0.06) and catheterization duration (p = 0.13) were similar. On final pathology, a higher pT stage (p < 0.0001) and pN1 (p = 0.003) were observed in the Age > 70 group. However, this did not translate adversely into higher rates of positive surgical margin (p = 0.41) or biochemical relapse (p = 0.72). Allowing for the follow-up duration (median 10.6 years), cancer-specific survival was marginally significant (p = 0.05) with an observed lower rate in the Age > 70 group. In terms of functional outcomes, post-operative erectile dysfunction and pad-free continence were significantly better in the younger cohort (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy should not be denied to those over 70 years solely on the basis of age. Older men need to be counseled about the likelihood of encountering higher-risk features on final pathology and that their functional outcomes may be worse compared to a younger person.

Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is a common cancer but is oftentimes slow growing. When confined to the prostate, radical prostatectomy (RP), which involves removal of the prostate, offers potential cure that may come at the price of adverse events. Deferred treatment, involving observation and palliative treatment only (watchful waiting (WW)) or close monitoring and delayed local treatment with curative intent as needed in the setting of disease progression (active monitoring (AM)/surveillance (AS)) might be an alternative. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of RP compared with deferred treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (including CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE, and HTA), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, and OpenGrey. Additionally, we searched two trial registries and conference abstracts of three conferences (EAU, AUA, and ASCO) until 3 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared RP versus deferred treatment in patients with localised prostate cancer, defined as T1-2, N0, M0 prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of references and extracted data from included studies. The primary outcome was time to death from any cause; secondary outcomes were: time to death from prostate cancer; time to disease progression; time to metastatic disease; quality of life, including urinary and sexual function; and adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence per outcome using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 2635 participants (average age between 60 to 70 years). Three multicentre RCTs, from Europe and USA, compared RP with WW (n = 1537), and one compared RP with AM (n = 1098). Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting RP probably reduces the risk of death from any cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.90; 3 studies with 1537 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 764 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared to 839 deaths per 1000 men in the WW group. RP probably also lowers the risk of death from prostate cancer (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73; 2 studies with 1426 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 195 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 316 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the WW group. RP may reduce the risk of progression (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.54; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 54%; low-certainty evidence); at 19.5 years, this corresponds to 391 progressions per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 684 progressions per 1000 men for the WW group) and probably reduces the risk of developing metastatic disease (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.70; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence); at 29 years, this corresponds to 271 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for RP compared with 431 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for WW. General quality of life at 12 years' follow-up is probably similar for both groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.85-1.16; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 344  patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 344 patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the WW group. Rates of urinary incontinence may be considerably higher (RR 3.97, 95% CI 2.34-6.74; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 173 incontinent men per 1000 in the RP group compared with 44 incontinent men per 1000 in the WW group, as are rates of erectile dysfunction (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.63-4.38; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 389 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the RP group compared with 146 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the WW group, both at 10 years' follow-up. Radical prostatectomy versus active monitoring Based on one study including 1098 participants with 10 years' follow-up, there are probably no differences between RP and AM in time to death from any cause (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.33; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to 101 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 108 deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. Similarly, risk of death from prostate cancer probably is not different between the two groups (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21-1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to nine prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 15 prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. RP probably reduces the risk of progression (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27-0.56; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 86 progressions per 1000 men for RP compared with 206 progressions per 1000 men for AM) and the risk of developing metastatic disease (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 24 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 61 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the AM group).The general quality of life during follow-up was not different between the treatment groups. However, urinary function (mean difference (MD) 8.60 points lower, 95% CI 11.2-6.0 lower) and sexual function (MD 14.9 points lower, 95% CI 18.5-11.3 lower) on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) instrument, were worse in the RP group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on long-term follow-up, RP compared with WW probably results in substantially improved oncological outcomes in men with localised prostate cancer but also markedly increases rates of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. These findings are largely based on men diagnosed before widespread PSA screening, thereby limiting generalisability. Compared to AM, based on follow-up to 10 years, RP probably has similar outcomes with regard to overall and disease-specific survival yet probably reduces the risks of disease progression and metastatic disease. Urinary function and sexual function are probably decreased for the patients treated with RP.

Survival and quality of life outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment of localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the survival and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) whole-gland ablation for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

Over 8 years, men with localized prostate cancer treated with whole-gland HIFU were prospectively followed. Transrectal prostate ablation was performed under general anesthesia with Sonablate-500® (Sonacare Medical©, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA). The primary outcome was failure-free survival defined as no transition to any of the following: (1) local salvage therapy (surgery or radiotherapy), (2) systemic therapy, (3) metastases, or (4) prostate cancer-specific mortality. Secondary outcomes included both survival outcomes and QoL measures.

RESULTS

Of 70 men, 29.7% had International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1, 43.8% ISUP 2, 10.9% ISUP 3, and 15.6% ISUP 4 disease. At median follow-up of 83.4 months, overall mortality was 8.6% and prostate cancer-specific mortality 0%. Failure-free survival was 78.2% at 5 years and 71.2% at 7 years. Of all men, 7.1% of men developed metastases, with median metastasis-free survival of 75.4 months. There was negligible post-HIFU urinary incontinence or lower urinary tract symptom with a median Male Urogenital Distress Inventory score of 32 at 6 months and 33 at 12 months and median IPSS of 4 at 6 months and 3 at 12 months. Median Radiation Therapy Oncology Group rectal toxicity score was 0 throughout. In men who had mild or no erectile dysfunction at baseline (International Index of Erectile Function ≥17), the mean International Index of Erectile Function score declined to 37% from 23.5 at baseline to 14.7 at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

At median follow-up of 7 years, whole-gland HIFU appears to have comparable survival outcomes with other cohort studies involving radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy patient. It has low impact on QoL, preserved urinary continence, and erectile function approximate to nerve-sparing prostatectomy. Whole-gland HIFU presents a potential alternative minimally invasive and safe option for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) and LRP in patients with prostate cancer based on risk groups

Objective

To compare the perioperative and pathological outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) and LRP based on the patient's risk.

Patients and methods

The medical records of 588 patients with prostate cancer who underwent RP, using minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques (240 LRP and 348 RALRP) by a single surgeon during January 2008 to June 2018 at the Ramathibodi Hospital, were retrospectively reviewed. The patient's risk was classified according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guideline, 2018. The demographic, perioperative, and pathological data of patients were collected. The differences in perioperative and pathological outcomes between LRP and RALRP in each risk classification were assessed using chi-square, Fisher's exact tests and logistic regression, as appropriate.

Results

In terms of positive margins, RALRP had significant advantages in high-risk patients when compared to LRP (adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.84), while there were no differences in the low- and intermediate-risk patients. Overall, the patients who underwent RALRP had significant advantages over those who underwent LRP in terms of operative time, estimate blood loss, and blood transfusion rate. While, adjacent organ injury rate and length of hospital stay were similar for both techniques in all subgroup analyses.

Conclusion

MIS techniques appear to be safe, especially RALRP, which has significantly better perioperative outcomes in all subgroups of patient risk classification, and in the high-risk patient group it seems to have better pathological outcomes when compared to LRP.

Abbreviations

EBL: estimated blood loss; LOS: length of hospital stay; PSM: positive surgical margin; (L)(O)(RAL)RP: (laparoscopic) (open) (robot-assisted laparoscopic) radical prostatectomy; MIS: minimally invasive surgery.

Application of Dried Human Amnion Graft to Improve Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence and Potency: A Randomized Exploration Study Protocol

Introduction

Incontinence (up to 20%) and erectile dysfunction (up to 70%) occur frequently after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with localized prostate cancer. Human amniotic membrane (HAM) can improve tissue regeneration and functional outcome after RP owing to the growth factors and unique immune tolerance. Preliminary studies showed the potential value of HAM in the reconstruction of the urinary tract and nerve protection during RP.

Methods

A protocol is developed for a prospective, randomized, single-blind, single-surgeon, placebo-controlled exploration study of the efficacy and safety of dehydrated human amnion membrane placed around the neurovascular bundle (NVB) and vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA) during RP for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Eligible for inclusion are patients with localized prostate cancer, requiring a surgical procedure and exclusion of preoperative incontinence and erectile dysfunction. The patients are randomized 1:1 to HAM vs. placebo and blinded during the study period. According to the T test with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 80% and expecting a dropout of 20% of the patients, an adjusted sample size per arm of 164 patients is required.

Planned Outcomes

The primary outcome is a postoperative continence measured as 24-h pad test up to 12 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes are potency, time of postoperative catheter removal, postoperative complications, and biochemical recurrence. The protocol for this randomized exploration study defines the conditions to assess the efficacy and safety of HAM application during RP in order to improve the postoperative functional outcome. This trial should pave the way for future studies of tissue engineering in an effort to reduce the morbidity of RP.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT03864939.

Ideal timing of indwelling catheter removal after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a running barbed suture technique: a prospective analysis of 425 consecutive patients

Objective

To compare prospectively early outcome and complications of catheter removal after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on the 4th or 7th day with a standardized running barbed suture technique.

Introduction

The time point of removing the indwelling catheter after RARP mainly depends on institute’s/surgeon’s preferences. Removal should be late enough to avoid urinary leakage and complications such as acute urinary retention (AUR) but early enough to avoid unnecessary catheter indwelling.

Materials and methods

A consecutive single-institutional series of patients underwent RARP between July 2015 and August 2017 and were entered in a prospectively maintained data base. Between July 2015 and December 2016 a cystogram was performed on 7th postoperative day (group A), thereafter the cystogram was performed on 4th postoperative day (group B). Incidence of acute urinary retention (AUR), urinary tract infections (UTI) and adverse events between the two cohorts was compared.

Results

425 patients were analyzed (group A: n = 231; group B: n = 194). Both cohorts were comparable regarding demographic and oncological parameters. Watertight anastomosis was present in 84.8% in group A and in 82.5% in group B, respectively. AUR within 4 weeks after RARP occurred in 2.2% (n = 3) in A and 9.4% (n = 15) in B (p = 0.001). AUR within 72 h after catheter removal occurred in group A: 1% (n = 2) and in group B: 6.3% (n = 10) (p = 0.005). Symptomatic urinary tract infections occurred in 8.2% (n = 16) in group A and in 6.9% (n = 11) in group B. There were no differences in the rate of secondary anastomosis dehiscence. Age, BMI, prostate size, surgeon, or intraoperative bladder neck reconstruction were not correlated to the occurrence of AUR or UTI.

Conclusions

The removal of indwelling catheter on day 4 after a RARP with a running barbed suture shows similar anastomosis leakage rates as on the 7th postoperative day. However, AUR rates are higher for early removal. Patients scheduled for early removal should be carefully informed about the increased risk for AUR. Catheter indwelling time does not represent a risk factor for UTI.

Consensus statements on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer from the Hong Kong Urological Association and the Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology

OBJECTIVE

To formulate consensus statements to facilitate physician management strategies for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) in Hong Kong by jointly convening a panel of 12 experts from the two local professional organizations representing PCa specialists, who had previously established consensus statements on the management of metastatic PCa for the locality.

METHODS

Through a series of meetings, the panellists discussed their clinical experience and the published evidence regarding various areas of the management of localized PCa, then drafted consensus statements. At the final meeting, each drafted statement was voted on by every panellist based on its practicability of recommendation in the locality.

RESULTS

A total of 76 consensus statements were ultimately accepted and established by panel voting.

CONCLUSION

Derived from the recent evidence and major overseas guidelines, along with local clinical experience and practicability, the consensus statements were aimed to serve as a practical reference for physicians in Hong Kong for the management of localized PCa.

Robotic surgery improves transfusion rate and perioperative outcomes using a broad implementation process and multiple surgeon learning curves

INTRODUCTION

Data from a randomized trial suggest transfusion rates are similar for robotic and open prostatectomy. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes of robotic and open prostatectomy at a Canadian academic centre.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all prostatectomies performed by all surgeons at The Ottawa Hospital between 2009 and 2016 was completed. Cases and outcomes were identified using an administrative data warehouse. Extracted data included patient factors (age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Elixhauser comorbidity score), operative factors (length of operation, surgical approach, anesthesia type), and perioperative outcomes (length of recovery room and hospital stay, transfusion rate, hospital cost). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between robotic and open surgical approaches. The primary outcome was transfusion during the index admission.

RESULTS

A total of 1606 prostatectomies were performed by 12 surgeons during the study period (840 robotic, 766 open). The rate of transfusion was lower in patients undergoing robotic compared to open surgery (0.6% vs. 11.2%; p<0.001). The robotic prostatectomy cohort had a shorter length of stay in the recovery room (155.7 vs. 231.1 minutes; p<0.001) and shorter length of hospital admission (1.4 vs. 2.8 days; p<0.001). Hospital costs per case were approximately $800 more for robotic prostatectomy ($11 475 vs. $10 656; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This hospital-wide analysis revealed that robotic prostatectomy is associated with a lower transfusion rate compared to the open approach. Further studies emphasizing patient-reported outcomes are needed.

Robotic-assisted vs. open radical prostatectomy: A machine learning framework for intelligent analysis of patient-reported outcomes from online cancer support groups

BACKGROUND

The advantages of Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RARP) over open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in Prostate cancer perioperatively are well-established, but quality of life is more contentious. Increasingly, patients are utilising online cancer support groups (OCSG) to express themselves. Currently there is no method of analysis of these sophisticated data sources. We have used the PRIME-2 (Patient Reported Information Multidimensional Exploration version 2) framework for automated identification and intelligent analysis of decision-making, functional and emotional outcomes in men undergoing ORP vs. RARP from OCSG discussions.

METHODS

The PRIME-2 framework was developed to retrospectively analyse individualised patient-reported information from 5,157 patients undergoing RARP and 579 ORP. The decision factors, side effects, and emotions in 2 groups were analysed and compared using Chi-squared, t tests, and Pearson correlation.

RESULTS

There were no differences in Gleason score, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), and age between the groups. Surgeon experience and preservation of erectile function (P < 0.01) were important factors in the decision making process. There were no significant differences in urinary, sexual, or bowel symptoms between ORP and RARP on a monthly basis during the initial 12 months. Emotions expressed by patients undergoing RARP were more consistent and positive while ORP expressed more negative emotions at the time of surgery and 3 months postsurgery (P < 0.05), due to pain and discomfort, and during ninth month due to fear and anxiety of pending PSA tests.

CONCLUSIONS

ORP and RARP demonstrated similar side effect profiles for 12 months, but PRIME-2 enables identification of important quality of life features and emotions over time. It is timely for clinicians to accept OCSG as an adjunct to Prostate cancer care.

[Robots in urology-an analysis of current and future devices]

The monopoly of robotic surgical devices of the last 15 years will end in 2019 when key patents of Intuitive Surgical expire. Thus, we can expect an interesting competitive situation in the coming years. Based on personal experience with robot-assisted surgery since 2001, we conducted a search of the current literature together with a search of relevant patents in this field. Finally, we visited the websites of manufacturers of existing and future robotic surgical devices with possible applications in urology. Such devices have to prove that they meet the high-quality standard of the current Da Vinci series (SI, X, XI). For this purpose, we propose to classify the main features of the different devices, such as type of console (closed/open), arrangement of robotic arms (single/multiple carts/attached to operating room table), type of three-dimensional videosystem (by mirror/ocular/using polarizing glasses) or degrees of freedom (DOF) of end effectors (5 vs. 7 DOF). In the meantime, there are also robotic systems used in endourology: Avicenna Roboflex® and the AquaBeam® system for robot-assisted aquablation therapy of the prostate. While Roboflex® improves the ergonomics of flexible ureteroscopy-similar to the Da Vinci robot, AquaBeam® may for the first time eliminate the surgeon, who might only be needed to manage severe postoperative bleeding.

Robotics in urology

Twenty years after it was introduced, robotic surgery has become more commonplace in urology – we examine its current uses and controversies

Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised prostate cancer. Prostatectomy has traditionally been performed as open surgery, typically via a retropubic approach. The advent of laparoscopic approaches, including robotic-assisted, provides a minimally invasive alternative to open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to ORP, including pseudo-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two unique studies with 446 randomised participants with clinically localised prostate cancer. The mean age, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of the participants were 61.3 years, 49.78 mL, and 7.09 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on data from one trial, RARP likely results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (MD -1.30, 95% CI -4.65 to 2.05) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI -1.84 to 9.64). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate for both quality of life outcomes, downgrading for study limitations. Secondary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival.Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32). We rated the quality of evidence as low for both surgical complications, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision.Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at one day (MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.68 ) and up to one week (MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.17). We rated the quality of evidence for both time-points as low, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision. Based on one study, RARP likely results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.34). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on one study, RARP likely reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.25). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on two study, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.46). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1000 men (95% CI 78 fewer to 48 fewer). We rated the quality of evidence as low, downgrading for study limitations and indirectness.We were unable to perform any of the prespecified secondary analyses based on the available evidence. All available outcome data were short-term and we were unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared to ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life-related outcomes appear similar.Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions. All available outcome data were short-term, and this study was unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.