Interval from Prostate Biopsy to Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (RALP): Effects on Surgical Difficulties

Pathological Characteristics of Prostate Cancer in Men Aged < 50 Years Treated with Radical Prostatectomy: a Multi-Centre Study in Korea

BACKGROUND

Recently, younger prostate cancer (PCa) patients have been reported to harbour more favourable disease characteristics after radical prostatectomy (RP) than older men. We analysed young men (<50 years) with PCa among the Korean population, paying attention to pathological characteristics on RP specimen and biochemical recurrence (BCR).

METHODS

The multi-centre, Severance Urological Oncology Group registry was utilized to identify 622 patients with clinically localized or locally advanced PCa, who were treated with RP between 2001 and 2017. Patients were dichotomized into two groups according to age (< 50-year-old [n = 75] and ≥ 50-year-old [n = 547]), and clinicopathological characteristics were analysed. Propensity score matching was used when assessing BCR between the two groups.

RESULTS

Although biopsy Gleason score (GS) was lower in younger patients (P = 0.033), distribution of pathologic GS was similar between the two groups (13.3% vs. 13.9% for GS ≥ 8, P = 0.191). There was no significant difference in pathologic T stage between the < 50- and ≥ 50-year-old groups (69.3% vs. 68.0% in T2 and 30.7% vs. 32.0% in ≥ T3, P = 0.203). The positive surgical margin rates were similar between the two groups (20.0% vs. 27.6%, P = 0.178). BCR-free survival rates were also similar (P = 0.644) between the two groups, after propensity matching.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to prior reports, younger PCa patients did not have more favourable pathologic features on RP specimen and showed similar BCR rates compared to older men. These findings should be considered when making treatment decisions for young Korean patients with PCa.

Can robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) be performed very soon after biopsy?

PURPOSE

To identify the perioperative and oncological impact of different intervals between biopsy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent RALP with primary curative intent in January 2008-July 2014 in a large tertiary hospital were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. The patients were divided into groups according to whether the biopsy-RALP interval was ≤2, ≤4, ≤6, or >6 weeks. Estimated blood loss and operating room time were surrogates for surgical difficulty. Surgical margin status and continence at the 1 year were surrogates for surgical efficacy. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as two consecutive postoperative prostate serum antigen values of ≥0.2 ng/ml.

RESULTS

Of the 1446 enrolled patients, the biopsy-RALP interval was ≤2, ≤4, ≤6, and >6 weeks in 145 (10 %), 728 (50.3 %), 1124 (77.7 %), and 322 (22.3 %) patients, respectively. The >6 week group had a significantly longer mean operation time than the ≤2, ≤4, and ≤6 week groups. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of estimated blood loss or surgical margin status. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that interval did not significantly affect postoperative BCR-free survival. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model analysis showed that interval duration was not an independent predictor of BCR (≤2 vs. >2 weeks, HR = 0.859, p = 0.474; ≤4 vs. >4 weeks, HR = 1.029, p = 0.842; ≤6 vs. >6 weeks, HR = 0.84, p = 0.368).

CONCLUSION

Performing RALP within 2, 4, or 6 weeks of biopsy does not appear to adversely influence surgical difficulty or efficacy or oncological outcomes.

Interval from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy does not affect immediate operative outcomes for open or minimally invasive approach

Traditionally, urologists recommend an interval of at least 4 weeks after prostate biopsy before radical prostatectomy. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether the interval from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy affects immediate operative outcomes, with a focus on differences in surgical approach. The study population of 1,848 radical prostatectomy patients was divided into two groups according to the surgical approach: open or minimally invasive. Open group included perineal and retropubic approach, and minimally invasive group included laparoscopic and robotic approach. The cut-off of the biopsy-to-surgery interval was 4 weeks. Positive surgical margin status, operative time and estimated blood loss were evaluated as endpoint parameters. In the open group, there were significant differences in operative time and estimated blood loss between the <4-week and ≥4-week interval subgroups, but there was no difference in positive margin rate. In the minimally invasive group, there were no differences in the three outcome parameters between the two subgroups. Multivariate analysis revealed that the biopsy-to-surgery interval was not a significant factor affecting immediate operative outcomes in both open and minimally invasive groups, with the exception of the interval ≥4 weeks as a significant factor decreasing operative time in the minimally invasive group. In conclusion, performing open or minimally invasive radical prostatectomy within 4 weeks of prostate biopsy is feasible for both approaches, and is even beneficial for minimally invasive radical prostatectomy to reduce operative time.

Evaluation of the 7th American Joint Committee on cancer TNM staging system for prostate cancer in point of classification of bladder neck invasion

OBJECTIVE

To assess the validity of the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system for prostate cancer, paying special attention to bladder neck invasion, in an Asian population.

METHODS

Clinicopathologic data of 368 men who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2003 and 2011 at our institution were reviewed. The main interest of this study was to confirm that both isolated positive bladder neck margin and positive bladder neck margin associated with other surgical margin have more favorable biochemical outcomes than seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b).

RESULTS

The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival for men with organ confined disease, extraprostatic extension, isolated positive bladder neck margin, positive bladder neck margin with other surgical margin and seminal vesicle invasion was 88.9, 74.8, 51.2, 19.4 and 18.8%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, the increased risk of progression associated with an isolated positive bladder neck margin (hazard ratio 4.34, 95% confidence interval 1.40-13.46, P = 0.011) was less than that of seminal vesicle invasion (hazard ratio 9.67, 95% confidence interval 3.70-25.25, P < 0.001). As for the positive bladder neck margin with other surgical margin, the increased risk of progression (hazard ratio 9.32, 95% confidence interval 3.50-24.82, P < 0.001) was similar to that of men with seminal vesicle invasion.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, men with isolated positive bladder neck margin and positive bladder neck margin plus other surgical margin had no worse biochemical outcomes than those with seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b). It is reasonable to classify prostate cancer with bladder neck invasion (the 6th American Joint Committee on Cancer edition pT4 category) into the 7th edition pT3 category.