Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies Reporting Oncologic Outcome After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
European Urology (Impact Factor: 10.48). 06/2012; 62(3):382-404. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.047
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Despite the large diffusion of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), literature and data on the oncologic outcome of RARP are limited.
Evaluate lymph node yield, positive surgical margins (PSMs), use of adjuvant therapy, and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival following RARP and perform a cumulative analysis of all studies comparing the oncologic outcomes of RARP and retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).
A systematic review of the literature was performed in August 2011, searching Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. A free-text protocol using the term radical prostatectomy was applied. The following limits were used: humans; gender (male); and publications dating from January 1, 2008. A cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager software v.4.2 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) and Stata 11.0 SE software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).
We retrieved 79 papers evaluating oncologic outcomes following RARP. The mean PSM rate was 15% in all comers and 9% in pathologically localized cancers, with some tumor characteristics being the most relevant predictors of PSMs. Several surgeon-related characteristics or procedure-related issues may play a major role in PSM rates. With regard to BCR, the very few papers with a follow-up duration >5 yr demonstrated 7-yr BCR-free survival estimates of approximately 80%. Finally, all the cumulative analyses comparing RARP with RRP and comparing RARP with LRP demonstrated similar overall PSM rates (RARP vs RRP: odds ratio [OR]: 1.21; p=0.19; RARP vs LRP: OR: 1.12; p=0.47), pT2 PSM rates (RARP vs RRP: OR: 1.25; p=0.31; RARP vs LRP: OR: 0.99; p=0.97), and BCR-free survival estimates (RARP vs RRP: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.9; p=0.526; RARP vs LRP: HR: 0.5; p=0.141), regardless of the surgical approach.
PSM rates are similar following RARP, RRP, and LRP. The few data available on BCR from high-volume centers are promising, but definitive comparisons with RRP or LRP are not currently possible. Finally, significant data on cancer-specific mortality are not currently available.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To obtain a histologic confirmation of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy, which still remains a challenge. Historically, biopsy protocols have been designed but have provided rather unsatisfactory results. We report the first case of histologic confirmation of a biochemical recurrence in the prostatectomy bed by performing 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy with fusion to magnetic resonance images. A 66-year-old man who underwent laparoscopic prostatectomy for a localized prostate cancer of Gleason sum 3+3=6 and preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 8.9 ng/L was followed up yearly. Postoperative serum PSA value was <0.04 ng/L. Nine years later, the patient developed a biochemical recurrence with an elevation of serum PSA level to 1.27 ng/mL. A 3-T endorectal positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan showed a 5 × 3 mm nodule in the prostatectomy bed in contact with the vesicourethral anastomosis without hypermetabolism. Two biopsies of this nodule were performed by using a 3-dimensional endorectal ultrasonography probe connected to the Koelis navigation system (Urostation; Koelis, Grenoble, France) with fusion to MRI images. Histologic findings confirmed the presence of a recurrence of the prostate cancer of Gleason sum 4+3=7 in both biopsies, and the patient was addressed to the radio-oncologist for salvage therapy. The use of a transrectal approach with 3-dimensional guidance and MRI fusion allows correct sampling of prostate cancer recurrence nodules in the prostate bed. This procedure is easily performed in the outpatient clinic but still has to be validated in a larger series. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Urology 11/2014; 84(5):e17-8. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2014.07.031 · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and Objectives: Robotic surgery has been advocated for the radical excision of rectal cancer. Most data supporting its use have been reported from European and Asian centers, with a paucity of data from the United States documenting clear advantages of the robotic technique. This study compares the short-term outcome of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic (group 1) or robotic (group 2) rectal cancer excision at a single institution over a 2-year period were retrospectively reviewed. The main outcome measures were operative time, blood loss, conversion rates, number of lymph nodes, margin positivity, length of hospital stay, complications, and readmission rates. Results: Forty-two patients were analyzed. The median operative time was shorter in group 1 than that in group 2 (240 minutes vs 260 minutes, P = .04). No difference was noted in blood loss, transfusion rates, intraoperative complications, or conversion rates. There was no difference in circumferential or distal margin positivity. The median length of stay was shorter in group 1 (5 days vs 6 days, P = .05). The 90-day complication rate was similar in both groups (33% vs 43%, P = .75), but there was a trend toward more anastomotic leaks in group 1 (14% vs 0%, P = .23). Similarly, a non-statistically significant trend toward a higher readmission rate was noted in group 1 (24% vs 5%, P = .18). Conclusion: Robotic rectal cancer excision yielded a longer operative time and hospital length of stay, although immediate oncologic results were comparable. The need for randomized data is critical to determine whether the added resource utilization in robotic surgery is justifiable.
    JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons / Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 07/2014; 18(3). DOI:10.4293/JSLS.2014.00020 · 0.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the impact of a single-surgeon learning curve on complications, positioning injuries, and renal function in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection for intermediate- or high-risk clinically localized prostate cancer. From November 2008 to October 2012, a total of 233 consecutive patients were treated by a single surgeon experienced in open and laparoscopic procedures. Four subgroups of patients (1: cases 1-59; 2: 60-117; 3: 118-175; and 4: 176-233) were compared. Complications were classified according to the modified Clavien system. Serum creatine kinase, as an indicator of tissue injury, was measured before, during, and for 5 days after surgery. Renal function monitoring was started preoperatively and ended at discharge. Minimum follow-up was 3 months. Variables were compared using chi-square and Wilcoxon tests. Overall, 115 complications were reported in 98 of 233 patients (42%) and significantly decreased after 175 procedures (P = .028). Minor complications (Clavien grades 1-2) represented the most frequent events (86 of 115 [75%]), with a significant drop in group 4 (P <.01). Similarly, the rate of positioning injuries (groups 1-4: 31%, 29%, 29%, and 7%, respectively) showed a significant improvement in group 4 (P = .023). Creatine kinase levels significantly decreased with increased experience (group 1 vs groups 2-4: P <.01). Renal function was unaltered postoperatively. A surgeon with extensive open and laparoscopic experience presents a safe learning curve in regard to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. With increasing experience, the rates of overall and positioning-related complications significantly decrease after 175 procedures. No detrimental effect on renal function is to be expected. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Urology 11/2014; 84(5):1106-11. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.047 · 2.13 Impact Factor


Available from
Nov 18, 2014