A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons

Department of Surgery, Urology Service, New York, NY, USA.
BJU International (Impact Factor: 3.13). 02/2013; 111(2):206-12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11638.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Radical prostatectomy provides local-regional control of prostate cancer and is the most common treatment for prostate cancer in the United States. Over the past decade there has been a shift in the surgical approach used to treat this disease, moving from open retropubic approach to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. While robotic prostatectomy has been demonstrated to result in less blood loss, fewer transfusions and shorter hospital duration, it has never been demonstrated in a meaningful prospective manner to result in improved or even equivalent oncological outcomes. Prior attempts to address this question have been hampered by methodological issues with study design, differences in case mix, or differences in surgical learning curve between surgeons. In this retrospective study we compared the oncological outcomes of open radical prostatectomy and robotic prostatectomy limiting our analysis to expert surgeons in their respective surgical approaches. Importantly, the patient cohort contained a majority of patients with intermediate- and high-risk features and all surgeons attempted to adhere to strict oncological principles, including performing complete pelvic lymph node dissections in almost all of the patients in the study. The results demonstrate that oncological outcomes show no significant difference with respect to surgical approach, even for patients with higher risk features, and that there is more variation between individual surgeons than between surgical approaches.
To compare early oncological outcomes of robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) performed by high volume surgeons in a contemporary cohort.
We reviewed patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer by high volume surgeons performing RALP or ORP. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL or PSA ≥ 0.05 ng/mL with receipt of additional therapy. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and BCR using a predictive model (nomogram) based on preoperative stage, grade, volume of disease and PSA. To explore the impact of differences between surgeons, multivariable analyses were repeated using surgeon in place of approach.
Of 1454 patients included, 961 (66%) underwent ORP and 493 (34%) RALP and there were no important differences in cancer characteristics by group. Overall, 68% of patients met National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for intermediate or high risk disease and 9% had lymph node involvement. Positive margin rates were 15% for both open and robotic groups. In a multivariate model adjusting for preoperative risk there was no significant difference in BCR rates for RALP compared with ORP (hazard ratio 0.88; 95% CI 0.56-1.39; P = 0.6). The interaction term between nomogram risk and procedure type was not statistically significant. Using NCCN risk group as the covariate in a Cox model gave similar results (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.47-1.17; P = 0.2). The interaction term between NCCN risk and procedure type was also non-significant. Differences in BCR rates between techniques (4.1% vs 3.3% adjusted risk at 2 years) were smaller than those between surgeons (2.5% to 4.8% adjusted risk at 2 years).
In this relatively high risk cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy we found no evidence to suggest that ORP resulted in better early oncological outcomes then RALP. Oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy may be driven more by surgeon factors than surgical approach.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival and predictors of BCR in intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) vs open radical prostatectomy (ORP). We conducted a retrospective study on 1336 men with D'Amico IR or HR prostate cancer who underwent RALP or ORP between 2003 and 2009. Exclusion criteria were use of neoadjuvant therapy, <6 months of follow-up, and insufficient clinicopathologic data. We compared demographic, clinical, and pathologic variables between groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare the 5-year BCR-free survival between groups. Multivariate models were developed to determine whether surgical approach influences BCR. A total of 979 IR and HR patients (237 ORP and 742 RALP patients) met inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was shorter for RALP (43 vs 63 months; P <.001). ORP patients had a higher median prostate-specific antigen level (7.9 vs 6.7 ng/mL; P <.002), significantly more Gleason sum 8-10 tumors, and more adverse pathologic features overall. There was no difference in positive surgical margins between groups. Pathologic features including extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle involvement, lymph node involvement, pathologic Gleason sum, and positive surgical margin were significant independent predictors of BCR in multivariate analysis. Surgical approach (RALP vs ORP) did not predict BCR when controlling for other known predictors of BCR. Among IR and HR prostate cancer patients, the oncologic outcomes are similar between RALP and ORP. Not surprisingly, adverse pathologic features are harbingers of BCR.
    Urology 04/2014; 83(6). DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.023 · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Positive surgical margins (PSM) at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP) result in an increased risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) and secondary treatment. We review current literature with a focus on stratifying the characteristics of the PSM that may define its significance, the impact of modern imaging and surgical approaches in avoidance of PSM, and management strategies when PSM do occur. We performed a review of the available literature to identify factors associated with PSM and their management. PSM have been repeatedly demonstrated to be associated with an increased risk of BCR following RP. The specific characteristics (size, number, location, Gleason score at the margin) of the PSM may influence the risk of recurrence. Novel imaging and surgical approaches are being investigated and may allow for reductions of PSM in the future. The use of adjuvant treatment for a PSM remains controversial and should be decided on an individual basis after a discussion about the risks and benefits. The goal of RP is complete resection of the tumor. PSM are associated with increased risk of BCR and secondary treatments. Of the risk factors associated with BCR after RP, a PSM is directly influenced by surgical technique.
    Indian Journal of Urology 10/2014; 30(4):423-8. DOI:10.4103/0970-1591.134240
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives To compare the oncological outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with those of open radical prostatectomy in contemporary Korean prostate cancer patients.Methods From a group of 1172 patients consisting of 592 (50.5%) robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and 580 (49.5%) open radical prostatectomy cases carried out between 1992 and 2008, 175 robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy cases were matched with an equal number of open radical prostatectomy cases by propensity scoring based on patient age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, biopsy Gleason score and clinical tumor stage. Competing-risks survival analyses were used to evaluate oncological outcomes, including rates of positive surgical margin, biochemical-recurrence, adjuvant therapy, cancer-specific survival, overall survival and metastasis-free survival during the mean follow up of 58.4 months.ResultsPositive surgical margin rates were comparable between robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy cohorts (19.4% vs 21.8%), with comparable rates for all pathological stages and risk subgroups. Positive surgical margin rates according to location were comparable, with the apical margin being the most common location. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy recovered higher lymph node yields compared with open radical prostatectomy (12.5 vs 3.8; P < 0.001). The robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and the open radical prostatectomy groups showed equal oncological outcomes regarding 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (log-rank P = 0.651), metastasis-free survival (log-rank P = 0.876), cancer-specific survival (log-rank P = 0.076) and overall survival (log-rank P = 0.648), respectively. Between groups, there was no difference in the rate of adjuvant therapy, time to first adjuvant therapy failure or in the rate of subsequent secondary treatment.Conclusions Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy represents an effective surgical approach for the treatment of prostate cancer in the Korean population, as it provides equivalent oncological outcomes to open radical prostatectomy.
    International Journal of Urology 04/2014; 21(8). DOI:10.1111/iju.12447 · 1.80 Impact Factor