-
Francesco Montorsi,
Timothy G Wilson,
Raymond C Rosen,
Thomas E Ahlering,
Walter Artibani, Peter R Carroll,
Anthony Costello,
James A Eastham,
Vincenzo Ficarra,
Giorgio Guazzoni,
Mani Menon,
Giacomo Novara,
Vipul R Patel,
Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg,
Henk Van der Poel,
Hein Van Poppel,
Alexandre Mottrie
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) has long been the most common surgical technique used to treat clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). More recently, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been gaining increasing acceptance among patients and urologists, and it has become the dominant technique in the United States despite a paucity of prospective studies or randomized trials supporting its superiority over RRP.
A 2-d consensus conference of 17 world leaders in prostate cancer and radical prostatectomy was organized in Pasadena, California, and at the City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California, under the auspices of the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section to systematically review the currently available data on RARP, to critically assess current surgical techniques, and to generate best practice recommendations to guide clinicians and related medical personnel. No commercial support was obtained for the conference.
A systematic review of the literature was performed in agreement with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement.
The results of the systematic literature review were reviewed, discussed, and refined over the 2-d conference. Key recommendations were generated using a Delphi consensus approach. RARP is associated with less blood loss and transfusion rates compared with RRP, and there appear to be minimal differences between the two approaches in terms of overall postoperative complications. Positive surgical margin rates are at least equivalent with RARP, but firm conclusions about biochemical recurrence and other oncologic end points are difficult to draw because the follow-up in existing studies is relatively short and the overall experience with RARP in locally advanced PCa is still limited. RARP may offer advantages in postoperative recovery of urinary continence and erectile function, although there are methodological limitations in most studies to date and a need for well-controlled comparative outcomes studies of radical prostatectomy surgery following best practice guidelines. Surgeon experience and institutional volume of procedures strongly predict better outcomes in all relevant domains.
Available evidence suggests that RARP is a valuable therapeutic option for clinically localized PCa. Further research is needed to clarify the actual role of RARP in patients with locally advanced disease.
European urology 06/2012; 62(3):368-81. · 7.67 Impact Factor
-
Giacomo Novara,
Vincenzo Ficarra,
Simone Mocellin,
Thomas E Ahlering, Peter R Carroll,
Markus Graefen,
Giorgio Guazzoni,
Mani Menon,
Vipul R Patel,
Shahrokh F Shariat,
Ashutosh K Tewari,
Hendrik Van Poppel,
Filiberto Zattoni,
Francesco Montorsi,
Alexandre Mottrie,
Raymond C Rosen,
Timothy G Wilson
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
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.
European urology 06/2012; 62(3):382-404. · 7.67 Impact Factor
-
Vincenzo Ficarra,
Giacomo Novara,
Raymond C Rosen,
Walter Artibani, Peter R Carroll,
Anthony Costello,
Mani Menon,
Francesco Montorsi,
Vipul R Patel,
Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg,
Henk Van der Poel,
Timothy G Wilson,
Filiberto Zattoni,
Alexandre Mottrie
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) was proposed to improve functional outcomes in comparison with retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). In the initial RARP series, 12-mo urinary continence recovery rates ranged from 84% to 97%. However, the few available studies comparing RARP with RRP or LRP published before 2008 did not permit any definitive conclusions about the superiority of any one of these techniques in terms of urinary continence recovery.
The aims of this systematic review were (1) to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors for urinary incontinence after RARP, (2) to identify surgical techniques able to improve urinary continence recovery after RARP, and (3) to perform a cumulative analysis of all available studies comparing RARP versus RRP or LRP in terms of the urinary continence recovery rate.
A literature search was performed in August 2011 using the Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Medline search included only a free-text protocol using the term radical prostatectomy across the title and abstract fields of the records. The following limits were used: humans; gender (male); and publication date from January 1, 2008. Searches of the Embase and Web of Science databases used the same free-text protocol, keywords, and search period. Only comparative studies or clinical series including >100 cases reporting urinary continence outcomes were included in this review. Cumulative analysis was conducted using the Review Manager v.4.2 software designed for composing Cochrane Reviews (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).
We analyzed 51 articles reporting urinary continence rates after RARP: 17 case series, 17 studies comparing different techniques in the context of RARP, 9 studies comparing RARP with RRP, and 8 studies comparing RARP with LRP. The 12-mo urinary incontinence rates ranged from 4% to 31%, with a mean value of 16% using a no pad definition. Considering a no pad or safety pad definition, the incidence ranged from 8% to 11%, with a mean value of 9%. Age, body mass index, comorbidity index, lower urinary tract symptoms, and prostate volume were the most relevant preoperative predictors of urinary incontinence after RARP. Only a few comparative studies evaluated the impact of different surgical techniques on urinary continence recovery after RARP. Posterior musculofascial reconstruction with or without anterior reconstruction was associated with a small advantage in urinary continence recovery 1 mo after RARP. Only complete reconstruction was associated with a significant advantage in urinary continence 3 mo after RARP (odds ratio [OR]: 0.76; p=0.04). Cumulative analyses showed a better 12-mo urinary continence recovery after RARP in comparison with RRP (OR: 1.53; p=0.03) or LRP (OR: 2.39; p=0.006).
The prevalence of urinary incontinence after RARP is influenced by preoperative patient characteristics, surgeon experience, surgical technique, and methods used to collect and report data. Posterior musculofascial reconstruction seems to offer a slight advantage in terms of 1-mo urinary continence recovery. Update of a previous systematic review of literature shows, for the first time, a statistically significant advantage in favor of RARP in comparison with both RRP and LRP in terms of 12-mo urinary continence recovery.
European urology 06/2012; 62(3):405-17. · 7.67 Impact Factor
