Literature DB >> 12629339

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases a Montsouris Institute.

B Guillonneau1, H el-Fettouh, H Baumert, X Cathelineau, J D Doublet, G Fromont, G Vallancien.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We performed a prospective oncological evaluation of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in regard to local tumor control and biochemical recurrence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1998 and March 2002, 1,000 consecutive patients with a mean age +/- SD of 63 +/- 6.2 years and clinically localized prostate cancer underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at 1 institution. Preoperative 1997 TNM clinical stage was T1a in 6 patients (0.6%), T1b in 3 (0.3%), T1c in 660 (66.5%), T2a in 304 (30.4%) and T2b in 27 (2.7%). Mean preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA) +/- SD was 10 +/- 6.1 ng./ml. (range 1.5 to 55). Postoperatively, surgical specimens were assessed and positive surgical margins recorded. Factors that could influence the surgical margins status were evaluated. Irrespective of pathological stage or surgical margin status, no adjuvant treatment was proposed before an increasing PSA. PSA recurrence was defined as PSA greater than 0.1 ng./ml. and was confirmed by a second increase. Recurrence time was defined as the time of the first increase in PSA.
RESULTS: Postoperative pathological stage was pT2aN0/Nx in 203 patients (20.3%), pT2bN0/Nx in 572 (57.2%), pT3aN0/Nx in 142 (14.2%), pT3bN0/Nx in 77 (7.7%) and pT1-3 N1 in 6 (0.6%). Positive surgical margin rate was 6.9%, 18.6%, 30% and 34% for pathological stages pT2a, pT2b, pT3a and pT3b, respectively (p <0.001). The main predictors of a positive surgical margin were preoperative PSA (p <0.001), clinical stage (p = 0.001), pathological stage (p <0.001) and Gleason score (p = 0.003). The overall actuarial biochemical progression-free survival rate was 90.5% at 3 years. According to the pathological stage, the progression-free survival rate was 91.8% for pT2aN0/Nx, 88% for pT2bN0/Nx, 77% for pT3aN0/Nx, 44% for pT3bN0/Nx and 50% for pT1-3N1 (p <0.001). Of the patients 94% with negative surgical margins and 80% with positive margins had progression-free survival (p <0.001). Preservation of the neurovascular bundles in patients with localized tumors had no significant effect on the subsequent risk of positive surgical margins or progression-free survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on followup, our evaluation confirms that laparoscopic radical prostatectomy provides satisfactory results in regard to local tumor control and biochemical recurrence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12629339     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000055141.36916.be

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  73 in total

1.  [Endoscopy in urology].

Authors:  Günter Janetschek
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2003-06-24       Impact factor: 1.704

2.  Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE)--technical improvements and development of a nerve-sparing, potency-preserving approach.

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Michael C Truss; Minh Do; Robert Rabenalt; Heidemarie Pfeiffer; Michael Dunzinger; Bernd Aedtner; Christian G Stief; Udo Jonas; Wolfgang Dorschner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2003-07-25       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  [Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Results after 300 procedures].

Authors:  J-U Stolzenburg; M C Truss; R Rabenalt; M Do; H Pfeiffer; A Bekos; J Neuhaus; C G Stief; U Jonas; W Dorschner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: The European and US Experience.

Authors:  Julia Finkelstein; Elisabeth Eckersberger; Helen Sadri; Samir S Taneja; Herbert Lepor; Bob Djavan
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2010

Review 5.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: review and assessment of an emerging technique.

Authors:  J B Basillote; T E Ahlering; D W Skarecky; D I Lee; R V Clayman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-10-26       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Critical comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open radical prostatectomy: techniques, outcomes, and cost.

Authors:  Matthew T Gettman; Michael L Blute
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Intensive laparoscopic training: the impact of a simplified pelvic-trainer model for the urethrovesical anastomosis on the learning curve.

Authors:  Vassilis Poulakis; Ulrich Witzsch; Rachelle De Vries; Wolfgang Dillenburg; Matthias Moeckel; Eduard Becht
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-04-11       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  [Laparoscopic pelvic surgery: Where do we stand in the year 2006?].

Authors:  J Rassweiler; D Teber; J de la Rosette; P Laguna; V Pansodoro; T Frede
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 9.  Categorisation of complications of endoscopic extraperitoneal and laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Robert Rabenalt; Minh Do; Benjamin Lee; Michael C Truss; Hartwig Schwaibold; Martin Burchardt; Udo Jonas; Evangelos N Liatsikos
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-01-06       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Assessment of low prostate weight as a determinant of a higher positive margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective pathologic study of 1,500 cases.

Authors:  Peiguo G Chu; Sean K Lau; Lawrence M Weiss; Mark Kawachi; Jeffrey Yoshida; Christopher Ruel; Rebecca Nelson; Laura Crocitto; Timothy Wilson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-09-24       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.