STUDY TYPE: Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4. OBJECTIVE: To validate the rationale of extended perineal radical prostatectomy (ePRP) for treating localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between December 2000 and May 2007, 196 patients with localized prostate cancer underwent PRP, among which 91 and 105 patients were treated with conventional PRP (cPRP) and ePRP, respectively. The apex, middle, base, and anterior regions of the prostate were separately analysed, and the focus of analysis was on the distribution, size, Gleason score, and positive surgical margins (PSMs) of prostate cancer foci. RESULTS: The operation time was significantly shorter in ePRP compared with cPRP (161 min vs 188 min; P= 0.001), while there was no significant difference in estimated blood loss between cPRP and ePRP (550 mL vs 500 mL). At the apex and base, there was no significant difference in the PSM rate between cPRP and ePRP. In the middle, there was a lower incidence of PSMs in ePRP (2.4%) than in cPRP (10.9%; P= 0.009). On the anterior side, PSMs were more frequent in cPRP (21.6%) than in ePRP (7.1%; P= 0.029). Logistic regression analysis adjusted by PSA level showed that PSM rate was the most significantly affected by the surgical approach. CONCLUSION: We think that ePRP provides an effective treatment strategy for localized prostate cancer in light of excellent cancer control and minimum potential of surgical invasiveness.
STUDY TYPE: Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4. OBJECTIVE: To validate the rationale of extended perineal radical prostatectomy (ePRP) for treating localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between December 2000 and May 2007, 196 patients with localized prostate cancer underwent PRP, among which 91 and 105 patients were treated with conventional PRP (cPRP) and ePRP, respectively. The apex, middle, base, and anterior regions of the prostate were separately analysed, and the focus of analysis was on the distribution, size, Gleason score, and positive surgical margins (PSMs) of prostate cancer foci. RESULTS: The operation time was significantly shorter in ePRP compared with cPRP (161 min vs 188 min; P= 0.001), while there was no significant difference in estimated blood loss between cPRP and ePRP (550 mL vs 500 mL). At the apex and base, there was no significant difference in the PSM rate between cPRP and ePRP. In the middle, there was a lower incidence of PSMs in ePRP (2.4%) than in cPRP (10.9%; P= 0.009). On the anterior side, PSMs were more frequent in cPRP (21.6%) than in ePRP (7.1%; P= 0.029). Logistic regression analysis adjusted by PSA level showed that PSM rate was the most significantly affected by the surgical approach. CONCLUSION: We think that ePRP provides an effective treatment strategy for localized prostate cancer in light of excellent cancer control and minimum potential of surgical invasiveness.