Literature DB >> 20083261

Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival.

Daniel A Barocas1, Shady Salem, Yakup Kordan, S Duke Herrell, Sam S Chang, Peter E Clark, Rodney Davis, Roxelyn Baumgartner, Sharon Phillips, Michael S Cookson, Joseph A Smith.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared biochemical recurrence-free survival of patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy vs robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in concurrent series at a single institution.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2,132 patients were treated between June 2003 and January 2008. We excluded from study patients with prior treatment (115), missing data (83) and lymph node involvement (30). The remaining cohort (1,904) was compared based on clinical, surgical and pathological factors. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed comparing biochemical recurrence after robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and radical retropubic prostatectomy. A Cox proportional hazards model was generated to determine whether surgical approach is an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence.
RESULTS: There were 491 radical retropubic prostatectomies (25.9%) and 1,413 robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomies (74.1%) performed, and median followup was 10 months (IQR 2 to 23). On univariate analysis the robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group was slightly lower risk with lower median prostate specific antigen (5.4 vs 5.8, p <0.01), a lower proportion of pathological grade 7-10 (48.5% vs 54.7%, p <0.01) and lower pathological stage (80.5% pT2 vs 69.6% pT2, p <0.01). The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rate was similar between the robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and radical retropubic prostatectomy groups on the whole as well as when stratified by pathological stage, grade and margin status. On multivariate analysis extracapsular extension (p <0.01), pathological grade 7 or greater (p <0.01) and positive surgical margin (p <0.01) were independent predictors of biochemical recurrence while surgical approach was not.
CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of biochemical recurrence was similar between groups when stratified by known risk factors of recurrence. Surgical approach was not a significant predictor of biochemical recurrence in the multivariate model. Our analysis is suggestive of comparable effectiveness for robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, although longer term studies are needed. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20083261     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.017

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


  33 in total

1.  Variations in the quality of care at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Jay Jhaveri; Maxine Sun; Khurshid R Ghani; Jan Schmitges; Wooju Jeong; James O Peabody; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Mani Menon
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2012-04

Review 2.  Evidence-based comparison of robotic and open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  William T Lowrance; Tatum V Tarin; Shahrokh F Shariat
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2010-11-16

3.  Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy after more than 5 years.

Authors:  Michele Billia; Oussama Elhage; Benjamin Challacombe; Declan Cahill; Rick Popert; Kathy Holmes; Roger Sinclair Kirby; Prokar Dasgupta
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience.

Authors:  Jinsung Park; Dae-Seon Yoo; Cheryn Song; Sahyun Park; Sejun Park; Seong Cheol Kim; Yongmee Cho; Hanjong Ahn
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-term Quality of Life Outcomes Following Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Vinay Prabhu; Ted Lee; Tyler R McClintock; Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2013

Review 6.  Quality of evidence to compare outcomes of open and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Branden Duffey; Briony Varda; Badrinath Konety
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Mid-term biochemical recurrence-free outcomes following robotic versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Charles-Henry Rochat; Jean Sauvain; Pierre Dubernard; April E Hebert; Usha Kreaden
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-04-09

8.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a single cancer center experience.

Authors:  Renato Almeida Rosa de Oliveira; Gustavo Cardoso Guimarães; Thiago Camelo Mourão; Ricardo de Lima Favaretto; Thiago Borges Marques Santana; Ademar Lopes; Stenio de Cassio Zequi
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-01-08

9.  Benchmarks for operative outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study.

Authors:  Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Martin Sanda; Derek Yecies; Lorelei A Mucci; Meir J Stampfer; Stacey A Kenfield
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Impact of positive surgical margins and their locations after radical prostatectomy: comparison of biochemical recurrence according to risk stratification and surgical modality.

Authors:  Min Soo Choo; Sung Yong Cho; Kyungtae Ko; Chang Wook Jeong; Seung Bae Lee; Ja Hyeon Ku; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Cheol Kwak; Hyeon Hoe Kim; Sang Eun Lee; Hyeon Jeong
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-12-21       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.