PURPOSE: Salvage robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy is a treatment option for certain patients with recurrent prostate cancer after primary therapy. Data regarding patient selection, complication rates and cancer outcomes are scarce. We report the largest, single institution series to date, to our knowledge, of salvage robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our database of 4,234 patients treated with robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy at Vanderbilt University and identified 34 men who had surgery after the failure of prior definitive ablative therapy. Each patient had biopsy proven recurrent prostate cancer and no evidence of metastases. The primary outcome measure was biochemical failure. RESULTS: Median time from primary therapy to salvage robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy was 48.5 months with a median preoperative prostate specific antigen of 3.86 ng/ml. Most patients had Gleason scores of 7 or greater on preoperative biopsy, although 12 (35%) had Gleason 8 or greater disease. After a median followup of 16 months 18% of patients had biochemical failure. The positive margin rate was 26%, of which 33% had biochemical failure after surgery. On univariable analysis there was a significant association between prostate specific antigen doubling time and biochemical failure (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.99, p = 0.049) as well as between Gleason score at original diagnosis and biochemical failure (HR 3.49, 95% CI 1.18-10.3, p = 0.023). There were 2 Clavien II-III complications, namely a pulmonary embolism and a rectal laceration. Postoperatively 39% of patients had excellent continence. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy is safe, with many favorable outcomes compared to open salvage radical prostatectomy series. Advantages include superior visualization of the posterior prostatic plane, modest blood loss, low complication rates and short length of stay.
PURPOSE: Salvage robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy is a treatment option for certain patients with recurrent prostate cancer after primary therapy. Data regarding patient selection, complication rates and cancer outcomes are scarce. We report the largest, single institution series to date, to our knowledge, of salvage robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our database of 4,234 patients treated with robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy at Vanderbilt University and identified 34 men who had surgery after the failure of prior definitive ablative therapy. Each patient had biopsy proven recurrent prostate cancer and no evidence of metastases. The primary outcome measure was biochemical failure. RESULTS: Median time from primary therapy to salvage robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy was 48.5 months with a median preoperative prostate specific antigen of 3.86 ng/ml. Most patients had Gleason scores of 7 or greater on preoperative biopsy, although 12 (35%) had Gleason 8 or greater disease. After a median followup of 16 months 18% of patients had biochemical failure. The positive margin rate was 26%, of which 33% had biochemical failure after surgery. On univariable analysis there was a significant association between prostate specific antigen doubling time and biochemical failure (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.99, p = 0.049) as well as between Gleason score at original diagnosis and biochemical failure (HR 3.49, 95% CI 1.18-10.3, p = 0.023). There were 2 Clavien II-III complications, namely a pulmonary embolism and a rectal laceration. Postoperatively 39% of patients had excellent continence. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy is safe, with many favorable outcomes compared to open salvage radical prostatectomy series. Advantages include superior visualization of the posterior prostatic plane, modest blood loss, low complication rates and short length of stay.
Authors: Daher C Chade; James Eastham; Markus Graefen; Jim C Hu; R Jeffrey Karnes; Laurence Klotz; Francesco Montorsi; Hendrik van Poppel; Peter T Scardino; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Louis L Pisters; Dan Leibovici; Michael Blute; Horst Zincke; Thomas J Sebo; Jeffrey M Slezak; Jonathan Izawa; John F Ward; Shellie M Scott; Lydia Madsen; Philippe E Spiess; Bradley C Leibovich Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-06-13 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sanket Chauhan; Manoj B Patel; Rafael Coelho; Michael Liss; Bernardo Rocco; Ananth K Sivaraman; Kenneth J Palmer; Geoffrey D Coughlin; Robert G Ferrigni; Erik P Castle; Thomas E Ahlering; Eduard Parra-Davila; Vipul R Patel Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Daher C Chade; Shahrokh F Shariat; Angel M Cronin; Caroline J Savage; R Jeffrey Karnes; Michael L Blute; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Henk G van der Poel; Hendrik Van Poppel; Steven Joniau; Guilherme Godoy; Antonio Hurtado-Coll; Martin E Gleave; Marcos Dall'Oglio; Miguel Srougi; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ronald S Boris; Akshay Bhandari; L Spencer Krane; Daniel Eun; Sanjeev Kaul; James O Peabody Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-12-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jonathan A Eandi; Brian A Link; Rebecca A Nelson; David Y Josephson; Clayton Lau; Mark H Kawachi; Timothy G Wilson Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Patrick A Kenney; Cayce B Nawaf; Mahmoud Mustafa; Sijin Wen; Matthew F Wszolek; Curtis A Pettaway; John F Ward; John W Davis; Louis L Pisters Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: James L Mohler; Susan Halabi; Stephen T Ryan; Ali Al-Daghmin; Mitchell H Sokoloff; Gary D Steinberg; Ben L Sanford; James A Eastham; Philip J Walther; Michael J Morris; Eric J Small Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 5.554