OBJECTIVE: To compare early oncological outcomes of robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) performed by high volume surgeons in a contemporary cohort. METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer by high volume surgeons performing RALP or ORP. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL or PSA ≥ 0.05 ng/mL with receipt of additional therapy. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and BCR using a predictive model (nomogram) based on preoperative stage, grade, volume of disease and PSA. To explore the impact of differences between surgeons, multivariable analyses were repeated using surgeon in place of approach. RESULTS: Of 1454 patients included, 961 (66%) underwent ORP and 493 (34%) RALP and there were no important differences in cancer characteristics by group. Overall, 68% of patients met National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for intermediate or high risk disease and 9% had lymph node involvement. Positive margin rates were 15% for both open and robotic groups. In a multivariate model adjusting for preoperative risk there was no significant difference in BCR rates for RALP compared with ORP (hazard ratio 0.88; 95% CI 0.56-1.39; P = 0.6). The interaction term between nomogram risk and procedure type was not statistically significant. Using NCCN risk group as the covariate in a Cox model gave similar results (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.47-1.17; P = 0.2). The interaction term between NCCN risk and procedure type was also non-significant. Differences in BCR rates between techniques (4.1% vs 3.3% adjusted risk at 2 years) were smaller than those between surgeons (2.5% to 4.8% adjusted risk at 2 years). CONCLUSIONS: In this relatively high risk cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy we found no evidence to suggest that ORP resulted in better early oncological outcomes then RALP. Oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy may be driven more by surgeon factors than surgical approach.
OBJECTIVE: To compare early oncological outcomes of robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) performed by high volume surgeons in a contemporary cohort. METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer by high volume surgeons performing RALP or ORP. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL or PSA ≥ 0.05 ng/mL with receipt of additional therapy. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and BCR using a predictive model (nomogram) based on preoperative stage, grade, volume of disease and PSA. To explore the impact of differences between surgeons, multivariable analyses were repeated using surgeon in place of approach. RESULTS: Of 1454 patients included, 961 (66%) underwent ORP and 493 (34%) RALP and there were no important differences in cancer characteristics by group. Overall, 68% of patients met National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for intermediate or high risk disease and 9% had lymph node involvement. Positive margin rates were 15% for both open and robotic groups. In a multivariate model adjusting for preoperative risk there was no significant difference in BCR rates for RALP compared with ORP (hazard ratio 0.88; 95% CI 0.56-1.39; P = 0.6). The interaction term between nomogram risk and procedure type was not statistically significant. Using NCCN risk group as the covariate in a Cox model gave similar results (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.47-1.17; P = 0.2). The interaction term between NCCN risk and procedure type was also non-significant. Differences in BCR rates between techniques (4.1% vs 3.3% adjusted risk at 2 years) were smaller than those between surgeons (2.5% to 4.8% adjusted risk at 2 years). CONCLUSIONS: In this relatively high risk cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy we found no evidence to suggest that ORP resulted in better early oncological outcomes then RALP. Oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy may be driven more by surgeon factors than surgical approach.
Authors: Giovanni B Di Pierro; Philipp Baumeister; Patrick Stucki; Josef Beatrice; Hansjörg Danuser; Agostino Mattei Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew Vickers; Fernando Bianco; Angel Cronin; James Eastham; Eric Klein; Michael Kattan; Peter Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jonathan L Silberstein; Andrew J Vickers; Nicholas E Power; Samson W Fine; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Vincent P Laudone Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-04-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jonathan L Silberstein; Andrew J Vickers; Nicholas E Power; Raul O Parra; Jonathan A Coleman; Rodrigo Pinochet; Karim A Touijer; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Vincent P Laudone Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Andrew H Feifer; Elena B Elkin; William T Lowrance; Brian Denton; Lindsay Jacks; David S Yee; Jonathan A Coleman; Vincent P Laudone; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Guilherme Godoy; Kian Tai Chong; Angel Cronin; Andrew Vickers; Vincent Laudone; Karim Touijer; Bertrand Guillonneau; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Jonathan A Coleman Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Michael J Zelefsky; James A Eastham; Angel M Cronin; Zvi Fuks; Zhigang Zhang; Yoshiya Yamada; Andrew Vickers; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: William T Lowrance; James A Eastham; Caroline Savage; A C Maschino; Vincent P Laudone; Christopher B Dechet; Robert A Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Jaspreet S Sandhu Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Victor Srougi; Jose Bessa; Mohammed Baghdadi; Igor Nunes-Silva; Jose Batista da Costa; Silvia Garcia-Barreras; Eric Barret; Francois Rozet; Marc Galiano; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Xavier Cathelineau Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 4.226