PURPOSE: To assess the surgical approach using the pathological specimen obtained after open radical prostatectomy (ORP) or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALRP). METHODS: A prospective study has been performed in patients who underwent either ORP or RALRP for localized prostate cancer. Two dedicated uro-pathologists, blinded to the surgeons and the operating rooms' schedules, analyzed the pathological specimens according to the Stanford protocol. Both pathologists also determined the surgical approach used based on several criteria pertaining to the pathological specimen. RESULTS: Overall, 117 patients with a median age of 63 years were included. The main characteristics (i.e., Gleason score, pTNM stage, preoperative PSA and margin) were comparable in both groups (p > 0.05). Pathologists 1 and 2 were able to significantly assess the surgical procedure from the pathological specimen provided (in 76.1 and 69.2 % of cases, respectively). Pathologist 1 had a better performance than pathologist 2 (AUC 0.75, IC 95 % [0.67-0.83] vs. AUC = 0.68 IC 95 % [0.59-0.77]) (p = 0.017). The κ index of the inter-observer agreement was satisfactory (0.76). In a univariate analysis, the criteria linked to the pathologist's assessment were as follows: macroscopic integrity of the specimen (p = 0.04), presence of periprostatic fat (p = 0.04), width of periprostatic tissue (p < 0.001) and nerve-sparing status (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: It was possible to determine the surgical procedure from the analysis of the specimen obtained after a radical prostatectomy. In view of these data and from this perspective, one could infer that there are indeed oncological differences between the robotic and open approaches to radical prostatectomy.
PURPOSE: To assess the surgical approach using the pathological specimen obtained after open radical prostatectomy (ORP) or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALRP). METHODS: A prospective study has been performed in patients who underwent either ORP or RALRP for localized prostate cancer. Two dedicated uro-pathologists, blinded to the surgeons and the operating rooms' schedules, analyzed the pathological specimens according to the Stanford protocol. Both pathologists also determined the surgical approach used based on several criteria pertaining to the pathological specimen. RESULTS: Overall, 117 patients with a median age of 63 years were included. The main characteristics (i.e., Gleason score, pTNM stage, preoperative PSA and margin) were comparable in both groups (p > 0.05). Pathologists 1 and 2 were able to significantly assess the surgical procedure from the pathological specimen provided (in 76.1 and 69.2 % of cases, respectively). Pathologist 1 had a better performance than pathologist 2 (AUC 0.75, IC 95 % [0.67-0.83] vs. AUC = 0.68 IC 95 % [0.59-0.77]) (p = 0.017). The κ index of the inter-observer agreement was satisfactory (0.76). In a univariate analysis, the criteria linked to the pathologist's assessment were as follows: macroscopic integrity of the specimen (p = 0.04), presence of periprostatic fat (p = 0.04), width of periprostatic tissue (p < 0.001) and nerve-sparing status (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: It was possible to determine the surgical procedure from the analysis of the specimen obtained after a radical prostatectomy. In view of these data and from this perspective, one could infer that there are indeed oncological differences between the robotic and open approaches to radical prostatectomy.
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Thomas E Ahlering; Anthony Costello; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Mani Menon; Alexandre Mottrie; Vipul R Patel; Henk Van der Poel; Raymond C Rosen; Ashutosh K Tewari; Timothy G Wilson; Filiberto Zattoni; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Walter Artibani; Andrea Cestari; Antonio Galfano; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Bertrand Guillonneau; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul Patel; Jens Rassweiler; Hendrik Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-01-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Raymond C Rosen; Walter Artibani; Peter R Carroll; Anthony Costello; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul R Patel; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Henk Van der Poel; Timothy G Wilson; Filiberto Zattoni; Alexandre Mottrie Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Francesco Montorsi; Timothy G Wilson; Raymond C Rosen; Thomas E Ahlering; Walter Artibani; Peter R Carroll; Anthony Costello; James A Eastham; Vincenzo Ficarra; Giorgio Guazzoni; Mani Menon; Giacomo Novara; Vipul R Patel; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Henk Van der Poel; Hein Van Poppel; Alexandre Mottrie Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Simon P Kim; Stephen A Boorjian; Nilay D Shah; Christopher J Weight; Jon C Tilburt; Leona C Han; R Houston Thompson; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Maxine Sun; James P Moriarty; R Jeffrey Karnes Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 7.450