G Gandaglia1, Q-D Trinh2, J C Hu3, J Schiffmann4, A Becker4, F Roghmann5, I Popa6, Z Tian6, P Perrotte7, F Montorsi8, A Briganti8, P I Karakiewicz9, M Sun6, F Abdollah10. 1. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada; Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: giorgio.gandaglia@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. 3. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, USA. 4. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada; Martini-Clinic, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada; Department of Urology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany. 6. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada. 7. Department of Urology, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada. 8. Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 9. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada; Department of Urology, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada. 10. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada; Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous series during the dissemination era of minimally invasive techniques for treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) showed a declining use of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). The aim of our study was to re-assess the impact of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on the utilization rate of PLND and its extent in the post-dissemination period. METHODS: Relying on the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Medicare-linked database, 5804 patients with non-metastatic PCa undergoing open radical prostatectomy (ORP) or RARP between years 2008 and 2009 were identified. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses tested the relationship between surgical approach (RARP vs. ORP) and: 1 - the rate of PLND (pNx vs. pN0-1); and 2 - the extent of PLND (limited vs. extended). RESULTS: Overall, 3357 (57.8%) patients underwent a PLND. The proportion of patients treated with PLND was significantly higher among ORP vs. RARP patients: 71.2 vs. 48.6%, respectively (P < 0.001). In addition, the median number of lymph nodes removed was significantly higher for patients treated with ORP vs. RARP: 5 vs. 4, respectively (P < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, ORP was associated with 2.7- and 1.3-fold higher odds of undergoing PLND and of receiving an extended PLND compared to RARP, respectively (both P ≤ 0.001). Stratified analyses according to disease risk classifications revealed similar trends. CONCLUSIONS: In the post-dissemination era, RARP remains associated with a decreased use of PLND and suboptimum extent. Efforts should be made to improve guideline adherence in performing a PLND whenever indicated according to tumor aggressiveness, despite surgical approach.
INTRODUCTION: Previous series during the dissemination era of minimally invasive techniques for treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) showed a declining use of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). The aim of our study was to re-assess the impact of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on the utilization rate of PLND and its extent in the post-dissemination period. METHODS: Relying on the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Medicare-linked database, 5804 patients with non-metastatic PCa undergoing open radical prostatectomy (ORP) or RARP between years 2008 and 2009 were identified. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses tested the relationship between surgical approach (RARP vs. ORP) and: 1 - the rate of PLND (pNx vs. pN0-1); and 2 - the extent of PLND (limited vs. extended). RESULTS: Overall, 3357 (57.8%) patients underwent a PLND. The proportion of patients treated with PLND was significantly higher among ORP vs. RARP patients: 71.2 vs. 48.6%, respectively (P < 0.001). In addition, the median number of lymph nodes removed was significantly higher for patients treated with ORP vs. RARP: 5 vs. 4, respectively (P < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, ORP was associated with 2.7- and 1.3-fold higher odds of undergoing PLND and of receiving an extended PLND compared to RARP, respectively (both P ≤ 0.001). Stratified analyses according to disease risk classifications revealed similar trends. CONCLUSIONS: In the post-dissemination era, RARP remains associated with a decreased use of PLND and suboptimum extent. Efforts should be made to improve guideline adherence in performing a PLND whenever indicated according to tumor aggressiveness, despite surgical approach.
Authors: Jonas Schiffmann; Alessandro Larcher; Maxine Sun; Zhe Tian; Jérémie Berdugo; Ion Leva; Hugues Widmer; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Kevin C Zorn; Shahrokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Markus Graefen; Fred Saad; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Adrien N Bernstein; Jonathan E Shoag; Ron Golan; Joshua A Halpern; Edward M Schaeffer; Wei-Chun Hsu; Paul L Nguyen; Art Sedrakyan; Ronald C Chen; Scott E Eggener; Jim C Hu Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael A Liss; Sean P Stroup; Zhengtao Qin; Carl K Hoh; David J Hall; David R Vera; Christopher J Kane Journal: Urology Date: 2014-08-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Steven N Seyedin; Darrion L Mitchell; Sarah L Mott; J Kyle Russo; Chad R Tracy; Anthony N Snow; Jessica R Parkhurst; Mark C Smith; John M Buatti; John M Watkins Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 3.201
Authors: D K Osmonov; A V Aksenov; C A Jilg; W Schultze-Seeman; C M Naumann; M F Hamann; K Bothe; K-P Jünemann Journal: Urologe A Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 0.639