PURPOSE: Comparative data related to the use of open and minimally invasive surgical approaches for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remain limited. We determined outcomes of open radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted RP (RARP) in matched cohorts of patients with high-risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 805 patients with high-risk PCa [prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≥8, or clinical stage ≥cT2c] were identified. A total of 407 RRP cases were propensity score (PS) matched 1:1 to 398 LRP or RARP cases to yield 3 cohorts (RARP, LRP, and RRP) of 110 patients each for analysis. PS matching variables included the following: age, clinical stage, preoperative PSA, biopsy Gleason score, surgeon experience, and nerve-sparing technique. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared with log-rank test. RFS predictor analysis was calculated within Cox regression models. RESULTS: Pathological Gleason scores <7, =7, and >7 were found in 3.3, 50.9, and 45.8 % of patients. There were no statistically significant differences for pathological stage and positive surgical margins between surgical techniques. Mean 3-year RFS was 41.4, 77.9, and 54.1 %, for RARP, LRP, and RRP, respectively (p < 0.0001 for RARP vs. LRP). There were no significant differences for mean estimated 3-year OS for patients treated with RARP, LRP, or RRP (95.4, 98.1, and 100 %). CONCLUSIONS: RARP demonstrated similar oncologic outcomes compared to RRP and LRP in a PS-matched cohort of patients with high-risk prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: Comparative data related to the use of open and minimally invasive surgical approaches for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remain limited. We determined outcomes of open radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted RP (RARP) in matched cohorts of patients with high-risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 805 patients with high-risk PCa [prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≥8, or clinical stage ≥cT2c] were identified. A total of 407 RRP cases were propensity score (PS) matched 1:1 to 398 LRP or RARP cases to yield 3 cohorts (RARP, LRP, and RRP) of 110 patients each for analysis. PS matching variables included the following: age, clinical stage, preoperative PSA, biopsy Gleason score, surgeon experience, and nerve-sparing technique. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared with log-rank test. RFS predictor analysis was calculated within Cox regression models. RESULTS: Pathological Gleason scores <7, =7, and >7 were found in 3.3, 50.9, and 45.8 % of patients. There were no statistically significant differences for pathological stage and positive surgical margins between surgical techniques. Mean 3-year RFS was 41.4, 77.9, and 54.1 %, for RARP, LRP, and RRP, respectively (p < 0.0001 for RARP vs. LRP). There were no significant differences for mean estimated 3-year OS for patients treated with RARP, LRP, or RRP (95.4, 98.1, and 100 %). CONCLUSIONS: RARP demonstrated similar oncologic outcomes compared to RRP and LRP in a PS-matched cohort of patients with high-risk prostate cancer.
Authors: Ahmed Magheli; Mark L Gonzalgo; Li-Ming Su; Thomas J Guzzo; George Netto; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Christian P Pavlovich Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Maxine Sun; Praful Ravi; Khurshid R Ghani; Marco Bianchi; Wooju Jeong; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jens Hansen; Jan Schmitges; Claudio Jeldres; Craig G Rogers; James O Peabody; Francesco Montorsi; Mani Menon; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Gautam Jayram; Guarionex J Decastro; Michael C Large; Aria Razmaria; Gregory P Zagaja; Arieh L Shalhav; Charles B Brendler Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 2.942
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: Murilo A Luz; Ahmed F Kotb; Saad Aldousari; Fadi Brimo; Simon Tanguay; Wassim Kassouf; Armen G Aprikian Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Anthony V D'Amico; Richard Whittington; S Bruce Malkowicz; Kerri Cote; Marian Loffredo; Delray Schultz; Ming-Hui Chen; John E Tomaszewski; Andrew A Renshaw; Alan Wein; Jerome P Richie Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sanoj Punnen; Maxwell V Meng; Matthew R Cooperberg; Kirsten L Greene; Janet E Cowan; Peter R Carroll Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Bertram Yuh; Walter Artibani; Axel Heidenreich; Simon Kimm; Mani Menon; Giacomo Novara; Ashutosh Tewari; Karim Touijer; Timothy Wilson; Kevin C Zorn; Scott E Eggener Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-05-18 Impact factor: 20.096
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