Literature DB >> 24746665

Biochemical recurrence-free survival after robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

Chad R Ritch1, Chaochen You2, Alexandra T May2, S Duke Herrell2, Peter E Clark2, David F Penson2, Sam S Chang2, Michael S Cookson3, Joseph A Smith2, Daniel A Barocas2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival and predictors of BCR in intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) vs open radical prostatectomy (ORP).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on 1336 men with D'Amico IR or HR prostate cancer who underwent RALP or ORP between 2003 and 2009. Exclusion criteria were use of neoadjuvant therapy, <6 months of follow-up, and insufficient clinicopathologic data. We compared demographic, clinical, and pathologic variables between groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare the 5-year BCR-free survival between groups. Multivariate models were developed to determine whether surgical approach influences BCR.
RESULTS: A total of 979 IR and HR patients (237 ORP and 742 RALP patients) met inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was shorter for RALP (43 vs 63 months; P<.001). ORP patients had a higher median prostate-specific antigen level (7.9 vs 6.7 ng/mL; P<.002), significantly more Gleason sum 8-10 tumors, and more adverse pathologic features overall. There was no difference in positive surgical margins between groups. Pathologic features including extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle involvement, lymph node involvement, pathologic Gleason sum, and positive surgical margin were significant independent predictors of BCR in multivariate analysis. Surgical approach (RALP vs ORP) did not predict BCR when controlling for other known predictors of BCR.
CONCLUSION: Among IR and HR prostate cancer patients, the oncologic outcomes are similar between RALP and ORP. Not surprisingly, adverse pathologic features are harbingers of BCR.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24746665     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  11 in total

1.  Oncologic Outcome of Radical Prostatectomy as Monotherapy for Men with High-risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Junya Furukawa; Hideaki Miyake; Taka-Aki Inoue; Takayoshi Ogawa; Hirokazu Tanaka; Masato Fujisawa
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2016-05-20

2.  Dose-volume Histogram-based Predictors for Hematuria and Rectal Hemorrhage in Patients Receiving Radiotherapy After Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Katsuyuki Shirai; Masato Suzuki; Keiko Akahane; Yuta Takahashi; Masahiro Kawahara; Erika Yamada; Masaru Wakatsuki; Kazunari Ogawa; Satrou Takahashi; Kyosuke Minato; Kohei Hamamoto; Kimitoshi Saito; Masashi Oshima; Tsuzumi Konishi; Yuhki Nakamura; Satoshi Washino; Tomoaki Miyagawa
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 3.  Long-term cancer control outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lei Wang; Baojun Wang; Qing Ai; Yu Zhang; Xiangjun Lv; Hongzhao Li; Xin Ma; Xu Zhang
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-02-25       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  Evaluation of tumor morphologies and association with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in grade group 5 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Trevor A Flood; Nicola Schieda; Jordan Sim; Rodney H Breau; Chris Morash; Eric C Belanger; Susan J Robertson
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 5.  Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update.

Authors:  Kun Tang; Kehua Jiang; Hongbo Chen; Zhiqiang Chen; Hua Xu; Zhangqun Ye
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-05-09

Review 6.  Positive surgical margin is associated with biochemical recurrence risk following radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis from high-quality retrospective cohort studies.

Authors:  Lijin Zhang; Bin Wu; Zhenlei Zha; Hu Zhao; Yuefang Jiang; Jun Yuan
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 2.754

7.  Clinical outcomes and costs of robotic surgery in prostate cancer: a multiinstitutional study in Korea.

Authors:  Ji Eun Yun; Na Rae Lee; Cheol Kwak; Koon Ho Rha; Seong Il Seo; Sung-Hoo Hong; Young Goo Lee; Dong Ah Park; Choung Soo Kim; Seon Heui Lee
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2018-05-04

Review 8.  Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: Current status of its use as a treatment endpoint and early management strategies.

Authors:  Barrett Z McCormick; Ali M Mahmoud; Stephen B Williams; John W Davis
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2019 Jan-Mar

9.  Surgeon heterogeneity significantly affects functional and oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy in the Swedish LAPPRO trial.

Authors:  Martin Nyberg; Daniel D Sjoberg; Sigrid V Carlsson; Ulrica Wilderäng; Stefan Carlsson; Johan Stranne; Peter Wiklund; Gunnar Steineck; Eva Haglind; Jonas Hugosson; Anders Bjartell
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  Risk of Recurrent Disease 6 Years After Open or Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the Prospective Controlled Trial LAPPRO.

Authors:  Martin Nyberg; Olof Akre; David Bock; Sigrid V Carlsson; Stefan Carlsson; Jonas Hugosson; Anna Lantz; Gunnar Steineck; Johan Stranne; Stavros Tyritzis; Peter Wiklund; Eva Haglind; Anders Bjartell
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2020-08-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.