Literature DB >> 26573954

Comparison of oncological and health-related quality of life outcomes between open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer - findings from the population-based Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry.

Wee Loon Ong1,2, Sue M Evans3, Tim Spelman3,4, Paul A Kearns5, Declan G Murphy6,7, Jeremy L Millar3,8.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term oncological and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes between open (ORP) and robot-assisted (RARP) radical prostatectomy in the population-based Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective cohort of patients with prostate cancer who had RP (1117 ORP and 885 RARP) between January 2009 and June 2012. The oncological outcomes of interest were: positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR), defined as postoperative PSA level of >0.2 ng/mL. The HRQOL outcomes were: sexual and urinary bother, assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at 1- and 2-years after diagnosis. For univariate comparison of continuous variables the Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test were used, and the Pearson's chi-squared test was used for categorical variables. Bonferroni correction was applied to account for multiple testing, with a threshold for significance of P < 0.003 for univariate analyses. The inverse-probability-treatment-weighting (IPTW) approach was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between ORP and RARP patients [including age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk categories, hospitals, and year of RP] in all multivariate analyses. Logistic regressions were used to analyse for PSM, Cox regressions for BCR, and ordinal logistic regressions for HRQOL outcomes. All multivariate analyses also adjusted for surgeons' average annual caseload, and employed the robust standard errors for clustering by surgeon.
RESULTS: ORP and RARP patients were followed for a median of 19 and 17 months, respectively. The proportion of patients with NCCN low-risk prostate cancer was significantly higher among RARP patients (21% vs 26%; P = 0.002). Most RPs was done in private hospitals (77% ORP, and 85% RARP, P < 0.001). A higher proportion of RARP patients were operated by surgeons with higher annual caseloads (65% RARP and 53% ORP operated by surgeons with >20 case/year; P < 0.001). In the IPTW-adjusted multivariate analyses, RARP patients had a lower risk of PSM (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.81), and BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.99). In the sensitivity analyses (excluding public hospital patients), the lower PSM risk with RARP remained (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38-0.81), but the lower BCR risk with RARP was no longer statistically significant (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.12). At 1-year follow-up, 61% of ORP and 59% of RARP patients reported 'moderate-big' sexual bother (P = 0.2), while 14% of ORP and 11% of RARP patients reported 'moderate-big' urinary bother (P = 0.08). The sexual and urinary bothers at 2 years were similar between ORP and RARP. In multivariate analyses, there were no statistically significant differences in the HRQOL outcomes between ORP and RARP.
CONCLUSIONS: We report on a large population-based comparative study of ORP and RARP with better short-term oncological outcomes favouring RARP, but no significant differences in HRQOL outcomes. The results have to be interpreted taking into account significant surgeon heterogeneity in a population-based study.
© 2015 The Authors BJU International © 2015 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biochemical recurrence; health-related quality of life; prostate cancer; robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; surgical margin

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26573954     DOI: 10.1111/bju.13380

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  11 in total

1.  Income and health-related quality of life among prostate cancer patients over a one-year period after radical prostatectomy: a linear mixed model analysis.

Authors:  Jens Klein; Daniel Lüdecke; Kerstin Hofreuter-Gätgens; Margit Fisch; Markus Graefen; Olaf von dem Knesebeck
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-04-25       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a single cancer center experience.

Authors:  Renato Almeida Rosa de Oliveira; Gustavo Cardoso Guimarães; Thiago Camelo Mourão; Ricardo de Lima Favaretto; Thiago Borges Marques Santana; Ademar Lopes; Stenio de Cassio Zequi
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-01-08

3.  The effect of the type of surgery performed due to prostate cancer on preoperative patient anxiety, a prospective study.

Authors:  Batuhan Ergani; Mert Hamza Ozbilen; Mehmet Yigit Yalcın; Hayal Boyacıoglu; Yusuf Ozlem Ilbey
Journal:  Am J Clin Exp Urol       Date:  2021-02-15

4.  Versatility of 3D laproscopy for radical prostatectomy: A single tertiary cancer center experience.

Authors:  Dipin Jayaprakash; Keval Patel; Mohamed Mithi; Harish Neelamraju Lakshmi; Shahsank Pandya
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-02-14

5.  Urinary Incontinence-85: An Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite (EPIC) Score Cutoff Value for Urinary Incontinence Determined Using Long-term Functional Data by Repeated Prospective EPIC-Score Self-assessment After Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Karolin Bossert; Venkat M Ramakrishnan; Burkhardt Seifert; Kurt Lehmann; Lukas J Hefermehl
Journal:  Int Neurourol J       Date:  2017-12-31       Impact factor: 2.835

Review 6.  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

7.  Robot-assisted and laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes: A Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lan Cao; Zhenyu Yang; Lin Qi; Minfeng Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 1.817

8.  Comparison of urinary and sexual patient-reported outcomes between open radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity score matched, population-based study in Victoria.

Authors:  Michael Rechtman; Andrew Forbes; Jeremy L Millar; Melanie Evans; Lachlan Dodds; Declan G Murphy; Sue M Evans
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 9.  Postprostatectomy Erectile Dysfunction: A Review.

Authors:  Paolo Capogrosso; Andrea Salonia; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi
Journal:  World J Mens Health       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 5.400

Review 10.  Surgical Techniques for Managing Post-prostatectomy Erectile Dysfunction.

Authors:  Fabio Castiglione; David J Ralph; Asif Muneer
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-09-30       Impact factor: 3.092

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.