Jung Ki Jo1, Jong Jin Oh2, Sangchul Lee2, Seong Jin Jeong2, Sung Kyu Hong2, Seok-Soo Byun2, Sang Eun Lee3. 1. Department of Urology, Hanynag University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82, Gumi-ro, 173 Beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, Korea. 3. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82, Gumi-ro, 173 Beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, Korea. selee@snubh.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify the perioperative and oncological impact of different intervals between biopsy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: All consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent RALP with primary curative intent in January 2008-July 2014 in a large tertiary hospital were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. The patients were divided into groups according to whether the biopsy-RALP interval was ≤2, ≤4, ≤6, or >6 weeks. Estimated blood loss and operating room time were surrogates for surgical difficulty. Surgical margin status and continence at the 1 year were surrogates for surgical efficacy. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as two consecutive postoperative prostate serum antigen values of ≥0.2 ng/ml. RESULTS: Of the 1446 enrolled patients, the biopsy-RALP interval was ≤2, ≤4, ≤6, and >6 weeks in 145 (10 %), 728 (50.3 %), 1124 (77.7 %), and 322 (22.3 %) patients, respectively. The >6 week group had a significantly longer mean operation time than the ≤2, ≤4, and ≤6 week groups. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of estimated blood loss or surgical margin status. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that interval did not significantly affect postoperative BCR-free survival. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model analysis showed that interval duration was not an independent predictor of BCR (≤2 vs. >2 weeks, HR = 0.859, p = 0.474; ≤4 vs. >4 weeks, HR = 1.029, p = 0.842; ≤6 vs. >6 weeks, HR = 0.84, p = 0.368). CONCLUSION: Performing RALP within 2, 4, or 6 weeks of biopsy does not appear to adversely influence surgical difficulty or efficacy or oncological outcomes.
PURPOSE: To identify the perioperative and oncological impact of different intervals between biopsy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: All consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent RALP with primary curative intent in January 2008-July 2014 in a large tertiary hospital were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. The patients were divided into groups according to whether the biopsy-RALP interval was ≤2, ≤4, ≤6, or >6 weeks. Estimated blood loss and operating room time were surrogates for surgical difficulty. Surgical margin status and continence at the 1 year were surrogates for surgical efficacy. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as two consecutive postoperative prostate serum antigen values of ≥0.2 ng/ml. RESULTS: Of the 1446 enrolled patients, the biopsy-RALP interval was ≤2, ≤4, ≤6, and >6 weeks in 145 (10 %), 728 (50.3 %), 1124 (77.7 %), and 322 (22.3 %) patients, respectively. The >6 week group had a significantly longer mean operation time than the ≤2, ≤4, and ≤6 week groups. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of estimated blood loss or surgical margin status. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that interval did not significantly affect postoperative BCR-free survival. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model analysis showed that interval duration was not an independent predictor of BCR (≤2 vs. >2 weeks, HR = 0.859, p = 0.474; ≤4 vs. >4 weeks, HR = 1.029, p = 0.842; ≤6 vs. >6 weeks, HR = 0.84, p = 0.368). CONCLUSION: Performing RALP within 2, 4, or 6 weeks of biopsy does not appear to adversely influence surgical difficulty or efficacy or oncological outcomes.
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: 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: Firas Abdollah; R Jeffrey Karnes; Nazareno Suardi; Cesare Cozzarini; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Marco Bianchi; Stephen A Boorjian; Maxine Sun; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Joseph A Pettus; Timothy Masterson; Alexander Sokol; Angel M Cronin; Caroline Savage; Jaspreet S Sandhu; John P Mulhall; Peter T Scardino; Farhang Rabbani Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Robert K Nam; Michael A S Jewett; Murray D Krahn; Michael A Robinette; John Tsihlias; Ants Toi; Minnie Ho; Andrew Evans; Joan Sweet; John Trachtenberg Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Masood A Khan; Leslie A Mangold; Jonathan I Epstein; John K Boitnott; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: In Sung Kim; Woong Na; Jung Su Nam; Jong Jin Oh; Chang Wook Jeong; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2011-10-19
Authors: Sean F Mungovan; Sigrid V Carlsson; Gregory C Gass; Petra L Graham; Jaspreet S Sandhu; Oguz Akin; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Manish I Patel Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 14.432