Francesco Montorsi1, Giorgio Gandaglia2, Nicola Fossati3, Nazareno Suardi1, Cristian Pultrone4, Ruben De Groote5, Zach Dovey5, Paolo Umari5, Andrea Gallina1, Alberto Briganti1, Alexandre Mottrie5. 1. Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 2. Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; OLV Vattikuti Robotic Surgery Institute, Melle, Belgium. Electronic address: giorgio.gandaglia@gmail.com. 3. Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; OLV Vattikuti Robotic Surgery Institute, Melle, Belgium. 4. OLV Vattikuti Robotic Surgery Institute, Melle, Belgium; Department of Urology, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy. 5. OLV Vattikuti Robotic Surgery Institute, Melle, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Salvage lymph node dissection has been described as a feasible treatment for the management of prostate cancer patients with nodal recurrence after primary treatment. OBJECTIVE: To report perioperative, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted salvage nodal dissection (RASND) in patients with nodal recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively evaluated 16 patients affected by nodal recurrence following RP documented by positive positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Surgery was performed using DaVinci Si and Xi systems. A pelvic nodal dissection that included lymphatic stations overlying the external, internal, and common iliac vessels, the obturator fossa, and the presacral nodes was performed. In 13 (81.3%) patients a retroperitoneal lymph node dissection that included all nodal tissue located between the aortic bifurcation and the renal vessels was performed. MEASUREMENTS: Perioperative outcomes consisted of operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complications occurred within 30 d after surgery. Biochemical response (BR) was defined as a prostate-specific antigen level <0.2 ng/ml at 40 d after RASND. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median operative time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were 210min, 250ml, and 3.5 d. The median number of nodes removed was 16.5. Positive lymph nodes were detected in 11 (68.8%) patients. Overall, four (25.0%) and five (31.2%) patients experienced intraoperative and postoperative complications, respectively. Overall, one (6.3%) and four (25.0%) patients had Clavien I and II complications within 30 d after RASND, respectively. Overall, five (33.3%) patients experienced BR after surgery. Our study is limited by the small cohort of patients evaluated and by the follow-up duration. CONCLUSIONS: RASND represents a feasible procedure in patients with nodal recurrence after RP and provides acceptable short-term oncologic outcomes, where one out of three patients experience BR immediately after surgery. Long-term data are needed to confirm the effectiveness of this approach. PATIENT SUMMARY: We report our initial experience with robot-assisted salvage nodal dissection for the management of patients with lymph node recurrence after radical prostatectomy. This technique represents a feasible and effective approach, where no high-grade complications were recorded and one out of three patients experienced biochemical response at 40 d after surgery.
BACKGROUND: Salvage lymph node dissection has been described as a feasible treatment for the management of prostate cancerpatients with nodal recurrence after primary treatment. OBJECTIVE: To report perioperative, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted salvage nodal dissection (RASND) in patients with nodal recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively evaluated 16 patients affected by nodal recurrence following RP documented by positive positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Surgery was performed using DaVinci Si and Xi systems. A pelvic nodal dissection that included lymphatic stations overlying the external, internal, and common iliac vessels, the obturator fossa, and the presacral nodes was performed. In 13 (81.3%) patients a retroperitoneal lymph node dissection that included all nodal tissue located between the aortic bifurcation and the renal vessels was performed. MEASUREMENTS: Perioperative outcomes consisted of operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complications occurred within 30 d after surgery. Biochemical response (BR) was defined as a prostate-specific antigen level <0.2 ng/ml at 40 d after RASND. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median operative time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were 210min, 250ml, and 3.5 d. The median number of nodes removed was 16.5. Positive lymph nodes were detected in 11 (68.8%) patients. Overall, four (25.0%) and five (31.2%) patients experienced intraoperative and postoperative complications, respectively. Overall, one (6.3%) and four (25.0%) patients had Clavien I and II complications within 30 d after RASND, respectively. Overall, five (33.3%) patients experienced BR after surgery. Our study is limited by the small cohort of patients evaluated and by the follow-up duration. CONCLUSIONS: RASND represents a feasible procedure in patients with nodal recurrence after RP and provides acceptable short-term oncologic outcomes, where one out of three patients experience BR immediately after surgery. Long-term data are needed to confirm the effectiveness of this approach. PATIENT SUMMARY: We report our initial experience with robot-assisted salvage nodal dissection for the management of patients with lymph node recurrence after radical prostatectomy. This technique represents a feasible and effective approach, where no high-grade complications were recorded and one out of three patients experienced biochemical response at 40 d after surgery.
Authors: Gargi Kothari; Piet Ost; Patrick Cheung; Pierre Blanchard; Alison C Tree; Nicholas J van As; Simon S Lo; Drew Moghanaki; Andrew Loblaw; Shankar Siva Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Andreas Hiester; Alessandro Nini; Günter Niegisch; Christian Arsov; Hubertus Hautzel; Christina Antke; Lars Schimmöller; Peter Albers; Robert Rabenalt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Carlo A Bravi; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nazareno Suardi; Elio Mazzone; Daniele Robesti; Daniar Osmonov; Klaus-Peter Juenemann; Luca Boeri; R Jeffrey Karnes; Alexander Kretschmer; Alexander Buchner; Christian Stief; Andreas Hiester; Alessandro Nini; Peter Albers; Gaëtan Devos; Steven Joniau; Hendrik Van Poppel; Shahrokh F Shariat; Axel Heidenreich; David Pfister; Derya Tilki; Markus Graefen; Inderbir S Gill; Alexander Mottrie; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 24.267
Authors: Matthew Alberto; Arthur Yim; Nathan Papa; Shankar Siva; Joseph Ischia; Karim Touijer; James A Eastham; Damien Bolton; Marlon Perera Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 5.738