Arnauld Villers1, Philippe Puech2, Vincent Flamand3, Georges-Pascal Haber4, Mihir M Desai5, Sebastien Crouzet6, Xavier Leroy7, Sameer Chopra5, Laurent Lemaitre2, Adil Ouzzane8, Inderbir S Gill5. 1. Department of Urology, CHU Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France; Inserm, U1189 - ONCO-THAI, CHRU Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France. Electronic address: arnauld-villers@univ-lille2.fr. 2. Inserm, U1189 - ONCO-THAI, CHRU Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France; Department of Radiology, CHU Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France. 3. Department of Urology, CHU Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France. 4. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. USC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Urology and Transplantation Department, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France. 7. Department of Pathology, CHU Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France. 8. Department of Urology, CHU Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France; Inserm, U1189 - ONCO-THAI, CHRU Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Focal ablative therapy may be a suboptimal option for anterior prostate cancers (APCs) reaching the prostate apex due to concerns for thermal injury to the external sphincter. OBJECTIVE: To explore the technical feasibility of anterior partial prostatectomy (APP) for isolated APCs detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and to report short-term oncologic and functional outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Following institutional review board approval, over an 8-yr period (2008-2015) 17 consenting patients were enrolled in a prospective single-arm single-center Innovation, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term (IDEAL) phase 2a study. Inclusion criteria comprised preurethral, low- to intermediate-risk APC diagnosed by MRI, and targeted biopsies. Robotic template APP was performed; posterolateral aspect of the submontanal urethra, peripheral zone, and periprostatic tissues were preserved intact. Median follow-up was 30 mo (interquartile range [IQR]: 25-70). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We noted the incidence of perioperative complications and examined reports of pathology, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), imaging, biopsies, and questionnaires. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Preoperatively, median PSA was 9.8 ng/ml, Gleason score was 6-7 (3 + 4), and cancer volume was 3.7cm3 (IQR: 1.7-4.6). The technique was feasible in all cases. Perioperative complications included anastomotic leak (12%; G2), urinary tract infection (6%; G2), and transient intestinal ileus in one case (6%; G2). At 3 mo, continence and potency rates were 100% and 83%, respectively. Median nadir PSA was 0.4 ng/ml (IQR: 0.3-0.7). All margins and posterolateral margins rates were 55% and 35%, respectively. APC recurrence-free survival at 2 yr was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.96). Four patients (24%) who recurred underwent an uncomplicated completion of robot-assisted prostatectomy. Regarding limitations, CIs are quite wide for reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic partial prostatectomy for isolated APC is feasible with good functional results. While promising, much more research is needed to verify our initial outcomes and appropriately position APP in the treatment paradigms for APC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We explored a novel approach for partial prostatic surgical ablation for prostate cancer located in the anterior part of the prostate as an alternative to other focal ablative techniques.
BACKGROUND: Focal ablative therapy may be a suboptimal option for anterior prostate cancers (APCs) reaching the prostate apex due to concerns for thermal injury to the external sphincter. OBJECTIVE: To explore the technical feasibility of anterior partial prostatectomy (APP) for isolated APCs detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and to report short-term oncologic and functional outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Following institutional review board approval, over an 8-yr period (2008-2015) 17 consenting patients were enrolled in a prospective single-arm single-center Innovation, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term (IDEAL) phase 2a study. Inclusion criteria comprised preurethral, low- to intermediate-risk APC diagnosed by MRI, and targeted biopsies. Robotic template APP was performed; posterolateral aspect of the submontanal urethra, peripheral zone, and periprostatic tissues were preserved intact. Median follow-up was 30 mo (interquartile range [IQR]: 25-70). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We noted the incidence of perioperative complications and examined reports of pathology, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), imaging, biopsies, and questionnaires. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Preoperatively, median PSA was 9.8 ng/ml, Gleason score was 6-7 (3 + 4), and cancer volume was 3.7cm3 (IQR: 1.7-4.6). The technique was feasible in all cases. Perioperative complications included anastomotic leak (12%; G2), urinary tract infection (6%; G2), and transient intestinal ileus in one case (6%; G2). At 3 mo, continence and potency rates were 100% and 83%, respectively. Median nadir PSA was 0.4 ng/ml (IQR: 0.3-0.7). All margins and posterolateral margins rates were 55% and 35%, respectively. APC recurrence-free survival at 2 yr was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.96). Four patients (24%) who recurred underwent an uncomplicated completion of robot-assisted prostatectomy. Regarding limitations, CIs are quite wide for reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic partial prostatectomy for isolated APC is feasible with good functional results. While promising, much more research is needed to verify our initial outcomes and appropriately position APP in the treatment paradigms for APC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We explored a novel approach for partial prostatic surgical ablation for prostate cancer located in the anterior part of the prostate as an alternative to other focal ablative techniques.
Authors: Uri Lindner; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Robert A Weersink; Sean R H Davidson; Orit Raz; Eugen Hlasny; Deanna L Langer; Mark R Gertner; Theodorus Van der Kwast; Masoom A Haider; John Trachtenberg Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-03-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: J de la Rosette; H Ahmed; J Barentsz; T Bjerklund Johansen; M Brausi; M Emberton; F Frauscher; D Greene; M Harisinghani; K Haustermans; A Heidenreich; G Kovacs; M Mason; R Montironi; V Mouraviev; T de Reijke; S Taneja; S Thuroff; B Tombal; J Trachtenberg; H Wijkstra; T Polascik Journal: J Endourol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Tobias Franiel; Debra A Goldman; Kazuma Udo; Karim A Touijer; Victor E Reuter; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Louise Dickinson; Hashim U Ahmed; Clare Allen; Jelle O Barentsz; Brendan Carey; Jurgen J Futterer; Stijn W Heijmink; Peter J Hoskin; Alex Kirkham; Anwar R Padhani; Raj Persad; Philippe Puech; Shonit Punwani; Aslam S Sohaib; Bertrand Tombal; Arnauld Villers; Jan van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Pierre Nevoux; Adil Ouzzane; Hashim U Ahmed; Mark Emberton; Rodolfo Montironi; Joseph C Presti; Arnauld Villers Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ian A Donaldson; Roberto Alonzi; Dean Barratt; Eric Barret; Viktor Berge; Simon Bott; David Bottomley; Scott Eggener; Behfar Ehdaie; Mark Emberton; Richard Hindley; Tom Leslie; Alec Miners; Neil McCartan; Caroline M Moore; Peter Pinto; Thomas J Polascik; Lucy Simmons; Jan van der Meulen; Arnauld Villers; Sarah Willis; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Christina Sze; Efrat Tsivian; Kae Jack Tay; Ariel A Schulman; Leah G Davis; Rajan T Gupta; Thomas J Polascik Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Arnauld Villers; Vincent Flamand; Rodríguez-Carlin Arquímedes; Philippe Puech; Georges-Pascal Haber; Mihir M Desai; Sebastien Crouzet; Adil Ouzzane; Inderbir S Gill Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-02-26 Impact factor: 5.969