Jim C Hu1, Padraic O'Malley2, Bilal Chughtai3, Abby Isaacs4, Jialin Mao4, Jason D Wright5, Dawn Hershman6, Art Sedrakyan4. 1. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College-New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. Electronic address: jch9011@med.cornell.edu. 2. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College-New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York; Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. 3. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College-New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 4. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York. 6. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York; Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York; Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Robot-assisted surgery has been rapidly adopted in the U.S. for prostate cancer. Its adoption has been driven by market forces and patient preference, and debate continues regarding whether it offers improved outcomes to justify the higher cost relative to open surgery. We examined the comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted vs open radical prostatectomy in cancer control and survival in a nationally representative population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This population based observational cohort study of patients with prostate cancer undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy during 2003 to 2012 used data captured in the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare linked database. Propensity score matching and time to event analysis were used to compare all cause mortality, prostate cancer specific mortality and use of additional treatment after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 6,430 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies and 9,161 open radical prostatectomies performed during 2003 to 2012 were identified. The use of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy increased from 13.6% in 2003 to 2004 to 72.6% in 2011 to 2012. After a median followup of 6.5 years (IQR 5.2-7.9) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was associated with an equivalent risk of all cause mortality (HR 0.85, 0.72-1.01) and similar cancer specific mortality (HR 0.85, 0.50-1.43) vs open radical prostatectomy. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was also associated with less use of additional treatment (HR 0.78, 0.70-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has comparable intermediate cancer control as evidenced by less use of additional postoperative cancer therapies and equivalent cancer specific and overall survival. Longer term followup is needed to assess for differences in prostate cancer specific survival, which was similar during intermediate followup. Our findings have significant quality and cost implications, and provide reassurance regarding the adoption of more expensive technology in the absence of randomized controlled trials. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: Robot-assisted surgery has been rapidly adopted in the U.S. for prostate cancer. Its adoption has been driven by market forces and patient preference, and debate continues regarding whether it offers improved outcomes to justify the higher cost relative to open surgery. We examined the comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted vs open radical prostatectomy in cancer control and survival in a nationally representative population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This population based observational cohort study of patients with prostate cancer undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy during 2003 to 2012 used data captured in the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare linked database. Propensity score matching and time to event analysis were used to compare all cause mortality, prostate cancer specific mortality and use of additional treatment after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 6,430 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies and 9,161 open radical prostatectomies performed during 2003 to 2012 were identified. The use of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy increased from 13.6% in 2003 to 2004 to 72.6% in 2011 to 2012. After a median followup of 6.5 years (IQR 5.2-7.9) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was associated with an equivalent risk of all cause mortality (HR 0.85, 0.72-1.01) and similar cancer specific mortality (HR 0.85, 0.50-1.43) vs open radical prostatectomy. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was also associated with less use of additional treatment (HR 0.78, 0.70-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has comparable intermediate cancer control as evidenced by less use of additional postoperative cancer therapies and equivalent cancer specific and overall survival. Longer term followup is needed to assess for differences in prostate cancer specific survival, which was similar during intermediate followup. Our findings have significant quality and cost implications, and provide reassurance regarding the adoption of more expensive technology in the absence of randomized controlled trials. Copyright Â
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: Robert Steven Gerhard; Dattatraya Patil; Yuan Liu; Kenneth Ogan; Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Ashesh B Jani; Omer N Kucuk; Viraj A Master; Theresa W Gillespie; Christopher P Filson Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Scott M Glaser; Ronny Kalash; Dante R Bongiorni; Mark S Roberts; Goundappa K Balasubramani; Bruce L Jacobs; Sushil Beriwal; Dwight E Heron; Joel S Greenberger Journal: In Vivo Date: 2018 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Florian Rudolf Schroeck; Bruce L Jacobs; Sam B Bhayani; Paul L Nguyen; David Penson; Jim Hu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Adrien N Bernstein; Jonathan E Shoag; Ron Golan; Joshua A Halpern; Edward M Schaeffer; Wei-Chun Hsu; Paul L Nguyen; Art Sedrakyan; Ronald C Chen; Scott E Eggener; Jim C Hu Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Peter Chang; Andrew A Wagner; Meredith M Regan; Joseph A Smith; Christopher S Saigal; Mark S Litwin; Jim C Hu; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll; Eric A Klein; Adam S Kibel; Gerald L Andriole; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; David P Wood; Catrina M Crociani; Thomas K Greenfield; Dattatraya Patil; Larry A Hembroff; Kyle Davis; Linda Stork; Daniel E Spratt; John T Wei; Martin G Sanda Journal: J Urol Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Neil B Huben; Ahmed A Hussein; Paul R May; Michelle Whittum; Collin Krasowski; Youssef E Ahmed; Zhe Jing; Hijab Khan; Hyung L Kim; Thomas Schwaab; Willie Underwood; Eric C Kauffman; James L Mohler; Khurshid A Guru Journal: J Endourol Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 2.942