PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis comparing the rates of positive surgical margins (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) between open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: A systematic review was performed on Pubmed, Embase and Scopus databases in August 2016, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. References retrieved were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Black and Down's tool for quality assessment. RESULTS: Nine retrospective cohorts comparing ORP and RARP were selected and included in the meta-analysis. All studies reported the PSMs. Patients treated with RARP presented less risk of PSMs (risk difference -0.04, p 0.02) than those treated with ORP. Five articles reported hazard ratios for BCR-free survival. Patients treated with RARP had less risk of BCR (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.89) than those treated with ORP. Reports for PSM assessment were considered of adequate quality, while the studies retrieved for BCR assessment were considered limited because of the heterogeneity of their results. CONCLUSION: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with RARP have less risk of having PSM and BCR when compared to those treated with ORP. A strong conclusion is precluded due to the observational nature of the studies retrieved for our analysis.
PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis comparing the rates of positive surgical margins (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) between open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: A systematic review was performed on Pubmed, Embase and Scopus databases in August 2016, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. References retrieved were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Black and Down's tool for quality assessment. RESULTS: Nine retrospective cohorts comparing ORP and RARP were selected and included in the meta-analysis. All studies reported the PSMs. Patients treated with RARP presented less risk of PSMs (risk difference -0.04, p 0.02) than those treated with ORP. Five articles reported hazard ratios for BCR-free survival. Patients treated with RARP had less risk of BCR (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.89) than those treated with ORP. Reports for PSM assessment were considered of adequate quality, while the studies retrieved for BCR assessment were considered limited because of the heterogeneity of their results. CONCLUSION:Patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with RARP have less risk of having PSM and BCR when compared to those treated with ORP. A strong conclusion is precluded due to the observational nature of the studies retrieved for our analysis.
Entities:
Keywords:
High risk; Open radical prostatectomy; Prostate cancer; Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
Authors: Andrew Vickers; Fernando Bianco; Angel Cronin; James Eastham; Eric Klein; Michael Kattan; Peter Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: John W Yaxley; Geoffrey D Coughlin; Suzanne K Chambers; Stefano Occhipinti; Hema Samaratunga; Leah Zajdlewicz; Nigel Dunglison; Rob Carter; Scott Williams; Diane J Payton; Joanna Perry-Keene; Martin F Lavin; Robert A Gardiner Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes; Rosalia Viterbo; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Eric M Horwitz; Michael L Blute; Mark K Buyyounouski Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jonathan L Silberstein; Daniel Su; Leonard Glickman; Matthew Kent; Gal Keren-Paz; Andrew J Vickers; Jonathan A Coleman; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Vincent P Laudone Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Bertram Yuh; Walter Artibani; Axel Heidenreich; Simon Kimm; Mani Menon; Giacomo Novara; Ashutosh Tewari; Karim Touijer; Timothy Wilson; Kevin C Zorn; Scott E Eggener Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-05-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: L J Lauwerends; H Abbasi; T C Bakker Schut; P B A A Van Driel; J A U Hardillo; I P Santos; E M Barroso; S Koljenović; A L Vahrmeijer; R J Baatenburg de Jong; G J Puppels; S Keereweer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 10.057