Annika Herlemann1, Janet E Cowan2, Peter R Carroll2, Matthew R Cooperberg3. 1. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: mcooperberg@urology.ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identifying the optimal surgical approach for patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) managed in the community setting remains controversial due to the lack of robust, prospective data. OBJECTIVE: To assess surgical outcomes and changes in urinary and sexual quality of life (QOL) over time in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Our study included patients enrolled in Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE), a large, prospective, mostly community-based, nationwide PCa registry, who underwent RP between 2004 and 2016. INTERVENTION: Open (ORP) versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localized PCa. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Demographic and clinicopathologic data and surgical outcomes were compared between ORP and RARP. Self-reported, validated questionnaires (scaled 0-100 with higher numbers indicating better function) were used to evaluate urinary and sexual QOL at different time points. Repeated measures mixed-models assessed changes in function and bother over time in each domain. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 1892 men (n = 1137 ORP; n = 755 RARP), Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score, Gleason grade at biopsy and RP, and pT-stage were lower in ORP patients (all p < 0.01). Men undergoing RARP had comparable surgical margin rates, lymph node yields, and biochemical recurrence rates. In a subset analysis with 1451 men reporting baseline and follow-up QOL data, ORP patients reported superior scores in urinary incontinence (ORP mean ± standard deviation 69 ± 26 vs RARP 62 ± 27) and bother (ORP 75±29 vs RARP 68±28, both p < 0.01) only in the 1st yr after RP. Differences in sexual outcomes did not differ between groups, nor did any QOL scores beyond 1 yr. Limitations include a decrease in the rate of questionnaire response during follow-up, potential selection biases in terms of patient assignment to ORP versus RARP and survey completion rates, and the fact that RARP cases likely included the initial learning curve for the CaPSURE surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients experienced changes in urinary and sexual QOL in the 1st 3 yr following RP. The pattern of recovery over time was similar between ORP and RARP groups. Patients should not expect different oncologic or QOL outcomes based on surgical approach. PATIENT SUMMARY: Aside from a small, early, and temporary advantage in terms of urinary incontinence and bother favoring open surgery, minimal differences in outcomes are observed when comparing men who undergo open versus robot-assisted prostatectomy in the community setting.
BACKGROUND: Identifying the optimal surgical approach for patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) managed in the community setting remains controversial due to the lack of robust, prospective data. OBJECTIVE: To assess surgical outcomes and changes in urinary and sexual quality of life (QOL) over time in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Our study included patients enrolled in Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE), a large, prospective, mostly community-based, nationwide PCa registry, who underwent RP between 2004 and 2016. INTERVENTION: Open (ORP) versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localized PCa. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Demographic and clinicopathologic data and surgical outcomes were compared between ORP and RARP. Self-reported, validated questionnaires (scaled 0-100 with higher numbers indicating better function) were used to evaluate urinary and sexual QOL at different time points. Repeated measures mixed-models assessed changes in function and bother over time in each domain. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 1892 men (n = 1137 ORP; n = 755 RARP), Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score, Gleason grade at biopsy and RP, and pT-stage were lower in ORP patients (all p < 0.01). Men undergoing RARP had comparable surgical margin rates, lymph node yields, and biochemical recurrence rates. In a subset analysis with 1451 men reporting baseline and follow-up QOL data, ORP patients reported superior scores in urinary incontinence (ORP mean ± standard deviation 69 ± 26 vs RARP 62 ± 27) and bother (ORP 75±29 vs RARP 68±28, both p < 0.01) only in the 1st yr after RP. Differences in sexual outcomes did not differ between groups, nor did any QOL scores beyond 1 yr. Limitations include a decrease in the rate of questionnaire response during follow-up, potential selection biases in terms of patient assignment to ORP versus RARP and survey completion rates, and the fact that RARP cases likely included the initial learning curve for the CaPSURE surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients experienced changes in urinary and sexual QOL in the 1st 3 yr following RP. The pattern of recovery over time was similar between ORP and RARP groups. Patients should not expect different oncologic or QOL outcomes based on surgical approach. PATIENT SUMMARY: Aside from a small, early, and temporary advantage in terms of urinary incontinence and bother favoring open surgery, minimal differences in outcomes are observed when comparing men who undergo open versus robot-assisted prostatectomy in the community setting.
Keywords:
Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor; Comparative effectiveness research; Prostate cancer; Quality of life; Radical prostatectomy; Robot-assisted; Urinary and sexual outcomes
Authors: John T Miura; Lesly A Dossett; Ram Thapa; Youngchul Kim; Aishwarya Potdar; Hala Daou; James Sun; Amod A Sarnaik; Jonathan S Zager Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: James W F Catto; Pramit Khetrapal; Gareth Ambler; Rachael Sarpong; Muhammad Shamim Khan; Melanie Tan; Andrew Feber; Simon Dixon; Louise Goodwin; Norman R Williams; John McGrath; Edward Rowe; Anthony Koupparis; Chris Brew-Graves; John D Kelly Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-08-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Michael Rechtman; Andrew Forbes; Jeremy L Millar; Melanie Evans; Lachlan Dodds; Declan G Murphy; Sue M Evans Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Martin Nyberg; Daniel D Sjoberg; Sigrid V Carlsson; Ulrica Wilderäng; Stefan Carlsson; Johan Stranne; Peter Wiklund; Gunnar Steineck; Eva Haglind; Jonas Hugosson; Anders Bjartell Journal: BJU Int Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 5.588