Igor Nunes-Silva1, Eric Barret2, Victor Srougi3, Mohammed Baghdadi4, Paolo Capogrosso5, Silvia Garcia-Barreras4, Solange Kanso4, Rafael Tourinho-Barbosa4, Ariê Carneiro4, Rafael Sanchez-Salas4, François Rozet4, Marc Galiano4, Xavier Cathelineau4. 1. Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France; Department of Urology, Arnaldo Vieira de Carvalho Cancer Institute, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France. Electronic address: eric.barret@imm.fr. 3. Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France; Department of Urology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France. 5. Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France; Unit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed the impact of focal therapy on perioperative, oncologic and functional outcomes in men who underwent salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy compared to primary robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Focal therapy was performed in patients presenting with Gleason score 3 + 3 or 3 + 4, clinical stage cT2a or less, serum prostate specific antigen 15 ng/ml or less, unilateral positive biopsy, maximum length of any positive core less than 10 mm and life expectancy greater than 10 years. Focal therapy was defined as target ablation of the index lesion plus a 1 cm safety margin in the normal ipsilateral prostatic parenchyma. The salvage group included 22 men who underwent salvage prostatectomy after focal therapy failure. The primary group was defined using matched pair 1:2 selection of 44 of 2,750 patients treated with primary prostatectomy. The primary and secondary end points were the between group differences in functional and oncologic outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Complication rates were comparable (p >0.05). Pad-free probability was comparable between the groups at 1 and 2 years (p = 0.8). Recovery of erectile function was significantly lower after salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (p = 0.008), which also showed a significantly lower probability of cumulative biochemical recurrence-free survival compared to primary robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (56.3% vs 92.4% at 2 years, p = 0.001). Salvage prostatectomy demonstrated a significantly increased risk of biochemical recurrence (HR 4.8, 95% CI 1.67-13.76, p = 0.004). Study limitations included the retrospective nature, the lack of randomization and the short followup. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy after focal therapy failure is feasible with acceptable complication rates. However, patients assigned to primary focal therapy should be advised about a poorer prognosis in terms of oncologic control and lower erectile recovery rates in case of a future salvage surgery.
PURPOSE: We assessed the impact of focal therapy on perioperative, oncologic and functional outcomes in men who underwent salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy compared to primary robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Focal therapy was performed in patients presenting with Gleason score 3 + 3 or 3 + 4, clinical stage cT2a or less, serum prostate specific antigen 15 ng/ml or less, unilateral positive biopsy, maximum length of any positive core less than 10 mm and life expectancy greater than 10 years. Focal therapy was defined as target ablation of the index lesion plus a 1 cm safety margin in the normal ipsilateral prostatic parenchyma. The salvage group included 22 men who underwent salvage prostatectomy after focal therapy failure. The primary group was defined using matched pair 1:2 selection of 44 of 2,750 patients treated with primary prostatectomy. The primary and secondary end points were the between group differences in functional and oncologic outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Complication rates were comparable (p >0.05). Pad-free probability was comparable between the groups at 1 and 2 years (p = 0.8). Recovery of erectile function was significantly lower after salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (p = 0.008), which also showed a significantly lower probability of cumulative biochemical recurrence-free survival compared to primary robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (56.3% vs 92.4% at 2 years, p = 0.001). Salvage prostatectomy demonstrated a significantly increased risk of biochemical recurrence (HR 4.8, 95% CI 1.67-13.76, p = 0.004). Study limitations included the retrospective nature, the lack of randomization and the short followup. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy after focal therapy failure is feasible with acceptable complication rates. However, patients assigned to primary focal therapy should be advised about a poorer prognosis in terms of oncologic control and lower erectile recovery rates in case of a future salvage surgery.
Authors: Alex Z Wang; Amir H Lebastchi; Luke P O'Connor; Michael Ahdoot; Sherif Mehralivand; Nitin Yerram; Samir S Taneja; Arvin K George; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; John F Ward; Pilar Laguna; Jean de la Rosette; Peter A Pinto Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: James E Thompson; Ashwin N Sridhar; Greg Shaw; Prabhakar Rajan; Anna Mohammed; Timothy P Briggs; Senthil Nathan; John D Kelly; Prasanna Sooriakumaran Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Leszek Miszczyk; Małgorzata Stąpór-Fudzińska; Marcin Miszczyk; Bogusław Maciejewski; Andrzej Tukiendorf Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-01
Authors: Antony Pellegrino; Giuseppe O Cirulli; Elio Mazzone; Francesco Barletta; Simone Scuderi; Mario de Angelis; Giuseppe Rosiello; Giorgio Gandaglia; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti; Armando Stabile Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2022-07
Authors: Jost von Hardenberg; Hannes Cash; Daniel Koch; Angelika Borkowetz; Johannes Bruendl; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Timur H Kuru; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Daniel Schindele; Katharina S Mala; Niklas Westhoff; Andreas Blana; Martin Schostak Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 4.226