Literature DB >> 29887706

Surgical Management of Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer with Review of Literature and Evolving Evidence.

Ahmed Saeed Goolam1, Alfredo Harb-De la Rosa1, Murugesan Manoharan2.   

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most common solid organ malignancy in men in the USA with an annual incidence of 105 and an annual mortality rate of 19 per 100,000 people. With the advent of PSA screening, the majority of prostate cancer diagnosed is organ confined. Recent studies including the SPCG-4 and PIVOT trials have demonstrated a survival benefit for those undergoing active treatment for localized prostate cancer. The foremost surgical option has been radical prostatectomy (RP). The gold standard has been open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP); however, minimally invasive approaches including laparoscopic and robotic approaches are commonplace and increasing in popularity. We aim to describe the surgical options for the treatment of localized prostate cancer by reviewing the literature. A review of the literature was undertaken using MEDLINE and PubMed. Articles addressing the topic of radical prostatectomy by open, laparoscopic and robotic approaches were selected. Studies comparing the different modalities were also identified. These articles were reviewed for data pertaining to perioperative, oncological and functional outcomes. There is a paucity of randomized studies comparing the three modalities. The published data has demonstrated a benefit in favour of robotically assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) over laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and traditional open RRP in perioperative outcomes. When reviewing the best-reported outcomes for RALP compared to LRP and RRP, operative times are lower (105 vs. 138 vs. 138 min), estimated blood loss rates are lower (111 vs. 200 vs. 300 ml) and blood transfusion rates are lower as in the length of stay (1 vs. 2 vs. 2.3 days) and overall complication rates (4.3 vs. 5 vs. 20%). Similarly, when reviewing functional outcomes, RALP compared to LRP was not inferior. At 12 months, the reported continence was 97 vs. 94 vs. 89% and potency was 94 vs. 77 vs. 90%. In comparative studies, however, these differences did not always meet statistical significance. With respect to oncological outcomes, there was no clear evidence of superiority of one modality over another. RALP is now the most common modality for surgical treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer. Individual series appear to support better perioperative outcomes and perhaps quicker return to functional outcomes. There does not appear to be a clear advantage to date in oncological parameters; however, RALP does not appear to be inferior to either LRP or RRP. It is anticipated that further high quality randomized studies will shed more light on the clinical and statistical significance in the comparison between these modalities.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopy; Localized; Prostate cancer; Robotic surgery

Year:  2017        PMID: 29887706      PMCID: PMC5984837          DOI: 10.1007/s13193-016-0594-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0975-7651


  56 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of radical prostatectomy techniques: open, laparoscopic and robotic assisted.

Authors:  Rodrigo Frota; Burak Turna; Rodrigo Barros; Inderbir S Gill
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.541

2.  Direct comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single-surgeon experience.

Authors:  A Ari Hakimi; Jeffrey Blitstein; Marc Feder; Edan Shapiro; Reza Ghavamian
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2008-10-26       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  The urethral sphincter muscle in the male.

Authors:  T M Oelrich
Journal:  Am J Anat       Date:  1980-06

4.  Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention.

Authors:  P C Walsh; P J Donker
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations.

Authors:  B Guillonneau; X Cathelineau; E Barret; F Rozet; G Vallancien
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 6.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of comparative studies.

Authors:  Rebecca Tooher; Peter Swindle; Henry Woo; John Miller; Guy Maddern
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 8.  Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Marcel Hruza; Justo Lorenzo Bermejo; Bettina Flinspach; Michael Schulze; Dogu Teber; Hans Joachim Rumpelt; Jens Jochen Rassweiler
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Simonetta Fracalanza; Carolina D'Elia; Silvia Secco; Massimo Iafrate; Stefano Cavalleri; Walter Artibani
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-03-05       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  [Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Preliminary evaluation after 28 interventions].

Authors:  B Guillonneau; X Cathelineau; E Barret; F Rozet; G Vallancien
Journal:  Presse Med       Date:  1998-10-17       Impact factor: 1.228

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Targeted α-therapy of prostate cancer using radiolabeled PSMA inhibitors: a game changer in nuclear medicine.

Authors:  Rubel Chakravarty; Cerise M Siamof; Ashutosh Dash; Weibo Cai
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-08-20
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.