Martin Nyberg1, Jonas Hugosson2, Peter Wiklund3, Daniel Sjoberg4, Ulrica Wilderäng5, Sigrid V Carlsson6, Stefan Carlsson3, Johan Stranne2, Gunnar Steineck7, Eva Haglind8, Anders Bjartell9. 1. Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; Department of Translational Medicine, Division of Urological Cancers, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Sweden. 2. Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Urology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Oncology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 6. Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Oncology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Division of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 8. Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Scandinavian Surgical Outcomes Research Group, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, and Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Östra, Gothenburg, Sweden. 9. Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; Department of Translational Medicine, Division of Urological Cancers, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Sweden. Electronic address: anders.bjartell@med.lu.se.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The adoption of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has increased rapidly, despite lack of conclusive evidence of its superiority regarding long-term outcomes over open retropubic RP (RRP). In 2015, we reported on 12-mo follow-up from the LAPPRO trial showing a moderate advantage of RALP regarding erectile dysfunction. No significant differences were seen for urinary incontinence or surgical margin status. OBJECTIVE: To present patient-reported functional outcomes and recurrent and residual disease at 24-mo follow-up from the prospective multicenter LAPPRO trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4003 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were recruited from 14 Swedish centers, seven performing RALP and seven RRP. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were only analyzed for patients operated on by surgeons with >100 prior RPs. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were calculated using logistic regression, with adjustment for differences in patient mix. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At 24 mo, there was a significant difference in erectile dysfunction in favor of RALP (68% vs 74%; AOR 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.91; p=0.006). No significant difference was observed for incontinence (19% vs 16%; AOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00-1.67; p=0.053) or recurrent or residual disease (13% vs 13%; AOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.07; p=0.13). We did not adjust for individual surgeon volume and experience, which is a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Extended follow-up corroborated our previous report at 12 mo of a persistent RALP benefit regarding potency. PATIENT SUMMARY: LAPPRO is a Swedish trial comparing two different prostate cancer surgical techniques (robotic compared to open). At 24-mo follow-up after surgery there was a moderate advantage for the robotic technique regarding erectile dysfunction (potency), while there was a small but not significant difference in urinary leakage in favor of open surgery. We did not find any difference regarding cancer relapse.
BACKGROUND: The adoption of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has increased rapidly, despite lack of conclusive evidence of its superiority regarding long-term outcomes over open retropubic RP (RRP). In 2015, we reported on 12-mo follow-up from the LAPPRO trial showing a moderate advantage of RALP regarding erectile dysfunction. No significant differences were seen for urinary incontinence or surgical margin status. OBJECTIVE: To present patient-reported functional outcomes and recurrent and residual disease at 24-mo follow-up from the prospective multicenter LAPPRO trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4003 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were recruited from 14 Swedish centers, seven performing RALP and seven RRP. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were only analyzed for patients operated on by surgeons with >100 prior RPs. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were calculated using logistic regression, with adjustment for differences in patient mix. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At 24 mo, there was a significant difference in erectile dysfunction in favor of RALP (68% vs 74%; AOR 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.91; p=0.006). No significant difference was observed for incontinence (19% vs 16%; AOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00-1.67; p=0.053) or recurrent or residual disease (13% vs 13%; AOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.07; p=0.13). We did not adjust for individual surgeon volume and experience, which is a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Extended follow-up corroborated our previous report at 12 mo of a persistent RALP benefit regarding potency. PATIENT SUMMARY: LAPPRO is a Swedish trial comparing two different prostate cancer surgical techniques (robotic compared to open). At 24-mo follow-up after surgery there was a moderate advantage for the robotic technique regarding erectile dysfunction (potency), while there was a small but not significant difference in urinary leakage in favor of open surgery. We did not find any difference regarding cancer relapse.
Authors: Timothy J Wilt; Karen M Jones; Michael J Barry; Gerald L Andriole; Daniel Culkin; Thomas Wheeler; William J Aronson; Michael K Brawer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Eva Johansson; Gunnar Steineck; Lars Holmberg; Jan-Erik Johansson; Tommy Nyberg; Mirja Ruutu; Anna Bill-Axelson Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Thordis Thorsteinsdottir; Johan Stranne; Stefan Carlsson; Bo Anderberg; Ingela Björholt; Jan-Erik Damber; Jonas Hugosson; Ulrica Wilderäng; Peter Wiklund; Gunnar Steineck; Eva Haglind Journal: Scand J Urol Nephrol Date: 2010-11-29
Authors: Eva Haglind; Stefan Carlsson; Johan Stranne; Anna Wallerstedt; Ulrica Wilderäng; Thordis Thorsteinsdottir; Mikael Lagerkvist; Jan-Erik Damber; Anders Bjartell; Jonas Hugosson; Peter Wiklund; Gunnar Steineck Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Giovannalberto Pini; Tommy Nyberg; Maryam Derogar; Stefan Carlsson; Johan Stranne; Anders Bjartell; Jonas Hugosson; Gunnar Steineck; Peter N Wiklund Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Anna Wallerstedt; Stavros I Tyritzis; Thordis Thorsteinsdottir; Stefan Carlsson; Johan Stranne; Ove Gustafsson; Jonas Hugosson; Anders Bjartell; Ulrica Wilderäng; N Peter Wiklund; Gunnar Steineck; Eva Haglind Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: David Bock; Martin Nyberg; Anna Lantz; Sigrid V Carlsson; Daniel D Sjoberg; Stefan Carlsson; Johan Stranne; Gunnar Steineck; Peter Wiklund; Eva Haglind; Anders Bjartell Journal: Scand J Urol Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 1.899
Authors: Melanie A Lindenberg; Valesca P Retèl; Henk G van der Poel; Ferdau Bandstra; Carl Wijburg; Wim H van Harten Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Janet Athene Lane; Jenny L Donovan; Grace J Young; Michael Davis; Eleanor I Walsh; Kerry N L Avery; Jane M Blazeby; Malcolm D Mason; Richard M Martin; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Julia Wade; Prasad Bollina; James W F Catto; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Owen Hughes; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Jon Oxley; Alan Paul; Edgar Paez; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; John Staffurth; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy; Chris Metcalfe Journal: BJU Int Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 5.969
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
Authors: Martin Nyberg; Olof Akre; David Bock; Sigrid V Carlsson; Stefan Carlsson; Jonas Hugosson; Anna Lantz; Gunnar Steineck; Johan Stranne; Stavros Tyritzis; Peter Wiklund; Eva Haglind; Anders Bjartell Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2020-08-19