Jie Li1, Qing Jiang2, Qiubo Li3, Yuanfeng Zhang2, Liang Gao4. 1. Department of Urology, Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Yubei District, Chongqing, China. 2. Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Linjiang Road 76#, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, China. 3. Department of Urology, Jiulongpo Second People's Hospital, Chongqing, China. 4. Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Linjiang Road 76#, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, China. gaoliang3745@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed at exploring whether the time interval (TI) between prostate biopsy and surgery affect the outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted to identify all eligible studies. After quality assessment and date extraction, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies with 8579 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Pooled data showed no significant differences between groups of TI ≤ 2 weeks and > 2 weeks in operative time, estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, bilateral nerve preservation, positively surgical margin, and complications. For comparison between TI ≤ 4 and > 4 weeks, shorter TI would be associated with significantly less estimated blood loss (p = 0.045) and lower rate of bilateral nerve preservation (p = 0.002). In addition, for TI ≤ 6 versus > 6 weeks, significantly less bilateral nerve preservation (p = 0.025) and more positive surgical margin (p = 0.020) could be found in the earlier surgery group. Sensitivity analysis indicated that TI had no impact on any outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). CONCLUSIONS: As shorter TI was associated with lower rate of bilateral nerve preservation and higher rate of positive surgical margin, it would be better to perform RP with a TI of 4 or 6 weeks after biopsy. While for RALP, shorter TI did not have any impact on outcomes of RALP, It is feasible and safe to perform RALP within 2, 4, or 6 weeks.
PURPOSE: This study aimed at exploring whether the time interval (TI) between prostate biopsy and surgery affect the outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted to identify all eligible studies. After quality assessment and date extraction, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies with 8579 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Pooled data showed no significant differences between groups of TI ≤ 2 weeks and > 2 weeks in operative time, estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, bilateral nerve preservation, positively surgical margin, and complications. For comparison between TI ≤ 4 and > 4 weeks, shorter TI would be associated with significantly less estimated blood loss (p = 0.045) and lower rate of bilateral nerve preservation (p = 0.002). In addition, for TI ≤ 6 versus > 6 weeks, significantly less bilateral nerve preservation (p = 0.025) and more positive surgical margin (p = 0.020) could be found in the earlier surgery group. Sensitivity analysis indicated that TI had no impact on any outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). CONCLUSIONS: As shorter TI was associated with lower rate of bilateral nerve preservation and higher rate of positive surgical margin, it would be better to perform RP with a TI of 4 or 6 weeks after biopsy. While for RALP, shorter TI did not have any impact on outcomes of RALP, It is feasible and safe to perform RALP within 2, 4, or 6 weeks.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biopsy; Meta-analysis; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy; Time interval
Authors: Hoon Choi; Young Hwii Ko; Sung Gu Kang; Seok Ho Kang; Hong Seok Park; Jun Cheon; Vipul R Patel Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2009-12-31 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Jung Ki Jo; Jong Jin Oh; Sangchul Lee; Seong Jin Jeong; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mariana Andozia Morini; Roberto Lodeiro Muller; Paulo César Barbosa de Castro Junior; Rafael José de Souza; Eliney Ferreira Faria Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Nicolas Mottet; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Paul C Moldovan; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Philip Cornford Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marc Zanaty; Mansour Alnazari; Khaled Ajib; Kelsey Lawson; Mounsif Azizi; Emad Rajih; Abdullah Alenizi; Pierre-Alain Hueber; Côme Tolmier; Malek Meskawi; Fred Saad; Raisa S Pompe; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Assaad El-Hakim; Kevin C Zorn Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-10-20 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: George L Martin; Rafael N Nunez; Mitchell D Humphreys; Aaron D Martin; Robert G Ferrigni; Paul E Andrews; Erik P Castle Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 5.588