G J Nason1, Robert J Hamilton2. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue - Suite - 3-130, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue - Suite - 3-130, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada. rob.hamilton@uhn.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is a treatment option for men in a primary and post-chemotherapy setting. The aim of this review was to explore the published data looking at feasibility, safety and outcomes of robotic RPLND for CSI/II NSGCT but we will in particular highlight how we have approached adoption of robotic RPLND at the Princess Margaret. METHODS: A review and summary of the published data to date was performed regarding the role of robotic RPLND for stage IIA/B nonseminoma. RESULTS: Published series of robotic RPLND to date have proven feasibility and safety in experienced centres. Less blood loss, shorter length of stay and decreased morbidity are promising findings. Our data from Princess Margaret strengthen the argument of oncologic efficacy as we operated only on patients with known retroperitoneal disease (Stage at RPLND was IIA (n = 15, 55.6%), IIB (n = 9, 33.3%), IIC (n = 1, 3.7%) and III (n = 2, 7.4%)), did not use adjuvant chemotherapy and found a relapse rate (11%) similar to open RPLND. CONCLUSIONS: The debate is ongoing regarding the role of robotic RPLND- the excellent oncological outcomes achieved by an open RPLND are the minimum starting point for robotic RPLND. Until such time that robotic RPLND is proven to be gold standard it should be performed in experienced centres by high volume RPLND surgeons and in the setting of a protocol.
PURPOSE: Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is a treatment option for men in a primary and post-chemotherapy setting. The aim of this review was to explore the published data looking at feasibility, safety and outcomes of robotic RPLND for CSI/II NSGCT but we will in particular highlight how we have approached adoption of robotic RPLND at the Princess Margaret. METHODS: A review and summary of the published data to date was performed regarding the role of robotic RPLND for stage IIA/B nonseminoma. RESULTS: Published series of robotic RPLND to date have proven feasibility and safety in experienced centres. Less blood loss, shorter length of stay and decreased morbidity are promising findings. Our data from Princess Margaret strengthen the argument of oncologic efficacy as we operated only on patients with known retroperitoneal disease (Stage at RPLND was IIA (n = 15, 55.6%), IIB (n = 9, 33.3%), IIC (n = 1, 3.7%) and III (n = 2, 7.4%)), did not use adjuvant chemotherapy and found a relapse rate (11%) similar to open RPLND. CONCLUSIONS: The debate is ongoing regarding the role of robotic RPLND- the excellent oncological outcomes achieved by an open RPLND are the minimum starting point for robotic RPLND. Until such time that robotic RPLND is proven to be gold standard it should be performed in experienced centres by high volume RPLND surgeons and in the setting of a protocol.
Authors: Robert J Hamilton; Madhur Nayan; Lynn Anson-Cartwright; Eshetu G Atenafu; Philippe L Bedard; Aaron Hansen; Peter Chung; Padraig Warde; Joan Sweet; Martin O'Malley; Jeremy Sturgeon; Michael A S Jewett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; George J Bosl; Robert J Motzer; Michael W Kattan; Jason Stasi; Dean F Bajorin; Joel Sheinfeld Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeremy F Sturgeon; Malcolm J Moore; David M Kakiashvili; Ignacio Duran; Lynn C Anson-Cartwright; Dominik R Berthold; Padraig R Warde; Mary K Gospodarowicz; Ruth E Alison; Justin Liu; Clement Ma; Greg R Pond; Michael A Jewett Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Timothy Gilligan; Daniel W Lin; Rahul Aggarwal; David Chism; Nicholas Cost; Ithaar H Derweesh; Hamid Emamekhoo; Darren R Feldman; Daniel M Geynisman; Steven L Hancock; Chad LaGrange; Ellis G Levine; Thomas Longo; Will Lowrance; Bradley McGregor; Paul Monk; Joel Picus; Phillip Pierorazio; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Philip Saylor; Kanishka Sircar; David C Smith; Katherine Tzou; Daniel Vaena; David Vaughn; Kosj Yamoah; Jonathan Yamzon; Alyse Johnson-Chilla; Jennifer Keller; Lenora A Pluchino Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Andrew Stephenson; Scott E Eggener; Eric B Bass; David M Chelnick; Siamak Daneshmand; Darren Feldman; Timothy Gilligan; Jose A Karam; Bradley Leibovich; Stanley L Liauw; Timothy A Masterson; Joshua J Meeks; Phillip M Pierorazio; Ritu Sharma; Joel Sheinfeld Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Gregory J Nason; Ricardo A Rendon; Lori Wood; Robert A Huddart; Peter Albers; Lawrence H Einhorn; Craig R Nichols; Christian Kollmannsberger; Lynn Anson-Cartwright; Padraig Warde; Michael A S Jewett; Peter Chung; Philippe L Bedard; Aaron R Hansen; Robert J Hamilton Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 1.862