Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: contemporary comparison with open surgery

INTRODUCTION: The optimal outcome of radical prostatectomy is to cure cancer with the least impact on quality of life. The aim of this paper is to review the existent literature and attempt to compare the results of the retropubic (RRP) with the laparoscopic (LRP) approach. METHODOLOGY: Extensive Medline literature search for terms "radical retropubic prostatectomy" and "laparoscopic radical prostatectomy" from 1980 to 2006 to compare cancer control, functional outcomes and morbidity for both groups. Only full length English language articles including 100 or more patients were considered. RESULTS: The 5-year biochemical recurrence rates range from 70-92% for the RRP vs. 82-91% for the LRP. The global positive surgical margin rates are 12-20% for the RRP and 17-30% for the LRP. The continence rate for the RRP varies from 70-93%; the LRP varies from 82-95% for 12 months. Considering potency 12 months after surgery, the rates are 17-75% for the RRP vs. 52-78% for the LRP. The blood loss for the RRP ranges from 818 to 1,500 ml and 220 to 1,100 for the LRP. CONCLUSIONS: The concurrent literature lacks randomized trials comparing the different surgical techniques. No definitive conclusions can be drawn.     

Influence of surgical approach on cancer control following radical prostatectomy

Pathologic T3 prostate cancer (extraprostatic spread) detected following radical prostatectomy reduces the likelihood of cure. We conducted this study to determine the impact of the surgical approach (retropubic versus perineal) on risk and location of pT3 disease. A retrospective analysis of 287 consecutive radical prostatectomies [III retropubic (RRP) and 176 perineal (RPP)] was conducted. Specimens were pathologically examined for presence or absence of pT3 disease. A greater rate of pT3 disease was found with RRP than with RPP, which was likely due to patient selection. Of specimens with a single positive surgical margin, the positive margin was more common at the base of the gland with RPP than with RRP (38.5% versus 9.3%). Conversely, the percentage of specimens with a positive apical margin only was less with RPP than with RRP (12.8% versus 44.2%) (Chi-square, p ≤ 0.025). These results lead us to conclude that RPP may achieve superior cancer control for tumors located at the prostate apex, while the retropubic approach may be preferred for tumors located at the prostatic base.     

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy generate similar positive margin rates in low and intermediate risk patients

ObjectiveRobotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is being increasingly utilized. To assess the efficacy of the operation, we compared apical and overall margin status for RALP with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) in a group of contemporary patients.Patients and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 98 consecutive RRPs and then 94 RALPs from a single institution. Groups were analyzed and matched with regard to preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA), cancer grade, pathologic stage, and tumor volume. Surgical margins were quantitated.ResultsClinicopathologic parameters were compared and additional high risk patients were observed in the RRP vs. RALP group. To risk-adjust these patient groups, those meeting preoperative high risk criteria were excluded from further positive margin analysis. Postoperatively, the average tumor volume was 13% in both groups. Pathologic stage pT3 was similar between RRP (14%) and RALP (11%). A positive surgical margin (PSM) was found in 12 cases (14%) after RRP and 11 cases (13%) after RALP including apical margins. Positive margins at the apex, non-apex, and both were statistically similar between groups.ConclusionsIn this study, no differences were seen between robotic prostatectomy with regard to apical or overall margin status compared with open prostatectomy in lower risk patients. This suggests that despite improved visualization, RALP generates a similar margin status as RRP.     

Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively compare intra- and peri-operative outcomes of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and laparoscopic prostatectomy (LRP) by a single surgeon. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One-hundred-twenty, consecutive, age-matched patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer were eligible for surgery. Sixty patients underwent RRP and 60, LRP. Intra- and peri-operative parameters, pathologic findings and early complications were recorded. A validated visual analogue scale was used to assess pain in the recovery room, 3 h after the operation and on post-operative days 1, 2 and 3. A cystogram was performed on post-operative day 5. RESULTS: Operating time was significantly shorter in the RRP group versus the LRP group (mean+/-SD, 170+/-34. 2 vs 235+/-49.9 min, p<0.001). Blood loss was significantly less in the LRP group versus the RRP group (mean+/-SD, 853.3+/-485 vs 257.3+/-177 ml, p<0.001), but no patient in either group underwent early re-intervention for bleeding. The RRP group showed a trend for higher use of analgesia. A watertight anastomosis was shown at cystourethrography and the catheter removed in 86% and 66% of LRP and RRP patients, respectively. The overall percentage of post-operative complications and positive margins were comparable. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic prostatectomy is an attractive alternative to open prostatectomy, offering the advantages of reduced blood loss and safe early catheter removal. Furthermore, the laparoscopic procedure proved to be safe oncologically. Long-term follow-up is required to compare functional results in terms of continence and potency.     

Risk-adjusted analysis of positive surgical margins following laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively compare in a contemporary and contemporaneous series the positive surgical margin (PSM) rate between laparoscopic (LRP) and retropubic (RRP) radical prostatectomy at the same institution. METHODS: Between 1 January 2003 and 30 June 2005, 1177 consecutive men with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate underwent radical prostatectomy at the same institution: 485 laparoscopically and 692 through a retropubic approach. Partin table probability of organ-confined (OC) disease was used as an index of disease aggressiveness: The PSM rate between the two approaches was compared, with adjustment for the OC probability. RESULTS: Overall both surgical approaches had a comparable PSM rate of 11.3% after LRP and 11% after RRP. In a logistic regression analysis adjusting for OC probability, there was no statistically significant difference between LRP and RRP (odds ratio [OR]: 1.156; 95% confidence interval [%95 CI], 0.792, 1.686; p=0.5). There was a statistically significant decrease over time in the rate of PSM for LRP (OR: 0.71 per 100 patients treated; %95 CI, 0.57, 0.89; p=0.003), while that of RRP was unchanged (OR: 1.06 per 100 patients treated; %95 CI, 0.94, 1.21; p=0.3; p=0.002 for interaction between change over time and procedure). CONCLUSIONS: In our institution, laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy provide comparable PSM rates for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. The PSM rate over the study period remained unchanged in the RRP experience, indicating a mature and well-established operative technique, while that of LRP underwent a significant decrease, demonstrating that the procedure and therefore the results continued to evolve during the study.     

Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching

Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? Thus far, no institution has investigated the impact of the most commonly used surgical techniques – open, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy – on biochemical outcome. However, recent data from large meta‐analysis suggest that the impact of the chosen surgical technique on biochemical outcome is minimal and statistically not relevant. We are the first to apply the method of propensity score matching in the urology literature to compare three different surgical techniques. This method is intended to simulate a randomized trial which is unlikely to be undertaken for radical prostatectomies. We confirmed previous data that the surgical technique does not seem to have an impact on biochemical outcome following radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE

? To investigate a single institution experience with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with respect to pathological and biochemical outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

? A group of 522 consecutive patients who underwent RARP between 2003 and 2008 were matched by propensity scoring on the basis of patient age, race, preoperative prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), biopsy Gleason score and clinical stage with an equal number of patients who underwent LRP and RRP at our institution. ? Pathological and biochemical outcomes of the three cohorts were examined.

RESULTS

? Overall positive surgical margin rates were lower among patients who underwent RRP (14.4%) and LRP (13.0%) compared to patients who underwent RARP (19.5%) (P= 0.010). There were no statistically significant differences in positive margin rates between the three surgical techniques for pT2 disease (P= 0.264). ? In multivariate logistic regression analysis, surgical technique (P= 0.016), biopsy Gleason score (P < 0.001) and preoperative PSA (P < 0.001) were predictors of positive surgical margins. ? Kaplan–Meier analysis did not show any statistically significant differences with respect to biochemical recurrence for the three surgical groups.

CONCLUSIONS

? RRP, LRP and RARP represent effective surgical approaches for the treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. A higher overall positive SM rate was observed for the RARP group compared to RRP and LRP; however, there was no difference with respect to biochemical recurrence‐free survival between groups. ? Further prospective studies are warranted to determine whether any particular technique is superior with regard to long‐term clinical outcomes.     

Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (≥12)-core prostate biopsy

Objectives  A paucity of data exists on actual pathology of the contemporary patients strictly categorized as having low-risk prostate cancer. We tried to identify useful preoperative predictors of Gleason score upgrading in patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) for low-risk prostate cancer diagnosed via multi-core prostate biopsy. Methods  A total of 203 patients who underwent radical RRP for low-risk prostate cancer, as defined by D’Amico et al.'s classification (clinical stage ≤T2a, biopsy Gleason sum ≤6, and PSA ≤10 ng/ml), detected via multi (≥12)-core prostate biopsy were enrolled. We reviewed patients preoperative and pathological data. Results  Among all subjects, 81 (39.9%) were upgraded to Gleason score ≥7 after RRP, whereas no downgrading was observed. In multivariate analysis, only preoperative PSA level (P = 0.024) and number of positive cores (P = 0.027) were observed to be independent predictors of Gleason score upgrading following RRP. Also, Gleason core upgrading was observed to be significantly associated with extraprostatic extension of tumor (P < 0.001) and positive surgical margin (P = 0.002). Conclusions  A significant proportion of patients with low-risk prostate cancer as defined by D’Amico et al.’s classification diagnosed via multi-core prostate biopsy in contemporary period may have Gleason score upgrading following RRP. For patients with low-risk prostate cancer, preoperative PSA level and number of positive cores may be useful predictors of Gleason score upgrading, which was observed to significantly associated with other adverse pathologic features.     

Prostatectomies for localized prostate cancer: a mixed comparison network and cumulative meta-analysis

No consensus has been attained regarding the utility of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). We carried out a network meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis comparing RRP, LRP and RALRP on peri-operative and functional outcome measures. Electronic databases were searched for either randomized clinical trials or cohort studies comparing RALRP either with LRP or RRP in patients with localized PCa. Outcome measures were as follows: overall, pT2 and pT3-positive surgical margins (PSMs); biochemical recurrence (BCR); complication rates; estimated blood loss; blood transfusion rate; continence and potency rates; duration of catheterization and hospital stay. Publication bias, risk of bias and inconsistency were assessed. Inverse heterogeneity model was used for analysis. A total of 45 studies were included for the final analysis. We observed that RALRP and LRP did not differ significantly from RRP with regard to the following outcomes: overall PSM; pT2 and pT3 PSMs; OT; complication rate; continence and potency rates; total blood loss and hospital stay. Duration of catheterization was significantly shorter in RALRP than LRP and RRP while significant reductions in the need for blood transfusion and BCR were observed for both RALRP and LRP in comparison with RRP. To conclude, similar functional, operative and oncologic outcomes were observed for both RALRP and LRP compared to RRP.     

Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy

OBJECTIVE: To compare morbidity in two groups of patients who underwent retropubic or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the same period.PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical and pathological data obtained in 50 consecutive patients who underwent retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) from January 2001 to December 2001 were compared to those obtained in 71 consecutive patients who were treated in the same year by extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). The two groups were comparable in terms of mean pre-operative PSA and biopsy Gleason score. The peri-operative data included operative time, intra-operative and post-operative transfusion rates, complication rates, hospitalization length, and duration of catheterization. The following pathological parameters were considered: Gleason score, pathological stage, and positive surgical margin rate. A comparative evaluation of continence recovery (no pads and any leakage) was made only in patients with follow-up longer than 12 months.RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in terms of pathological stage and definitive Gleason score. Operating times were significantly shorter in RRP (p<0.0001). LRP patients showed higher autologous (p<0.001) and eterologous transfusion (p=0.03). No significant difference was observed in terms of complication rates (p=0.07). The rectal injury rate was 2.8% in the laparoscopic group. The mean post-operative hospital stay was 10.2+/-2 days in the surgery group and 7.2+/-3.4 days in the laparoscopy group (p<0.001). Catheterization time was 8.4+/-0.9 days in the surgery group and 8+/-2.8 days in the laparoscopy group (p=0.27). After 12 months, complete continence was achieved in 64% of RRP and 40% of LRP patients, respectively (p=0.29).CONCLUSION: The results of our non-randomized study show that up to now laparoscopic radical prostatectomy does not provide significant advantages in terms of peri-operative morbidity compared with the traditional retropubic approach.     

Transition from open to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy is associated with a reduction of positive surgical margins amongst private-practice-based urologists

Several recent studies have suggested that thought leaders in radical prostatectomy have decreased their own positive margin rates by switching from open to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Theoretically, this improvement is largely attributed to enhanced visualization of the deep pelvis and precision of dissection afforded by the instrumentation. To date, it has not been determined if this phenomenon exists amongst non-fellowship-trained urologists in private practice. Herein, we describe the positive margin rates of two non-fellowship-trained private-practice urologists who converted from open radical retropubic prostatectomy to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. The margin positivity data from two non-fellowship-trained private-practice urologists (surgeon 1 and surgeon 2) were reviewed retrospectively. The last 50 cases of open radical retropubic prostatectomy from each surgeon were compared with the first 50 robotic prostatectomy cases of surgeons 1 and 2, respectively. A positive surgical margin was defined as tumor present at the inked margin of the prostate. There was a significant decrease in the overall and pT2 positive margin rates for both surgeons. The overall positive margin rate and pT2 positive margin rate for surgeon 1 dropped from 44 to 20% and from 37 to 5.7%, respectively, after changing from open to robotic prostatectomy. For surgeon 2, the overall positive margin rate changed from 26 to 18% and the pT2 positive margin rate changed from 27.5 to 7% after converting. Changing from open to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy may improve the ability of urologists to obtain negative surgical margins. With proper training this phenomenon does seem to apply to non-fellowship-trained urologists in private practice and can be realized within the first 50 cases performed.     

Oncological outcome of laparoscopic prostatectomy

AIM: Oncological outcomes including surgical margin status and biological progression-free survival (bPFS) were analyzed in patients who underwent laparoscopic prostatectomy (LRP) only. METHODS: A total of 136 patients who underwent LRP only without lymph node metastasis or perioperative supportive therapy between April 2000 and October 2005 were analyzed. All patients received > or =6 months postoperative follow-up. Biological progression was defined as elevation of prostate-specific antigen by >0.2 ng/mL. RESULTS: The positive margin (ew+) rate was 36.8% and the 3-year bPFS was 72.6% for all patients. Positive margin rates in pT2a-b, pT2c, pT3a and pT3b were 10.0%, 27.5%, 77.3% and 53.8%, respectively. Three-year bPFS rates in pT2, pT3a and pT3b were 91.8%, 66.8% and 44.9%, respectively. Although the positive margin rate at posterior and anterior sites decreased as more patients were recruited, no significant improvements were observed at apex and base sites. Three-year bPFS rates in pT2 ew-, pT2 ew+, pT3 ew- and pT3 ew+ were 95.8%, 85.7%, 81% and 48.5%, respectively, indicating that positive margins exert a greater impact in pT3 disease than in pT2 disease. CONCLUSIONS: Although 3-year bPFS results were almost identical to previous reports of LRP and retropubic radical prostatectomy, the positive margin rate in pT3a disease was particularly high, probably due to immature surgical skill. Although positive margins at posterior and anterior sites decreased with the leaning curve, improvements are needed to reduce positive margin rates at the apex. Positive margins exert greater impact in pT3 disease than in pT2 disease.     

Bladder neck-sparing modification of radical prostatectomy adversely affects surgical margins in pathologic T3a prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the bladder neck-sparing (BNS) modification of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) alters the likelihood of positive surgical margins and postsurgical prostate cancer recurrence. METHODS: Surgical outcomes, as measured by pathologic margin status and progression-free survival, were evaluated in 751 consecutive RRP cases, among whom 222 underwent BNS technique. To reduce selection bias, comparison of positive margin rates between BNS and standard RRP was stratified by pathologic stage. Differences in surgical margin rates were assessed using the chi-square test, and effects of bladder neck preservation on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-free survival were assessed, using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: The clinical stage, Gleason score, and preoperative serum PSA profiles were similarly distributed between patients undergoing standard RRP and those undergoing the BNS modification. Surgical margins in the unstratified entire cohort were positive at rates similar to prior reports (28% BNS, 27% standard RRP). However, stratification by pathologic stage revealed that among pT3a cancers, BNS surgery was associated with significantly higher rates of positive surgical margins than was standard RRP (47% versus 20%; chi- square = 6.32, P = 0.01). Differences in positive margin rates were not seen between the two groups at other pathologic stages. The adverse effect of BNS technique on pT3a surgical margins was associated with a trend toward an adverse effect on PSA-free survival (Cox proportional hazards P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: The BNS modification of RRP can be associated with an increased rate of positive surgical margins specifically in cancers that have focally penetrated through the prostatic capsule (pT3a), with an associated trend toward decreased PSA-free survival in this group. BNS surgery may, therefore, compromise the ability to completely remove a subset of cancers focally penetrating the prostatic capsule.     

Positive margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective study of 100 cases performed by 4 different surgeons

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) has been refined by experienced surgeons into a competitive treatment alternative for localized prostate cancer. Less is known, however, about the outcomes of "learning curve" cases from newly trained surgeons. We prospectively studied 100 cases of LRP performed by 2 senior and 2 junior surgeons and addressed the rates of positive margins-an important early endpoint of oncologic efficacy. METHODS: 100 consecutive cases of LRP were performed by two senior (n=62) and two junior surgeons (n=38) by a 5-port transperitoneal route. Whole-mount step-section prostate specimens were examined by Stanford protocol. RESULTS: Positive margins occured in 25% of cases: 18% for pT2a (2/11), 18% for pT2b (11/61), 45% for pT3a (10/22), and 50% for pT3b (2/4) (p=0.002 pT2 vs. pT3). By surgeon experience, the rates were 19% (12/62) for senior and 34% (13/38) for junior (p=0.04). However, in a multiple logistic regression analysis, only pathologic stage (p=0.083) and Gleason sum (p=0.0133) reached statistical significance, while surgeon experience did not (p=0.0992). CONCLUSION: Positive margin rates after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy are significantly influenced by pathologic stage and Gleason score, and are within the range reported from open series. The higher positive margin rate from junior surgeons, although not statistically significant, suggests the need for further study and continued mentoring during surgery and/or video review of cases to improve oncologic results.     

新辅助内分泌治疗结合机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术治疗高危前列腺癌的优势

目的：探讨高危前列腺癌患者行新辅助内分泌治疗（neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, NHT）后,行机器人辅助腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术（robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, RALRP）较腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术（laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, LRP） 和耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术 （ retropubic radical prostatectomy, RRP）的优势。方法：回顾性分析我院自2010年3月-2012年1月以新辅助内分泌治疗结合根治性前列腺切除术治疗的16例高危前列腺癌的临床资料。术前采取3-6个月的LHRH-a＋抗雄药物的最大程度雄激素阻断方法（maximal androgen blockage,MAB）作为NHT方案,NHT后PSA均降至0．2μg／L以下。之后,其中5例接受RALRP,5例接受LRP,6例接受RRP。三组患者治疗前基线情况（年龄、PSA水平、Gleason评分）差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结果：手术均获成功。中位手术时间（operating time,OT）、失血量（esti-mated blood loss,EBL）、住院天数（hospital stay,HS）在RALRP组为225min（包括机器人到位15min）、600mI、7d,在LRP组为280min、900mi、7d,在RRP组为150min、675ml、14．5d。三组患者术后均无尿漏,术后3天拔除双侧引流管。术后病理均无切缘阳性。三组各有1例患者在术后3个月时因PSA复燃而接受辅助性内分泌治疗（P=1．00）。术后3个月时,除2例RRP组患者尚存压力性尿失禁,其余患者均恢复尿控（P=0．29）。结论：对于接受NHT的高危前列腺癌患者而言,相对于开放手术和腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术,机器人辅助腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术仍然是这些患者的更佳选择。     

A multi-institutional comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for treatment of localized prostate cancer

To evaluate the pathological stage and margin status of patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). We performed a retrospective analysis of 196 patients who underwent RRP, RPP, and RALP as part of our multi-institution program. Fifty-seven patients underwent RRP, 41 RPP, and 98 RALP. Patient age, preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA), preoperative Gleason score, preoperative clinical stage, pathological stage, postoperative Gleason score, and margin status were reviewed. The three groups had similar preoperative characteristics, except for PSA (8.4, 6.5, and 6.2 ng/ml) for the retropubic, robotic, and perineal approaches. Margins were positive in 12, 24, and 36% of the specimens from RALP, RRP, and RPP, respectively (P = 0.004). The positive margin rates in patients with pT2 tumors were 4, 14, and 19% in the RALP, RRP, and the RPP groups, respectively (P = 0.03). Controlling for age and pre-operative PSA and Gleason score, the rate of positive margins was statistically lower in the RALP versus both the RRP (P = 0.046) and the RPP groups (P = 0.02). In the patients with pT3 tumors, positive margins were observed in 36% of patients undergoing the RALP and 53 and 90% of those patients undergoing the RRP and RPP, respectively (P = 0.015). Controlling for the same factors, the rate of positive margins was statistically lower in the RALP versus the RPP (P = 0.01) but not compared with the RRP patients (P = 0.32). The percentage of positive margins was lower in RALP than in RPP for both pT2 and pT3 tumors. RRP had a higher percentage of positive margins than RALP in the pT2 tumors but not in the pT3 tumors.     

Cost Comparison of Robotic,Laparoscopic, and Open Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer

Background

Demand and utilization of minimally invasive approaches to radical prostatectomy have increased in recent years, but comparative studies on cost are lacking.

Objective

To compare costs associated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).

Design, setting, and participants

The study included 643 consecutive patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (262 RALP, 220 LRP, and 161 RRP) between September 2003 and April 2008.

Measurements

Direct and component costs were compared. Costs were adjusted for changes over the time of the study.

Results and limitations

Disease characteristics (body mass index, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, prostate size, and Gleason sum score 8–10) were similar in the three groups. Nerve sparing was performed in 85% of RALP procedures, 96% of LRP procedures, and 90% of RRP procedures (p < 0.001). Lymphadenectomy was more commonly performed in RRP (100%) compared to LRP (22%) and RALP (11%) (p < 0.001). Mean length of hospital stay was higher for RRP than for LRP and RALP. The median direct cost was higher for RALP compared to LRP or RRP (RALP: $6752 [interquartile range (IQR): $6283–7369]; LRP: $5687 [IQR: $4941–5905]; RRP: $4437 [IQR: $3989–5141]; p < 0.001). The main difference was in surgical supply cost (RALP: $2015; LRP: $725; RRP: $185) and operating room (OR) cost (RALP: $2798; LRP: $2453; RRP: $1611; p < 0.001). When considering purchase and maintenance costs for the robot, the financial burden would increase by $2698 per patient, given an average of 126 cases per year.

Conclusions

RALP is associated with higher cost, predominantly due to increased surgical supply and OR costs. These costs may have a significant impact on overall cost of prostate cancer care.     

Radical Prostatectomy for Incidental (Stage T1a–T1b) Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Predictors for Residual Disease and Biochemical Recurrence

Background

Controversies exist about the most appropriate management for patients with incidental prostate cancer after surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Objectives

To test the accuracy of preoperative clinical variables in predicting the presence of residual disease and biochemical recurrence in patients with incidental prostate cancer treated with radical retropubic prostatectomy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

We analyzed 126 T1a–T1b prostate cancers diagnosed at surgery for BPH between 1995 and 2007.

Intervention

All patients underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy within 6 mo of surgery for BPH.

Measurements

Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models addressed the association between the predictors (age, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] before and after surgery for BPH, T1a–T1b stage, prostate volume, and Gleason score at surgery for BPH) and the presence of residual cancer at radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses tested the relationship between the same predictors and the rate of biochemical recurrence after radical retropubic prostatectomy.

Results and Limitations

Seventy-five (59.5%) patients were stage T1a and 51 (40.5%) were stage T1b. At radical retropubic prostatectomy, 21 (16.7%) patients were pT0 and seven (5.6%) patients had extraprostatic disease (pT3). PSA before and after surgery for BPH and Gleason score at surgery for BPH were the only independent predictors of residual cancer at radical retropubic prostatectomy (all p < 0.04). Stage (T1a vs T1b) did not predict residual cancer or the rate of biochemical recurrence. With a mean follow-up of 57 mo, the 5- and 10-yr biochemical recurrence-free survival rates were 92% and 87%, respectively. PSA after surgery for BPH and Gleason score at surgery for BPH were the only significant multivariate predictors of biochemical recurrence (all p < 0.04). The main limitation of this study is the requirement of an external validation before implementation of the clinical recommendations.

Conclusion

PSA measured before and after surgery for BPH and Gleason score at surgery for BPH were the only significant predictors of the presence of residual cancer at radical retropubic prostatectomy. PSA measured after surgery for BPH and Gleason score at surgery for BPH were the only independent predictors of biochemical recurrence after radical retropubic prostatectomy.     

Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy in a matched-pair analysis

Abstract Purpose: To determine whether previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) compromises the surgical outcome and pathologic findings in patient who underwent either radical robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) or open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) after TURP, because TURP is reported to complicate radical prostatectomy and there are conflicting data. Patients and Methods: From July 2008 to July 2010, 357 patients underwent RALP. Of these, 19 (5.3%) patients had undergone previous TURP. Operative and perioperative data of patients were compared with those of matched controls selected from a database of 616 post-RRP patients. Matching criteria were age, clinical stage, the level of preoperative prostate-specific-antigen, the biopsy Gleason score, the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score, and prostate volume assessed during transrectal ultrasonography. All RRP and RALP procedures were performed by experienced surgeons. Results: Mean time to prostatectomy was 67.4 months in the RALP group and 53.1 months in the RRP group. Mean operative time was 217±51.9 minutes for RALP and 174±57.7 minutes for RRP (P<0.05). The overall positive surgical margin rate was 15.8% in both groups (pT(2) tumors: 10.5% for RALP and 5.3% for RRP; P=1.0). Mean estimated blood loss was 333±144?mL in RALP patients and 1103±636?mL in RRP patients (P<0.001). The difference between preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin levels was 3.22±0.98?g/dL for RALP and 5.85±1.95?g/dL for RRP (P=0.0002). The RALP and RRP groups also differed in terms of hospital stay (8.58±1.17 vs 11.74±5.22 days; P=0.0037), duration of catheterization (7.95±5.69 vs 11.78±6.97 days; P=0.0016), postoperative complications according to the Clavien classification system (6 vs 15 patients; P=0.0027), and transfusion rate (0% vs 10.5%; P<0.001). Conclusion: RALP offers advantages over open radical prostatectomy after previous surgery. Although both techniques are associated with adequate surgical outcomes, RALP appeared to be preferable in our population of patients with previous prostate surgery.     

Assessment of low prostate weight as a determinant of a higher positive margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective pathologic study of 1,500 cases

Background  The assessment of prostate weight as a determinant of a high prostate margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has not been studied. Methods  Prospective pathologic findings of 1,500 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP, 399 cases) and da Vinci^TM prostatectomy (DVP, 1,101 cases) between December 2000 to June 2006 at City of Hope National Medical Center were evaluated. Gleason score, pathologic stage, the presence or absence of positive margins, extraprostatic tumor extension, and seminal vesicle involvement by tumor were recorded in all patients. Preoperational serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels were recorded in all but 13 cases. These parameters were then correlated with prostate weight. Results  Of 1,500 patients, 345 had one or more positive margins (23%). Patients with low median prostate weight (49 g) had a significantly higher positive margin rate (p < 0.0001) and incidence of extraprostatic extension by tumor (p = 0.04), and were 1.523 times more likely to have positive margins [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.167–1.985]. Conclusion  We conclude that low prostate weight may be a determinant of a higher recurrence rate and more aggressive disease.     

Surgical margin status of open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy specimens

Objectives:   To compare the surgical margin (SM) status between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RRP and LRP, respectively) specimens.
Methods:   Surgical specimens from 137 patients undergoing LRP and 220 patients undergoing RRP for clinically localized prostate cancer were included in the analysis. SM status in each resected specimen, including the number of positive SM as well as their location, was examined.
Results:   The incidence of positive SM in the LRP group was significantly greater than that in the RRP group. Despite the lack of significant difference in the proportion of solitary positive SM between these two groups, the proportion of multiple positive SM in the LRP group was significantly greater than that in the RRP group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anterior positive SM between the two groups, while the incidences of positive SM at the apex, posterior site and bladder neck in the LRP group were significantly greater than those in the RRP group. Furthermore, there were no significant preoperative parameters predicting positive SM in the LRP group. On the other hand, the biopsy Gleason score and clinical T stage were identified as significant predictors of positive SM in the RRP group, of which the biopsy Gleason score was independently related to the presence of positive SM.
Conclusions:   Clinical T stage and Gleason score could be useful predictors of SM status following RRP, while positive SM in LRP specimens were detected irrespective of preoperative parameters, suggesting the need for an effort for further refining the LRP procedure.