Risk of Recurrent Disease 6 Years After Open or Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the Prospective Controlled Trial LAPPRO.

Biochemical recurrence Prostate cancer Prostate cancer-specific mortality Radical prostatectomy Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Journal

European urology open science
ISSN: 2666-1683
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Open Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101771568

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Historique:
accepted: 16 06 2020
entrez: 2 8 2021
pubmed: 3 8 2021
medline: 3 8 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Conclusive evidence of superiority in oncological outcome for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) over retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) is lacking. To compare RALP and RRP regarding recurrent disease and to report the mortality rate 6 yr after surgery. A total of 4003 men with localized prostate cancer were enrolled between 2008 and 2011 in Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open (LAPPRO)- a prospective, controlled, nonrandomized trial performed at 14 Swedish centers. Data were collected at visits and by patient questionnaires at 3, 12, and 24 mo, and through a structured telephone interview at 6 yr. Cause of death was retrieved from the National Cause of Death Register in Sweden. The modified Poisson regression approach was used for analyses. After adjustment for patient-, tumor-, and surgeon-related confounders, no statistically significant difference was observed between RALP and RRP in biochemical recurrence rate (14 vs 16%, relative risk [RR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-1.06) or in not cured endpoint (22% vs 23%, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.6-1.11). Stratified by D'Amico risk group, a significant benefit for RALP existed for recurrent disease in high-risk patients (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.86, No significant difference was observed for cancer recurrence rate between RALP and RRP 6 yr after surgery. However, in a subgroup analysis, we found a significant benefit for RALP regarding recurrence rate in the high-risk group. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to make a firm conclusion and to evaluate a possible survival benefit. In general, the oncological outcome is comparable between robotic and open radical prostatectomy 6 yr after surgery. For high-risk patients, our findings indicate that there is an advantage for robotics, but further studies with longer follow-up time is needed to make a firm conclusion.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Conclusive evidence of superiority in oncological outcome for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) over retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) is lacking.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To compare RALP and RRP regarding recurrent disease and to report the mortality rate 6 yr after surgery.
DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS METHODS
A total of 4003 men with localized prostate cancer were enrolled between 2008 and 2011 in Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open (LAPPRO)- a prospective, controlled, nonrandomized trial performed at 14 Swedish centers.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS METHODS
Data were collected at visits and by patient questionnaires at 3, 12, and 24 mo, and through a structured telephone interview at 6 yr. Cause of death was retrieved from the National Cause of Death Register in Sweden. The modified Poisson regression approach was used for analyses.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS CONCLUSIONS
After adjustment for patient-, tumor-, and surgeon-related confounders, no statistically significant difference was observed between RALP and RRP in biochemical recurrence rate (14 vs 16%, relative risk [RR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-1.06) or in not cured endpoint (22% vs 23%, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.6-1.11). Stratified by D'Amico risk group, a significant benefit for RALP existed for recurrent disease in high-risk patients (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.86,
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
No significant difference was observed for cancer recurrence rate between RALP and RRP 6 yr after surgery. However, in a subgroup analysis, we found a significant benefit for RALP regarding recurrence rate in the high-risk group. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to make a firm conclusion and to evaluate a possible survival benefit.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
In general, the oncological outcome is comparable between robotic and open radical prostatectomy 6 yr after surgery. For high-risk patients, our findings indicate that there is an advantage for robotics, but further studies with longer follow-up time is needed to make a firm conclusion.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34337458
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2020.06.005
pii: S2666-1683(20)35123-5
pmc: PMC8317794
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

54-61

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U01 CA253915
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P50 CA092629
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U01 CA199338
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : K22 CA234400
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.

Références

Lancet Oncol. 2009 May;10(5):475-80
pubmed: 19342300
Eur Urol. 2018 Apr;73(4):618-627
pubmed: 28882327
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Sep;12(9):891-9
pubmed: 21821474
J Urol. 2019 Jul;202(1):108-113
pubmed: 30747873
BMC Urol. 2019 May 8;19(1):35
pubmed: 31068176
Eur Urol Focus. 2019 May;5(3):389-398
pubmed: 29366855
Oncotarget. 2017 May 9;8(19):32237-32257
pubmed: 27852051
Urology. 2014 Jun;83(6):1309-15
pubmed: 24746665
Urology. 2005 Nov;66(5 Suppl):83-94
pubmed: 16194712
BJU Int. 2019 Jun;123(6):1031-1040
pubmed: 30927303
Eur Urol. 2015 Aug;68(2):216-25
pubmed: 25770484
Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr 1;159(7):702-6
pubmed: 15033648
N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 13;379(24):2319-2329
pubmed: 30575473
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Aug;19(8):1051-1060
pubmed: 30017351
Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Oct;1(5):353-360
pubmed: 31158073
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Aug 1;99(15):1171-7
pubmed: 17652279
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2011 Mar;45(2):102-12
pubmed: 21114378
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 May;98(22):e15770
pubmed: 31145297

Auteurs

Martin Nyberg (M)

Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Department of Translational Medicine, Division of Urological Cancers, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Olof Akre (O)

Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Urology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

David Bock (D)

Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Scandinavian Surgical Outcomes Research Group, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Sigrid V Carlsson (SV)

Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Stefan Carlsson (S)

Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Urology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

Jonas Hugosson (J)

Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Department of Urology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Anna Lantz (A)

Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Urology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY, USA.

Gunnar Steineck (G)

Department of Oncology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Johan Stranne (J)

Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Department of Urology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Stavros Tyritzis (S)

Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Urology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
4th Urologic Department-HYGEIA Hospital, Athens, Greece.

Peter Wiklund (P)

Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Urology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY, USA.

Eva Haglind (E)

Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Scandinavian Surgical Outcomes Research Group, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Department of Surgery, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Östra, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Anders Bjartell (A)

Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Department of Translational Medicine, Division of Urological Cancers, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Classifications MeSH