Functional and Oncological Outcomes After Open Versus Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localised Prostate Cancer: 8-Year Follow-up.


Journal

European urology
ISSN: 1873-7560
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 7512719

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 2021
Historique:
received: 11 11 2020
accepted: 28 07 2021
pubmed: 21 9 2021
medline: 29 3 2022
entrez: 20 9 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality among patients with localised prostate cancer. Evidence on whether different surgical techniques can affect mortality rates is lacking. To evaluate functional and oncological outcomes 8 yr after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). We enrolled 4003 patients in a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial comparing RALP and RRP in 14 Swedish centres between 2008 and 2011. Data for functional outcomes were assessed via validated patient questionnaires administered preoperatively and at 12 and 24 mo and 8 yr after surgery. The primary endpoint was urinary incontinence. Functional outcomes at 8 yr were analysed using the modified Poisson regression approach. Urinary incontinence was not significantly different at 8 yr after surgery between RALP and RRP (27% vs 29%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.23). Erectile dysfunction was significantly lower in the RALP group (66% vs 70%; aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.99). Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) was significantly lower in the RALP group at 8 yr after surgery (40/2699 vs 25/885; aRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.93). Differences in oncological outcomes were mainly seen in the group with high D'Amico risk, with a lower risk of positive surgical margins (21% vs 34%), biochemical recurrence (51% vs 69%), and PCSM (14/220 vs 11/77) for RALP versus RRP. The main limitation is the nonrandomised design. In this prospective multicentre controlled trial, PCSM at 8 yr after surgery was lower for RALP in comparison to RRP. A causal relationship between surgical technique and mortality cannot be inferred, but the result confirms that RALP is oncologically safe. Taken together with better short-term results reported elsewhere, our findings confirm that implementation of RALP may continue. Our study comparing two surgical techniques for removal of the prostate for localised prostate cancer shows that a robot-assisted minimally invasive technique is safe in the long term. Together with previous results showing some better short-term effects with this approach, our findings support continued use of robot-assisted surgery.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality among patients with localised prostate cancer. Evidence on whether different surgical techniques can affect mortality rates is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate functional and oncological outcomes 8 yr after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
We enrolled 4003 patients in a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial comparing RALP and RRP in 14 Swedish centres between 2008 and 2011. Data for functional outcomes were assessed via validated patient questionnaires administered preoperatively and at 12 and 24 mo and 8 yr after surgery.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The primary endpoint was urinary incontinence. Functional outcomes at 8 yr were analysed using the modified Poisson regression approach.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
Urinary incontinence was not significantly different at 8 yr after surgery between RALP and RRP (27% vs 29%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.23). Erectile dysfunction was significantly lower in the RALP group (66% vs 70%; aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.99). Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) was significantly lower in the RALP group at 8 yr after surgery (40/2699 vs 25/885; aRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.93). Differences in oncological outcomes were mainly seen in the group with high D'Amico risk, with a lower risk of positive surgical margins (21% vs 34%), biochemical recurrence (51% vs 69%), and PCSM (14/220 vs 11/77) for RALP versus RRP. The main limitation is the nonrandomised design.
CONCLUSIONS
In this prospective multicentre controlled trial, PCSM at 8 yr after surgery was lower for RALP in comparison to RRP. A causal relationship between surgical technique and mortality cannot be inferred, but the result confirms that RALP is oncologically safe. Taken together with better short-term results reported elsewhere, our findings confirm that implementation of RALP may continue.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Our study comparing two surgical techniques for removal of the prostate for localised prostate cancer shows that a robot-assisted minimally invasive technique is safe in the long term. Together with previous results showing some better short-term effects with this approach, our findings support continued use of robot-assisted surgery.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34538508
pii: S0302-2838(21)01928-X
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.07.025
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

650-660

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Anna Lantz (A)

Section of Urology, Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: anna.lantz@sll.se.

David Bock (D)

Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Olof Akre (O)

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

Eva Angenete (E)

Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital-Västra Götaland/Östra, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Anders Bjartell (A)

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

Stefan Carlsson (S)

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

Katarina Koss Modig (KK)

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

Martin Nyberg (M)

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

Karin Stinesen Kollberg (KS)

Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Social Work, Institute of Social Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Gunnar Steineck (G)

Department of Oncology, Sahlgrenska Academy, 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, Sahlgrenska University Hospital-Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Peter Wiklund (P)

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

Eva Haglind (E)

Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital-Västra Götaland/Östra, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH