Quality of life after robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (LAP-01).
laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
multicenter randomized controlled trial
prostate cancer
quality of life
robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy
Journal
The Prostate
ISSN: 1097-0045
Titre abrégé: Prostate
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8101368
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2022
06 2022
Historique:
revised:
15
02
2022
received:
28
09
2021
accepted:
18
02
2022
pubmed:
8
3
2022
medline:
26
4
2022
entrez:
7
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To explore cross-sectional and longitudinal differences in general health-related and prostate cancer-specific quality of life (QoL) after robotic-assisted (RARP) and laparoscopic (LRP) radical prostatectomy and to analyze predictive variables for QoL outcomes. In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial, prostate cancer patients were randomly assigned 3:1 to undergo either RARP or LRP. Patient-reported outcomes were prospectively collected before and 1, 3, 6, 12 months after radical prostatectomy and included QoL as a secondary outcome. Validated questionnaires were used to assess general health-related (EORTC QLQ-C30) and prostate cancer-specific (QLQ-PR25) QoL. Cross-sectional and longitudinal contrasts were analyzed through linear mixed models. Predictive variables for QoL outcomes were identified by general linear modeling. Of 782 randomized patients, QoL was evaluable in 681 patients. In terms of general QoL, the cross-sectional analysis showed only small differences between study arms, whereas longitudinal comparison indicated an advantage of RARP on recovery: RARP patients reported an earlier return to baseline in global health status (3 vs. 6 months) and social functioning (6 vs. 12 months). In role functioning, only the RARP arm regained baseline scores. Regarding prostate-specific QoL, LRP patients experienced more urinary symptoms and reported 3.2 points (95% confidence interval 0.4-6, p = 0.024) higher mean scores at 1-month follow-up and in mean 2.9 points (0.1-5, p = 0.042) higher urinary symptoms scores at 3-month follow-up than RARP patients. There were no other significant differences between treatment groups. Urinary symptoms, sexual activity, and sexual function remained significantly worse compared with baseline at all time points in both arms. Compared with LRP, the robotic approach led to an earlier return to baseline in several domains of general health-related QoL and better short-term recovery of urinary symptoms. Predictive variables such as the scale-specific baseline status and bilateral nerve-sparing were confirmed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To explore cross-sectional and longitudinal differences in general health-related and prostate cancer-specific quality of life (QoL) after robotic-assisted (RARP) and laparoscopic (LRP) radical prostatectomy and to analyze predictive variables for QoL outcomes.
METHODS
In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial, prostate cancer patients were randomly assigned 3:1 to undergo either RARP or LRP. Patient-reported outcomes were prospectively collected before and 1, 3, 6, 12 months after radical prostatectomy and included QoL as a secondary outcome. Validated questionnaires were used to assess general health-related (EORTC QLQ-C30) and prostate cancer-specific (QLQ-PR25) QoL. Cross-sectional and longitudinal contrasts were analyzed through linear mixed models. Predictive variables for QoL outcomes were identified by general linear modeling.
RESULTS
Of 782 randomized patients, QoL was evaluable in 681 patients. In terms of general QoL, the cross-sectional analysis showed only small differences between study arms, whereas longitudinal comparison indicated an advantage of RARP on recovery: RARP patients reported an earlier return to baseline in global health status (3 vs. 6 months) and social functioning (6 vs. 12 months). In role functioning, only the RARP arm regained baseline scores. Regarding prostate-specific QoL, LRP patients experienced more urinary symptoms and reported 3.2 points (95% confidence interval 0.4-6, p = 0.024) higher mean scores at 1-month follow-up and in mean 2.9 points (0.1-5, p = 0.042) higher urinary symptoms scores at 3-month follow-up than RARP patients. There were no other significant differences between treatment groups. Urinary symptoms, sexual activity, and sexual function remained significantly worse compared with baseline at all time points in both arms.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with LRP, the robotic approach led to an earlier return to baseline in several domains of general health-related QoL and better short-term recovery of urinary symptoms. Predictive variables such as the scale-specific baseline status and bilateral nerve-sparing were confirmed.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
894-903Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. The Prostate published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, et al. Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today. Accessed April 13, 2021. https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/27-Prostate-fact-sheet.pdf.
Lardas M, Liew M, van den Bergh RC, et al. Quality of life outcomes after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;72(6):869-885. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.035
Penson DF, Feng Z, Kuniyuki A, et al. General quality of life 2 years following treatment for prostate cancer: what influences outcomes? Results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(6):1147-1154. doi:10.1200/JCO.2003.07.139
Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1425-1437. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1606221
Wallerstedt A, Nyberg T, Carlsson S, et al. Quality of life after open radical prostatectomy compared with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(3):389-398. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2017.12.010
Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Published 2021. Accessed November 7, 2021. https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2021V4.pdf
Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C. Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2011;8(5):1503-1512. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02215.x
Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M, et al. Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):606-614. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.007
Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365-376. doi:10.1093/jnci/85.5.365
Groenvold M, Klee MC, Sprangers MA, Aaronson NK. Validation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire through combined qualitative and quantitative assessment of patient-observer agreement. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(4):441-450. doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00428-3
van Andel G, Bottomley A, Fosså SD, et al. An international field study of the EORTC QLQ-PR25: a questionnaire for assessing the health-related quality of life of patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(16):2418-2424. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.07.030
Kim K, DeMets DL. Design and analysis of group sequential tests based on the type I error spending rate function. Biometrika. 1987;74(1):149-154. doi:10.1093/biomet/74.1.149
Hintze J. PASS. Kaysville, Utah, USA: NCSS, LLC. 2008.
Stolzenburg J-U, Holze S, Neuhaus P, et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery: outcomes from the first multicentre, randomised, patient-blinded controlled trial in radical prostatectomy (LAP-01). Eur Urol. 2021;79(6):750-759. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2021.01.030
Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, et al. Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology. 2010;75(5):1092-1097. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.09.07
Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1037-1063. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.036
Rabbani F, Yunis LH, Pinochet R, et al. Comprehensive standardized report of complications of retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(3):371-386. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.11.034
O'Leary E, Drummond FJ, Gavin A, Kinnear H, Sharp L. Psychometric evaluation of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 questionnaire in assessing health-related quality of life in prostate cancer survivors: a curate's egg. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:2219-2230.
Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A, The EORTC Quality of Life GroupThe EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. 3rd ed. EORTC Data Center; 2001.
Anota A, Savina M, Bascoul-Mollevi C, Bonnetain F. QoLR: an R package for the longitudinal analysis of health-related quality of life in oncology. J Stat Softw. 2017;77(12):1-30. doi:10.18637/jss.v077.i12
Cocks K, King MT, Velikova G, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for interpreting change scores for the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(11):1713-1721. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.059
Cocks K, King MT, Velikova G, Martyn St-James M, Fayers PM, Brown JM. Evidence-based guidelines for determination of sample size and interpretation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(1):89-96. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0107
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Taylor and Francis; 2013.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Accessed March 22, 2021. https://www.R-project.org.
Whiting PF, Moore TH, Jameson CM, et al. Symptomatic and quality-of-life outcomes after treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2016;118(2):193-204. doi:10.1111/bju.13499
Willis DL, Gonzalgo ML, Brotzman M, Feng Z, Trock B, Su L-M. Comparison of outcomes between pure laparoscopic vs robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a study of comparative effectiveness based upon validated quality of life outcomes. BJU Int. 2012;109(6):898-905. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10551.x
Berge V, Berg RE, Hoff JR, et al. A prospective study of transition from laparoscopic to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: quality of life outcomes after 36-month follow-up. Urology. 2013;81(4):781-786. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.017
Koike H, Kohjimoto Y, Iba A, et al. Health-related quality of life after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. 2017;11(3):325-331. doi:10.1007/s11701-016-0659-8
Punnen S, Cowan JE, Chan JM, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR. Long-term health-related quality of life after primary treatment for localized prostate cancer: results from the CaPSURE registry. Eur Urol. 2015;68(4):600-608. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.074
Herlemann A, Cowan JE, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR. Community-based outcomes of open versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2018;73(2):215-223. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.027
Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(16):139-144. doi:10.1200/JCO.1998.16.1.139