Oncological outcomes after attempted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (NSRP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer are comparable to standard non-NSRP: a longitudinal long-term propensity-matched single-centre study.
high-risk prostate cancer
nerve sparing
oncological outcomes
open radical prostatectomy
tumour recurrence
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Aug 2023
07 Aug 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
7
8
2023
medline:
7
8
2023
entrez:
7
8
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To assess the long-term safety of nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (NSRP) in men with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) by comparing survival outcomes, disease recurrence, the need for additional therapy, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing NSRP to those having non-NSRP. We included consecutive patients at a single, academic centre who underwent open RP for high-risk PCa, defined as preoperative prostate-specific antigen level of > 20 ng/mL and/or postoperative International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 4 or 5 (i.e., Gleason score ≥ 8) and/or ≥pT3 and/or pN1 assessing the RP and lymph node specimen. We calculated a propensity score and used inverse probability of treatment weighting to match baseline characteristics of patients with high-risk PCa who underwent NSRP vs non-NSRP. We analysed oncological outcome as time-to-event and calculated hazard ratios (HRs). A total of 726 patients were included in this analysis of which 84% (n = 609) underwent NSRP. There was no evidence for the positive surgical margin rate being different between the NSRP and non-NSRP groups (47% vs 49%, P = 0.64). Likewise, there was no evidence for the need for postoperative radiotherapy being different in men who underwent NSRP from those who underwent non-NSRP (HR 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.15). NSRP did not impact the risk of any recurrence (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73-1.34, P = 0.09) and there was no evidence for survival being different in men who underwent NSRP to those who underwent non-NSRP (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39-1.08). There was also no evidence for the cancer-specific survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29-1.11) or progression-free survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73-1.34) being different between the groups. In patients with high-risk PCa, NSRP can be attempted without compromising long-term oncological outcomes provided a comprehensive assessment of objective (e.g., T Stage) and subjective (e.g., intraoperative appraisal of tissue planes) criteria are conducted.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023 BJU International.
Références
Fossati N, Passoni NM, Moschini M et al. Impact of stage migration and practice changes on high-risk prostate cancer: results from patients treated with radical prostatectomy over the last two decades. BJU Int 2016; 117: 740-747
Yossepowitch O, Eggener SE, Bianco FJ Jr et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized, high risk prostate cancer: critical analysis of risk assessment methods. J Urol 2007; 178: 493-499; discussion 9
Lughezzani G, Gallina A, Larcher A et al. Radical prostatectomy represents an effective treatment in patients with specimen-confined high pathological Gleason score prostate cancer. BJU Int 2013; 111: 723-730
Sayyid R, Perlis N, Ahmad A et al. Development and external validation of a biopsy-derived nomogram to predict risk of ipsilateral extraprostatic extension. BJU Int 2017; 120: 76-82
Briganti A, Joniau S, Gontero P et al. Identifying the best candidate for radical prostatectomy among patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 584-592
Xylinas E, Drouin SJ, Comperat E et al. Oncological control after radical prostatectomy in men with clinical T3 prostate cancer: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 2009; 103: 1173-1178 discussion 8
Suardi N, Moschini M, Gallina A et al. Nerve-sparing approach during radical prostatectomy is strongly associated with the rate of postoperative urinary continence recovery. BJU Int 2013; 111: 717-722
Adam S, Martin-Diener E, Camey B et al. Health-related quality of life in long-term prostate cancer survivors after nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy-results from the multiregional PROCAS study. Cancer Med 2020; 9: 5416-5424
Kumar A, Samavedi S, Bates AS et al. Safety of selective nerve sparing in high risk prostate cancer during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg 2017; 11: 129-138
Milonas D, Kinčius M, Skulčius G, Matjošaitis AJ, GudinavičienĖ I, Jievaltas M. Evaluation of D'Amico criteria for low-risk prostate cancer. Scand J Urol 2014; 48: 344-349
Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Zincke H. Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int 2005; 95: 751-756
Furrer MA, Grueter T, Bosshard P et al. Routine preoperative bone scintigraphy has limited impact on the management of patients with invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2021; 7: 1052-1060
Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II-2020 update: treatment of relapsing and metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2021; 79: 263-282
Budaus L, Schiffmann J, Graefen M et al. Defining biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and timing of early salvage radiotherapy: informing the debate. Strahlenther Onkol 2017; 193: 692-699
Burkhard FC, Kessler TM, Fleischmann A, Thalmann GN, Schumacher M, Studer UE. Nerve sparing open radical retropubic prostatectomy-does it have an impact on urinary continence? J Urol 2006; 176: 189-195
Kessler TM, Burkhard FC, Studer UE. Nerve-sparing open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 90-97
Furrer MA, Abgottspon J, Huber M et al. Perioperative continuation of aspirin, oral anticoagulants or bridging with therapeutic low-molecular-weight heparin does not increase intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion rate in cystectomy patients: an observational cohort study. BJU Int. 2022; 129: 512-523
Furrer MA, Studer UE, Gross T, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, Nguyen DP. Nerve-sparing radical cystectomy has a beneficial impact on urinary continence after orthotopic bladder substitution, which becomes even more apparent over time. BJU Int 2018; 121: 935-944
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205-213
Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Graefen M, Remzi M, Rouprêt M, Truss M. Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 341-349
Furrer MA, Huesler J, Fellmann A, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, Wuethrich PY. The Comprehensive Complication Index CCI: a proposed modification to optimize short-term complication reporting after cystectomy and urinary diversion. Urol Oncol 2019; 37: 291.e9-291.e18
Löffel LM, Gross T, Schneider MP et al. Complication reporting with the Bern Comprehensive Complication Index CCI after open radical prostatectomy: a longitudinal long-term single-center study. Urol Oncol 2020; 38: 79.e1-79.e8
Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med 2015; 34: 3661-3679
Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res 2011; 46: 399-424
Lightfoot AJ, Su YK, Sehgal SS et al. Positive surgical margin trends in patients with pathologic T3 prostate cancer treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2015; 29: 634-639
Nelles JL, Freedland SJ, Presti JC Jr et al. Impact of nerve sparing on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence: results from the SEARCH database. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2009; 12: 172-176
Zhang L, Zhao H, Wu B, Zha Z, Yuan J, Feng Y. Predictive factors for positive surgical margins in patients with prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 2020; 10: 539592
Wieder JA, Soloway MS. Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1998; 160: 299-315
Ploussard G, Agamy MA, Alenda O et al. Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naïve patients. BJU Int 2011; 107: 1748-1754
Morozov A, Barret E, Veneziano D et al. A systematic review of nerve-sparing surgery for high-risk prostate cancer. Minerva Urol Nephrol 2021; 73: 283-291
Johnston TJ, Shaw GL, Lamb AD et al. Mortality among men with advanced prostate cancer excluded from the ProtecT trial. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 381-388
Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H et al. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 171: 1844-1849; discussion 9
Kam J, Yuminaga Y, Krelle M et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of multiparametric MRI for predicting prostate cancer pathology and tumour staging in the real world: an multicentre study. BJU Int 2019; 124: 297-301
Martini A, Gupta A, Lewis SC et al. Development and internal validation of a side-specific, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for the prediction of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2018; 122: 1025-1033
Durand X, Xylinas E, Radulescu C et al. The value of urinary prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) scores in predicting pathological features at radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2012; 110: 43-49
Barocas DA, Mitchell R, Chang SS, Cookson MS. Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2010; 28: 243-250