Advertisement

Five-year Outcomes for a Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Published:November 23, 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.11.007

      Abstract

      Background

      The literature is lacking randomised controlled trials comparing robot-assisted (RARP) and laparoscopic (LRP) radical prostatectomy, especially for follow-up >1 yr.

      Objective

      To report 5-yr outcomes for our previously published prospective randomised study comparing RARP and LRP.

      Design, setting, and participants

      From January 2010 to January 2011, 120 patients with organ-confined prostate cancer were enrolled and randomly assigned to RARP or LRP.

      Intervention

      A single surgeon performed all interventions using the same transperitoneal anterograde technique.

      Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

      Continence, potency, and serum prostate-specific antigen were assessed postoperatively at 1, 3, 6, and 12 mo, and then every 6 mo until 60 mo. At the end of the follow-up period, patients were administered questions 1 and 46 of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with the intervention and general health status. A generalised estimating equations model was used to compare time series data for functional results, and Kaplan-Meier and Cox models were used to analyse oncologic outcomes.

      Results and limitations

      The probability of achieving continence (odds ratio [OR] 2.47, p < 0.021) and potency (OR 2.35, p < 0.028) over time was more than doubled for the RARP compared to the LRP group. There was no difference between the two approaches in terms of patient survival. Pathologic Gleason score, positive surgical margins, and pT stage were associated with significantly higher biochemical recurrence in Cox multivariate models. Patient satisfaction with the intervention and their general health status was significantly higher in the RARP group.

      Conclusions

      Throughout the 5-yr follow-up, RARP yielded better functional results compared to LRP, without compromising oncologic outcomes.

      Patient summary

      In this report we looked at 5-yr outcomes for a study comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparascopic radical prostatectomy for the treatment of prostate cancer. We found that continence and potency are better among patients treated with RARP, while oncologic results are comparable.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to European Urology Focus
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Mottet N.
        • Bellmunt J.
        • Bolla M.
        • et al.
        EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration resistant prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2011; 59: 572-583
        • Mottrie A.
        • Ficarra V.
        Can robot-assisted radical prostatectomy still be considered a new technology pushed by marketers? The IDEAL evaluation.
        Eur Urol. 2010; 58: 525-527
        • Mottrie A.
        • De Naeyer G.
        • Novara G.
        • Ficarra V.
        Robotic radical prostatectomy: a critical analysis of the impact on cancer control.
        Curr Opin Urol. 2011; 21: 179-184
        • Laviana A.A.
        • Williams S.B.
        • King E.D.
        • Chuang R.J.
        • Hu J.C.
        Robot assisted radical prostatectomy: the new standard?.
        Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2015; 67: 47-53
        • Ficarra V.
        • Novara G.
        • Rosen R.C.
        • et al.
        Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 405-417
        • Ficarra V.
        • Novara G.
        • Ahlering T.E.
        • et al.
        Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 418-430
        • Tewari A.
        • Sooriakumaran P.
        • Bloch D.A.
        • Seshadri-Kreaden U.
        • Hebert A.E.
        • Wiklund P.
        Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 1-15
        • Novara G.
        • Ficarra V.
        • Mocellin S.
        • et al.
        Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 382-404
        • Porpiglia F.
        • Morra I.
        • Lucci Chiarissi M.
        • et al.
        Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 63: 606-614
        • Edge S.B.
        • Compton C.C.
        The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and the future of TNM.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17: 1471-1474
        • Wei J.T.
        • Dunn R.L.
        • Litwin M.S.
        • et al.
        Development and validation of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer.
        Urology. 2000; 56: 899-905
        • Cookson M.S.
        • Aus G.
        • Burnett A.L.
        • et al.
        Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association prostate guidelines for localized prostate cancer update panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes.
        J Urol. 2007; 177: 540
        • Stephenson A.J.
        • Kattan M.W.
        • Eastham J.A.
        • et al.
        Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a proposal for a standardized definition.
        J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 3973
        • Liss M.A.
        • Lusch A.
        • Morales B.
        • et al.
        Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: 5-year oncological and biochemical outcomes.
        J Urol. 2012; 188: 2205-2211
        • Sood A.
        • Jeong W.
        • Peabody J.O.
        • Hemal A.K.
        • Menon M.
        Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: inching toward gold standard.
        Urol Clin North Am. 2014; 41: 473-484
        • Descazeaud A.
        • Peyromaure M.
        • Zerbib M.
        Will robotic surgery become the gold standard for radical prostatectomy?.
        Eur Urol. 2007; 51: 9-11
        • Mistretta F.A.
        • Grasso A.A.
        • Buffi N.
        • et al.
        Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recent advances.
        Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2015; 67: 281-292
      1. Schiffmann J, Haese A, Boehm K et al., 10-year experience of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the road from cherry picking to standard procedure. Minerva Urol Nefrol. In press.

        • Allan C.
        • Ilic D.
        Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review.
        Urol Int. 2016; 96: 373-378
        • Papachristos A.
        • Basto M.
        • Te Marvelde L.
        • Moon D.
        Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: an Australian single-surgeon series.
        ANZ J Surg. 2015; 85: 154-158https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.12602
        • Ploussard G.
        • de la Taille A.
        • Moulin M.
        • et al.
        Comparisons of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 610-619
        • Asimakopoulos A.D.
        • Pereira Fraga C.T.
        • Annino F.
        • et al.
        Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.
        J Sex Med. 2011; 8: 1503-1512
        • Menon M.
        • Bhandari M.
        • Gupta N.
        • et al.
        Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up.
        Eur Urol. 2010; 58: 838-846
        • Verze P.
        • Scuzzarella S.
        • Martina G.R.
        • Giummelli P.
        • Cantoni F.
        • Mirone V.
        Long-term oncological and functional results of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: one surgical team's experience on 1,600 consecutive cases.
        World J Urol. 2013; 31: 529-534
        • Sooriakumaran P.
        • Haendler L.
        • Nyberg T.
        • et al.
        Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 768-774
        • Ficarra V.
        • Borghesi M.
        • Suardi N.
        • et al.
        Long-term evaluation of survival, continence and potency (SCP) outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).
        BJU Int. 2013; 112: 338-345
        • Chennamsetty A.
        • Hafron J.
        • Edwards L.
        • et al.
        Predictors of incisional hernia after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.
        Adv Urol. 2015; 2015: 457305
        • Song J.
        • Eswara J.
        Brandes SB: Postprostatectomy anastomosis stenosis: a systematic review.
        Urology. 2015; 86: 211-218
        • Huang K.H.
        • Carter S.C.
        • Shih Y.C.
        • Hu J.C.
        Robotic and standard open radical prostatectomy: oncological and quality-of-life outcomes.
        J Comp Eff Res. 2013; 2: 293-299