Home
February 2010 March 2010 April 2010
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
Week 9 1 2 3 4 5 6
Week 10 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Week 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Week 12 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Week 13 28 29 30 31
Reach urologists

Comparison of Mid-Term Carcinologic Control Obtained After Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer - Abstract Show Comments PDF Print E-mail
  
Monday, 22 June 2009

Department of Urology, GHU EST, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, University Paris VI, Paris, France.

To determine the cancer control afforded by radical prostatectomy in patients who underwent either an open, laparoscopic, or robotic procedure for localized prostate cancer.

We collected data on all patients treated between 2000 and 2004. We recorded age, BMI, PSA, Gleason score and 2002 TNM stage, type of surgery, perioperative parameters, postoperative complications, pathological data, recurrence and outcome.

Data were analyzed for 239 patients. Overall, the mean follow-up was 49.7 (18-103) months. Surgical procedures were open in 83 patients, laparoscopic in 85, and robot-assisted in 71. The transfusion rate was 5.6% for robotic cases, 5.9% for laparoscopic cases and 9.6% for open prostatectomy (p = 0.03). The positive margin rates in open, laparoscopic, and robotic cases were 18.1, 18.8, and 16.9% (p = 0.52), respectively. Only margin status, PSA level (>10), and Gleason score (>7) were associated with recurrence in univariate analysis (p < 0.05), and only the margin status and the Gleason score were significant in multivariate analysis. The statistical power was 0.7. Overall, the 5-year PSA-free survival rate was 88%. The 5-year PSA-free survival rates for the specific surgical approaches were 87.8% in open cases, 88.1% in laparoscopic cases, and 89.6% in robot-assisted prostatectomies, and there was no statistical difference between the approaches (p = 0.93).

Although open radical prostatectomy remains the gold standard procedure, we found no differences between these three techniques regarding early oncologic outcomes. These results are still preliminary, however, and further studies of larger populations with a longer follow-up are needed to make any statement regarding surgical strategy.

Written by:
Drouin SJ, Vaessen C, Hupertan V, Comperat E, Misraï V, Haertig A, Bitker MO, Chartier-Kastler E, Richard F, Rouprêt M.   Are you the author?

Reference:
World J Urol. 2009 May 7. Epub ahead of print.
doi:10.1007/s00345-009-0379-z

PubMed Abstract
PMID:19421755

UroToday.com Prostate Cancer Section

Reader Comments

Please log-in or register in order to submit comments.

Powered by AkoComment!

 
User Rating: / 0
PoorBest


 

Bookmark and Share
< Prev   Next >

Member's Section

Login

Sign Up

Quick Search

Meet the Expert


All Experts



Featured Conference

Media and Publisher

Advertising Rates

Working with Industry

Case Studies
Sponsorship Opportunities

Renal Transplantation
Sponsored By