INTRODUCTION: The optimal surgical treatment of patients with a high risk prostate cancer (PCa) in terms of radical prostatectomy (RP) is still controversial: open retropubic RP (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), or robot-assisted (RARP).
We aimed to investigate the influence of the different surgical techniques on pathologic outcome and biochemical recurrence.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 805 patients with a high risk PCa (PSA >20 ng/mL, Gleason Score ≥8, or clinical stage ≥cT2c) were included. A comparison of 407 RRP patients with 398 minimally invasive cases (LRP+RARP) revealed significant confounders. Therefore all 110 RARP cases were propensity score (PS) matched 1:1 with LRP and RRP patients. PS included age, clinical stage, preoperative PSA, biopsy Gleason score, surgeon's experience and application of a nerve sparing technique. Comparison of overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) was done with the log rank test. Predictors of RFS were analyzed by means of Cox regression models.
RESULTS: Within the post-matching cohort of 330 patients a pathologic Gleason score < 7, = 7 and > 7 was found in 1.8, 55.5 and 42.7% for RARP, in 8.2, 36.4, 55.5% for LRP and in 0, 60.9 and 39.1% for RRP (p=0.004 for RARP vs. LRP and p=0.398 for RARP vs. RRP). Differences in histopathologic stages were not statistically significant. The overall positive surgical margin rate (PSM) as well as PSM for ≥ pT3 were not different. PSM among patients with pT2 was found in 15.7, 14.0 and 20.0% for RARP, LRP and RRP (statistically not significant). The respective mean 3-year RFS rates were 41.4, 77.9, 54.1% (p< 0.0001 for RARP vs. LRP and p=0.686 for RARP vs. RRP). The mean 3-year OS was calculated as 95.4, 98.1 and 100% respectively (statistically not significant).
CONCLUSION: RARP for patients with a high risk PCa reveals similar pathologic and oncologic outcomes compared with LRP and RRP.
Busch J, Gonzalgo M, Leva N, Ferrari M, Friedersdorff F, Hinz S, Kempkensteffen C, Miller K, Magheli A. Are you the author?
Klinik für Urologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin; Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA; Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Reference: Aktuelle Urol. 2015 Jan;46(1):45-51.
Article in German.