Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology 2/2023

17-12-2022 | Prostate Cancer | Original Article

Comparison of therapeutic features and oncologic outcome in patients with pN1 prostate cancer among robot-assisted, laparoscopic, or open radical prostatectomy

Authors: Takahiro Kirisawa, Masaki Shiota, Takahiro Kimura, Kohei Edamura, Makito Miyake, Shuichi Morizane, Takayuki Yoshino, Akihiro Matsukawa, Ryuji Matsumoto, Takashi Kasahara, Naotaka Nishiyama, Masatoshi Eto, Hiroshi Kitamura, Eijiro Nakamura, Yoshiyuki Matsui, the Japanese Urological Oncology Group

Published in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology | Issue 2/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the therapeutic features and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with those of open radical prostatectomy (ORP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in lymph node (LN) positive prostate cancer patients in a retrospective observational multi-institutional study.

Patients and methods

We evaluated the clinical results of 561 patients across 33 institutions who underwent RARP, LRP, or ORP and who were diagnosed with LN-positive prostate cancer during RP with pelvic LN dissection (PLND). We determined the following survival outcomes: metastasis-free survival, overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and biochemical recurrence-free survival. The Kaplan–Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression model were used to evaluate the effect of treatment on oncological outcomes. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

There was no significant difference for any of the survival outcomes between the three surgical groups. However, RARP achieved a greater LN yield compared to that of ORP or LRP. When the extent of PLND was limited to the obturator LNs, the number of removed LNs (RLNs) was comparable between the three surgical groups. However, higher numbers of RLNs were achieved with RARP compared to the number of RLNs with ORP (P < 0.001) when PLND was extended to the external and/or internal iliac LNs.

Conclusion

RARP, LRP, and ORP provided equal surgical outcomes for pN1 prostate cancer, and the prognosis was relatively good for all procedures. Increased numbers of RLNs may not necessarily affect the oncological outcome.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Koo KC, Tuliao P, Yoon YE et al (2014) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Korean population: a 5-year propensity-score matched comparative analysis versus open radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 21:781–785CrossRef Koo KC, Tuliao P, Yoon YE et al (2014) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Korean population: a 5-year propensity-score matched comparative analysis versus open radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 21:781–785CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Hu JC, O’Malley P, Chughtai B et al (2017) Comparative Effectiveness of Cancer Control and Survival after Robot-Assisted versus Open Radical Prostatectomy. J Urol 197:115–121CrossRef Hu JC, O’Malley P, Chughtai B et al (2017) Comparative Effectiveness of Cancer Control and Survival after Robot-Assisted versus Open Radical Prostatectomy. J Urol 197:115–121CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Robertson C, Close A, Fraser C et al (2013) Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BJU Int 112:798–812CrossRef Robertson C, Close A, Fraser C et al (2013) Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BJU Int 112:798–812CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Cao L, Yang Z, Qi L et al (2019) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes: A Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 98:e15770CrossRef Cao L, Yang Z, Qi L et al (2019) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes: A Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 98:e15770CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Shiota M, Takamatsu D, Kimura T et al (2022) Radiotherapy plus androgen-deprivation therapy for PSA persistence in lymph node-positive prostate cancer. Cancer Sci 113:2386–2396CrossRef Shiota M, Takamatsu D, Kimura T et al (2022) Radiotherapy plus androgen-deprivation therapy for PSA persistence in lymph node-positive prostate cancer. Cancer Sci 113:2386–2396CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Abdollah F, Gandaglia G, Suardi N et al (2015) More Extensive Lymph Node Dissection Improves Survival in Patients with Node-positive Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 68:e37-38CrossRef Abdollah F, Gandaglia G, Suardi N et al (2015) More Extensive Lymph Node Dissection Improves Survival in Patients with Node-positive Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 68:e37-38CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Washington SL 3rd, Cowan JE, Herlemann A et al (2021) Influence of pelvic lymph node dissection and node-positive disease on biochemical recurrence, secondary treatment, and survival after radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer. Prostate 81:102–108CrossRef Washington SL 3rd, Cowan JE, Herlemann A et al (2021) Influence of pelvic lymph node dissection and node-positive disease on biochemical recurrence, secondary treatment, and survival after radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer. Prostate 81:102–108CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD et al (2016) A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol 69:428–435CrossRef Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD et al (2016) A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol 69:428–435CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kanda Y (2013) Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 48:452–458CrossRef Kanda Y (2013) Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 48:452–458CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Banapour P, Elliott P, Jabaji R et al (2019) Safety and feasibility of outpatient robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg 13:261–265CrossRef Banapour P, Elliott P, Jabaji R et al (2019) Safety and feasibility of outpatient robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg 13:261–265CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Skarecky D, Shaw G, Warren A et al (2014) A multinational, multi-institutional study comparing positive surgical margins rates among 22393 open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol 66:450–456CrossRef Skarecky D, Shaw G, Warren A et al (2014) A multinational, multi-institutional study comparing positive surgical margins rates among 22393 open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol 66:450–456CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS et al (2007) A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 178:2385–2389CrossRef Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS et al (2007) A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 178:2385–2389CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Silberstein JL, Su D, Glickman L et al (2013) A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons. BJU Int 111:206–212CrossRef Silberstein JL, Su D, Glickman L et al (2013) A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons. BJU Int 111:206–212CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Laurila TA, Huang W, Jarrard DF (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy generate similar positive margin rates in low and intermediate risk patients. Urol Oncol 27:529–533CrossRef Laurila TA, Huang W, Jarrard DF (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy generate similar positive margin rates in low and intermediate risk patients. Urol Oncol 27:529–533CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Epstein JI (1996) Incidence and significance of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Clin N Am 23:651–663CrossRef Epstein JI (1996) Incidence and significance of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Clin N Am 23:651–663CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Tilki D, Preisser F, Tennstedt P et al (2017) Adjuvant radiation therapy is associated with better oncological outcome compared with salvage radiation therapy in patients with pN1 prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 119:717–723CrossRef Tilki D, Preisser F, Tennstedt P et al (2017) Adjuvant radiation therapy is associated with better oncological outcome compared with salvage radiation therapy in patients with pN1 prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 119:717–723CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH et al (2009) Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 55:1251–1265CrossRef Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH et al (2009) Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 55:1251–1265CrossRef
18.
go back to reference DiMarco DS, Zincke H, Sebo TJ et al (2005) The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXN0 prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 173:1121–1125CrossRef DiMarco DS, Zincke H, Sebo TJ et al (2005) The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXN0 prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 173:1121–1125CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Kim KH, Lim SK, Kim HY et al (2013) Extend vs standard lymph node dissection in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer: a propensity-score-matching analysis. BJU Int 112:216–223CrossRef Kim KH, Lim SK, Kim HY et al (2013) Extend vs standard lymph node dissection in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer: a propensity-score-matching analysis. BJU Int 112:216–223CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Touijer KA, Sjoberg DD, Benfante N et al (2021) Limited versus Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Eur Urol Oncol 4:532–539CrossRef Touijer KA, Sjoberg DD, Benfante N et al (2021) Limited versus Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Eur Urol Oncol 4:532–539CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Lestingi JFP, Guglielmetti GB, Trinh QD et al (2021) Extended Versus Limited Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for Intermediate- and High-risk Prostate Cancer: Early Oncological Outcomes from a Randomized Phase 3 Trial. Eur Urol 79:595–604CrossRef Lestingi JFP, Guglielmetti GB, Trinh QD et al (2021) Extended Versus Limited Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for Intermediate- and High-risk Prostate Cancer: Early Oncological Outcomes from a Randomized Phase 3 Trial. Eur Urol 79:595–604CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ et al (2019) Prostate Cancer, Version 2. 2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 17:479–505CrossRef Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ et al (2019) Prostate Cancer, Version 2. 2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 17:479–505CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Abdollah F, Gandaglia G, Suardi N et al (2015) More extensive lymph node dissection improves survival in patients with node-positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol 67:212–219CrossRef Abdollah F, Gandaglia G, Suardi N et al (2015) More extensive lymph node dissection improves survival in patients with node-positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol 67:212–219CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Steinberg GD et al (2008) The Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology. J Urol 179:28–33CrossRef Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Steinberg GD et al (2008) The Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology. J Urol 179:28–33CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Marra G, Valerio M, Heidegger I et al (2020) Management of Patients with Node-positive Prostate Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Oncol 3:565–581CrossRef Marra G, Valerio M, Heidegger I et al (2020) Management of Patients with Node-positive Prostate Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Oncol 3:565–581CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Bivalacqua TJ, Pierorazio PM, Gorin MA et al (2013) Anatomic extent of pelvic lymph node dissection: impact on long-term cancer-specific outcomes in men with positive lymph nodes at time of radical prostatectomy. Urology 82:653–658CrossRef Bivalacqua TJ, Pierorazio PM, Gorin MA et al (2013) Anatomic extent of pelvic lymph node dissection: impact on long-term cancer-specific outcomes in men with positive lymph nodes at time of radical prostatectomy. Urology 82:653–658CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Pierorazio PM, Gorin MA, Ross AE et al (2013) Pathological and oncologic outcomes for men with positive lymph nodes at radical prostatectomy: the Johns Hopkins Hospital 30-year experience. Prostate 73:1673–1680CrossRef Pierorazio PM, Gorin MA, Ross AE et al (2013) Pathological and oncologic outcomes for men with positive lymph nodes at radical prostatectomy: the Johns Hopkins Hospital 30-year experience. Prostate 73:1673–1680CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Withrow DR, DeGroot JM, Siemens DR et al (2011) Therapeutic value of lymph node dissection at radical prostatectomy: a population-based case-cohort study. BJU Int 108:209–216CrossRef Withrow DR, DeGroot JM, Siemens DR et al (2011) Therapeutic value of lymph node dissection at radical prostatectomy: a population-based case-cohort study. BJU Int 108:209–216CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Joslyn SA, Konety BR (2006) Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology 68:121–125CrossRef Joslyn SA, Konety BR (2006) Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology 68:121–125CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Fossati N, Willemse PM, Van den Broeck T et al (2017) The Benefits and Harms of Different Extents of Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol 72:84–109CrossRef Fossati N, Willemse PM, Van den Broeck T et al (2017) The Benefits and Harms of Different Extents of Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol 72:84–109CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of therapeutic features and oncologic outcome in patients with pN1 prostate cancer among robot-assisted, laparoscopic, or open radical prostatectomy
Authors
Takahiro Kirisawa
Masaki Shiota
Takahiro Kimura
Kohei Edamura
Makito Miyake
Shuichi Morizane
Takayuki Yoshino
Akihiro Matsukawa
Ryuji Matsumoto
Takashi Kasahara
Naotaka Nishiyama
Masatoshi Eto
Hiroshi Kitamura
Eijiro Nakamura
Yoshiyuki Matsui
the Japanese Urological Oncology Group
Publication date
17-12-2022
Publisher
Springer Nature Singapore
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Oncology / Issue 2/2023
Print ISSN: 1341-9625
Electronic ISSN: 1437-7772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-022-02278-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2023

International Journal of Clinical Oncology 2/2023 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine