Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

01-09-2018 | Original Article

Functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance

Authors: Marc Zanaty, Khaled Ajib, Kevin Zorn, Assaad El-Hakim

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 9/2018

Abstract

Objective

To assess the outcome of low risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients who were candidates for active surveillance (AS) but had undergone robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Method

We reviewed our prospectively collected database of patients operated by RARP between 2006 and 2014. Low D’Amico risk patients were selected. Oncological outcomes were reported based on pathology results and biochemical failure. Functional outcomes on continence and potency were reported at 12 and 24 months. Continence was assessed by the number of pads per day. With respect to potency, it was assessed using the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) and Erectile Hardness Scale (EHS).

Results

Out of 812 patients, 237 (29.2%) patients were D’Amico low risk and were eligible for analysis. 44 men fit Epstein’s criteria. 134 (56.5%) men had pathological upgrading. Age and clinical stage were predictors of upgrading on multivariate analysis. 220 (92.8%) patients had available follow-up for biochemical recurrence, potency, and continence for 2 years. The mean and median follow-up was 34.8 and 31.4 months, respectively. Only 5 (2.3%) men developed BCR, all of whom had pathological upgrading. Extra capsular extension and positive surgical margins were observed in 14.8 and 19.1%, respectively. 0 pad was achieved in 86.7 and 88.9% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Proportion of patients with SHIM > 21 at 1 and 2 years was 24.8 and 30.6%, respectively. Moreover, patients having erections adequate for intercourse (EHS ≥ 3) were seen in 69.6 and 83.1% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Functional outcomes of patients fitting Epstein’s criteria (n = 44) and patients with no upgrading on final pathology (n = 103) were not significantly different compared to the overall low risk study group.

Conclusion

This retrospective study showed that RARP is not without harm even in patients with low risk disease. On the other hand, considerable rate of upgrading was noted.

Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filén F et al (2008) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:1144–1154. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn255 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Andersson S-O, Andrén O, Lyth J et al (2011) Managing localized prostate cancer by radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: cost analysis of a randomized trial (SPCG-4). Scand J Urol Nephrol 45:177–183. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365599.2010.545075 CrossRefPubMed

Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 367:203–213. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1113162 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kwon O, Hong S (2014) Active surveillance and surgery in localized prostate cancer. Minerva Urol E Nefrol Ital J Urol Nephrol 66:175–187

D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969–974CrossRefPubMed

Lee MC, Dong F, Stephenson AJ et al (2010) The Epstein criteria predict for organ-confined but not insignificant disease and a high likelihood of cure at radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 58:90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.10.025 CrossRefPubMed

eau 2016 guidelines prostate cancer—Google Search. https://www.google.fr/#q=eau+2016+guidelines+prostate+cancer. Accessed 29 Oct 2016

Musunuru HB, Yamamoto T, Klotz L et al (2016) Active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer: survival outcomes in the Sunnybrook experience. J Urol 196:1651–1658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.102 CrossRefPubMed

El Hajj A, Ploussard G, de la Taille A et al (2013) Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS). BJU Int 111:53–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11276.x CrossRefPubMed

10.

Vellekoop A, Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Stattin P (2014) Population based study of predictors of adverse pathology among candidates for active surveillance with Gleason 6 prostate cancer. J Urol 191:350–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.09.034 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Carlsson S, Jäderling F, Wallerstedt A et al (2016) Oncological and functional outcomes 1 year after radical prostatectomy for very-low-risk prostate cancer: results from the prospective LAPPRO trial. BJU Int 118:205–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13444 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Mizuno K, Inoue T, Kinoshita H et al (2016) Evaluation of predictors of unfavorable pathological features in men eligible for active surveillance using radical prostatectomy specimens: a multi-institutional study. Jpn J Clin Oncol 46:1156–1161. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyw130 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 33:272–277. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192 CrossRef

14.

Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A et al (2013) Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol 63:101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.066 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H et al (2014) Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 370:932–942. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1311593 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1415–1424. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Druskin SC, Macura KJ (2018) MR imaging for prostate cancer screening and active surveillance. Radiol Clin N Am 56:251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2017.10.006 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Cuzick J, Berney DM, Fisher G et al (2012) Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer 106:1095–1099. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.39 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Crawford ED, Scholz MC, Kar AJ et al (2014) Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry. Curr Med Res Opin 30:1025–1031. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2014.899208 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C et al (2014) A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol 66:550–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.05.004 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Cullen J, Rosner IL, Brand TC et al (2015) A biopsy-based 17-gene genomic prostate score predicts recurrence after radical prostatectomy and adverse surgical pathology in a racially diverse population of men with clinically low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 68:123–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.030 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Wilt TJ, Jones KM, Barry MJ et al (2017) Follow-up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 377:132–142. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1615869 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Donovan MJ, Cordon-Cardo C (2014) Genomic analysis in active surveillance: predicting high-risk disease using tissue biomarkers. Curr Opin Urol 24:303–310. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000051 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA et al (2016) Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1425–1437. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606221 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:405–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Wallerstedt A, Carlsson S, Steineck G et al (2013) Patient and tumour-related factors for prediction of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. Scand J Urol 47:272–281. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365599.2012.733410 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Steineck G, Bjartell A, Hugosson J et al (2015) Degree of preservation of the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy and urinary continence 1 year after surgery. Eur Urol 67:559–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.011 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J et al (2008) Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 358:1250–1261. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa074311 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Bill-Axelson A, Garmo H, Holmberg L et al (2013) Long-term distress after radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in prostate cancer: a longitudinal study from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol 64:920–928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.02.025 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:418–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.046 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J et al (2015) Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol 68:216–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.029 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Van den Bergh RCN, Korfage IJ, Roobol MJ et al (2012) Sexual function with localized prostate cancer: active surveillance vs radical therapy. BJU Int 110:1032–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10846.x CrossRefPubMed

33.

Mulhall JP (2009) Defining and reporting erectile function outcomes after radical prostatectomy: challenges and misconceptions. J Urol 181:462–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.047 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance
Authors: Marc Zanaty
Khaled Ajib
Kevin Zorn
Assaad El-Hakim
Publication date: 01-09-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 9/2018
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2298-3

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance

Abstract

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2018

Early tumor shrinkage is independently associated with improved overall survival among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a validation study using the COMPARZ cohort

Epidemiology and screening for renal cancer

The relationship between HPV status and chemoradiotherapy in the locoregional control of penile cancer

Transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation: 2 years follow-up outcomes in the management of anticholinergic refractory overactive bladder

Supra-pubic versus urethral catheter after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: systematic review of current evidence

Local staging with multiparametric MRI in daily clinical practice: diagnostic accuracy and evaluation of a radiologic learning curve