Comparative Analysis of Positive Surgical Margin Rates in Patients Undergoing Robot- Assisted or Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The issue of comparative evaluation of oncological and functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) is widely discussed in the international literature. A key point in studying the oncological efficacy of both techniques is a comparative evaluation of positive surgical margin (PSM) rates as one of the main prognostic factors influencing the further course of prostate cancer. Available data so far are inconsistent, which prompted us to conduct our own research. A retrospective analysis was performed in two groups of patients who underwent RARP (n=63) and RRP (n=116) from January 2014 to April 2015. Despite a general trend towards lower PSM rates in RARP group compared to RRP group (12.7 and 21.6%, respectively, p=0.09), no significant differences were found in the stratification of patients in both groups depending on the risk of prostate cancer progression and pathological stage. These data show the potential equality of the two methods regarding intraoperative control of resection margins.

About the authors

E I Veliev

Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education

Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education

E A Sokolov

Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education

Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education

O B Loran

Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education

Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education

References

  1. Mullins J.K., Feng Z., Trock B.J., Epstein J.I., Walsh P.C., Loeb S. The impact of anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy on cancer control: the 30-year anniversary. J. Urol. 2012;188:2219- 2224.
  2. Велиев Е.И., Соколов Е.А., Лоран О.Б., Петров С.Б. Сравнительный анализ гистологических и отдаленных онкологических результатов радикальной простатэктомии у пациентов, соответствующих критериям активного наблюдения Johns Hopkins и Royal Marsden Hospital. Урология. 2014;2:55-58.
  3. Mitchell C.R., Boorjian S.A., UmbreitE.C., RangelL.J., Carlson R.E., Karnes R.J. 20-Year survival after radical prostatectomy as initial treatment for cT3 prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;110:1709-1713.
  4. Bill-Axelson A., H., HolmbergL., GarmoRider J.R., TaariK., Busch C., Nordling S., Haggman M., Andersson S.O., Spangberg A., Andren O., Palmgren J., Steineck G., Adami H.O., Johansson J.E. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N. Eng.
  5. Wilt T.J., BrawerM.K., JonesK.M., Barry M.J., Aronson W.J., FoxS., Gingrich J.R., Wei J.T., Gilhooly P., Grob B.M., Nsouli I., Iyer P., CartagenaR., SniderG., Roehrborn C., SharifiR., Blank W., PandyaP., Andriole G.L., Culkin D., Wheeler T. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N. Eng. J. Med. 2012;367:203-213.
  6. Sammon J.D., Karakiewicz P.I., Sun M., Sukumar S., Ravi P., Ghani K.R., Bianchi M., Peabody J.O., Shariat S.F., Perrotte P., Hu J.C., Menon M., Trinh Q.D. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: the differential effect of regionalization, procedure volume and operative approach. J. Urol. 2013; 189: 1289-1294.
  7. 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.
  8. Lepor H. Does the medical evidence justify robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy as the new gold standard for radical prostatectomy? Urol. Oncol. 2013;31:137-139.
  9. Heidenreich A., Bastian P.J., Bellmunt J., Bolla M., Joniau S., van der Kwast T., Mason M., Matveev V., Wiegel T., Zattoni F., Mottet N. European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent - update 2013. Eur. Urol. 2014;65:124-137. 10.
  10. StephensonA.J., EggenerS.E., HernandezA.V.,KleinE.A.,KattanM.W., Wood D.P.Jr., Rabah D.M., Eastham J.A., Scardino P.T. Do margins matter? The influence of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer-specific mortality. Eur. Urol. 2014;65:675-680.
  11. Smith J.A. Jr., Chan R.C., Chang S.S., Herrell S.D., Clark P.E., Baumgartner R., Cookson M.S. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2007;178:2385-2389.
  12. Sooriakumaran P., Srivastava A., ShariatS.F., StrickerP.D., Ahlering T., Eden C.G., WiklundP.N., Sanchez-SalasR., Mottrie A., LeeD., Neal D.E., Ghavamian R., Nyirady P., Nilsson A., Carlsson S., Xylinas E., Loidl W., Seitz C., Schramek P., Roehrborn C., Cathelineau X., Skarecky D., Shaw G., Warren A., Delprado W.J., Haynes A.M., Steyerberg E., Roobol M.J., Tewari A.K. A multinational, multiinstitutional study comparing positive surgical margin rates among 22 393 open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients. Eur. Urol. 2014;66:450-456.
  13. Alemozaffar M., Sanda M., Yecies D., Mucci L.A., Stampfer M.J., Kenfield S.A. Benchmarks for operative outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: results from the health professionals follow-up study. Eur. Urol. 2015;67:432-438.
  14. Haglind E., Carlsson S., Stranne J., Wallerstedt A., Wilderang U., Thorsteinsdottir T., Lagerkvist M., Damber J.E., Bjartell A., Hugos- son J., WiklundP., SteineckG. LAPPRO steering committee. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur. Urol. 2015;68(2):216-225.
  15. Hu J.C., Gandaglia G., Karakiewicz P.I., Nguyen P.L., Trinh Q.D., Shih Y.C., Abdollah F., Chamie K., Wright J.L., Ganz P.A., Sun M. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur. Urol. 2014;66:666-672.
  16. Gagnon L.O., Goldenberg S.L., Lynch K., Hurtado A., Gleave M.E. Comparison of open and robotic-assisted prostatectomy: The University of British Columbia experience. CUAJ. 2014;8:92-97.
  17. Раснер П.И., Котенко Д.В., Колонтарев К.Б., Пушкарь Д.Ю. Сравнительный анализ функциональных результатов радикальной позадилонной и робот-ассистированной простатэктомии у больных локализованным раком предстательной железы. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2014;4:26-30.
  18. Thompson J.E., Egger S., Bohm M., Haynes A.M., Matthews J., Rasiah K., Stricker P.D. Superior quality of life and improved surgical margins are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve: a prospective single-surgeon study of 1552 consecutive cases. Eur. Urol. 2014;65:521-531.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies