Challenging cases in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.


Journal

World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Historique:
received: 30 03 2022
accepted: 07 06 2022
pubmed: 1 7 2022
medline: 16 7 2022
entrez: 30 6 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To evaluate the relationship between enlarged prostate, bulky median lobe (BML) or prior benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) surgery and perioperative functional, and oncological outcomes in high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP). 320 HR-PCa patients treated with RS-RARP between 2011 and 2020 at a single high-volume center. The relationship between prostate volume, BML, prior BPH surgery and perioperative outcomes, Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade ≥ 2 90-day postoperative complications, positive surgical margins (PSMs), and urinary continence (UC) recovery was evaluated respectively in multivariable linear, logistic and Cox regression models. Complications were collected according to the standardized methodology proposed by EAU guidelines. UC recovery was defined as the use of zero or one safety pad. Overall, 5.9% and 5.6% had respectively a BML or prior BPH surgery. Median PV was 45 g (range: 14-300). The rate of focal and non-focal PSMs was 8.4% and 17.8%. 53% and 10.9% patients had immediate UC recovery and CD ≥ 2. The 1- and 2-yr UC recovery was 84 and 85%. PV (p = 0.03) and prior BPH surgery (p = 0.02) was associated with longer operative time. BML was independent predictor of time to bladder catheter removal (p = 0.001). PV was independent predictor of PSMs (OR: 1.02; p = 0.009). Prior BPH surgery was associated with lower UC recovery (HR: 0.5; p = 0.03). HR-PCa patients with enlarged prostate have higher risk of PSMs, while patients with prior BPH surgery have suboptimal UC recovery. These findings should help physicians for accurate preoperative counseling and to improve surgical planning in case of HR-PCa patients with challenging features.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35771257
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04073-5
pii: 10.1007/s00345-022-04073-5
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1993-1999

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Références

Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 update. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042 pubmed: 34980492
Galfano A, Ascione A, Grimaldi S et al (2010) A new anatomic approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a feasibility study for completely intrafascial surgery. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.008
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.008 pubmed: 20566236
Phukan C, Mclean A, Nambiar A et al (2020) Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy vs conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02798-4
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02798-4 pubmed: 31089802
Checcucci E, Veccia A, Fiori C et al (2020) Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs the standard approach: a systematic review and analysis of comparative outcomes. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14887
doi: 10.1111/bju.14887 pubmed: 32274879 pmcid: 7262049
Rosenberg JE, Jung JH, Edgerton Z et al (2020) Retzius-sparing versus standard robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013641.pub2
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013641.pub2 pubmed: 33319916 pmcid: 8092422
Dell’Oglio P, Tappero S, Longoni M et al (2022) Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer patients: results from a large single-institution series. Eur Urol Open Sci 38:69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.02.007
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.02.007 pubmed: 35265866 pmcid: 8898917
Galfano A, Panarello D, Secco S, et al (2018) Does prostate volume have an impact on the functional and oncological results of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy? Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03069-2
Qian J, Fu Y, Wu X, et al (2021) Impact of protruded median lobe on perioperative, urinary continence and oncological outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot- assisted radical prostatectomy. Transl Androl Urol 10:538–547. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1229
Kim LHC, Santok GD, Raheem AA et al (2018) Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is safe for patients with prior transurethral prostate surgery. Int Braz J Urol 44:842–843. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2017.0316
doi: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2017.0316 pubmed: 29135417 pmcid: 6092641
Stonier T, Simson N, Davis J, Challacombe B (2019) Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) vs standard RARP: it’s time for critical appraisal. BJU Int 123:5–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14468
doi: 10.1111/bju.14468 pubmed: 29959814
D’Amico AV (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.969
doi: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969 pubmed: 9749478
Jeong CW, Lee S, Oh JJ et al (2014) Quantification of median lobe protrusion and its impact on the base surgical margin status during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. World J Urol 32:419–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-013-1118-Z
doi: 10.1007/S00345-013-1118-Z pubmed: 23817888
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien-dindo classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2 pubmed: 19809295
Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Graefen M et al (2012) Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc eau guidelines panel assessment and recommendations. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.033
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.033 pubmed: 22074761
Mazzone E, D’Hondt F, Beato S et al (2021) Robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion decreases postoperative complications only in highly comorbid patients: findings that rely on a standardized methodology recommended by the European Association of Urology Guidelines. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03237-5
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03237-5 pubmed: 32997261
Gandaglia G, Bravi CA, Dell’Oglio P et al (2018) The impact of implementation of the european association of urology guidelines panel recommendations on reporting and grading complications on perioperative outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.02.025
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.02.025 pubmed: 30409676 pmcid: 9084635
Dell’Oglio P, Andras I, Ortega D et al (2021) Impact of the implementation of the EAU guidelines recommendation on reporting and grading of complications in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.04.030
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.04.030 pubmed: 34980492
Cacciamani GE, Maas M, Nassiri N et al (2021) Impact of pelvic lymph node dissection and its extent on perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2021.02.001
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.02.001 pubmed: 33745687
Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Hruza M et al (2009) The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 10:475–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70079-8
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70079-8 pubmed: 19342300 pmcid: 2777762
Dell’Oglio P, Mazzone E, Lambert E et al (2021) The effect of surgical experience on perioperative and oncological outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion: evidence from a referral centre with extensive experience in robotic surgery. Eur Urol Focus 7:352–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.01.016
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.01.016 pubmed: 32061537
Sayyid RK, Simpson WG, Lu C et al (2017) Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a safe surgical technique with superior continence outcomes. J Endourol. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0490
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0490 pubmed: 28859492
Dalela D, Jeong W, Prasad M-A et al (2017) A pragmatic randomized controlled trial examining the impact of the Retzius-sparing approach on early urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.029
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.029 pubmed: 29174482
Li-Wen Chang, Sheng-Chun Hung, Ju-Chuan Hu, Kun-Yuan Chiu (2018) Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy associated with less bladder neck descent and better early continence outcome. Anticancer Res https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.12228
Asimakopoulos AD, Topazio L, de Angelis M et al (2019) Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized comparison on immediate continence rates. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6499-z
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6499-z pubmed: 30426256
Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin T-Y et al (2014) Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: combining the best of retropubic and perineal approaches. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12705
doi: 10.1111/bju.12705 pubmed: 24957902
Egan J, Marhamati S, Carvalho FLF et al (2021) Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy leads to durable improvement in urinary function and quality of life versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy without compromise on oncologic efficacy: single-surgeon series and step-by-step guide. Eur Urol 79:839–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.010
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.010 pubmed: 32536488
Menon M, Dalela D, Jamil M et al (2018) Functional recovery, oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an evidence-based analysis comparing the retzius sparing and standard approaches. J Urol 199:1210–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.115
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.115 pubmed: 29225060
Umari P, Eden C, Cahill D et al (2021) Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a comparative prospective study of nearly 500 patients. J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001435
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001435 pubmed: 33086025
Tai T-E, Wu C-C, Kang Y-N, Wu J-C (2020) Effects of Retzius sparing on robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07190-2
doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07190-2 pubmed: 31617093
Galfano A, Secco S, Dell’Oglio P et al (2021) Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: early learning curve experience in three continents. BJU Int 127:412–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15196
doi: 10.1111/bju.15196 pubmed: 32745367
Abdollah F, Dalela D, Sood A et al (2016) Intermediate-term cancer control outcomes in prostate cancer patients treated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional analysis. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1781-y
doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1781-y pubmed: 27260503
Kumar A, Samavedi S, Bates AS et al (2017) Safety of selective nerve sparing in high risk prostate cancer during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0627-3
doi: 10.1007/s11701-016-0627-3 pubmed: 28508108
Porpiglia F, Checcucci E, Amparore D et al (2019) Augmented-reality robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using hyper-accuracy three-dimensional reconstruction (HA3D™) technology: a radiological and pathological study. BJU Int 123:834–845. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14549
doi: 10.1111/bju.14549 pubmed: 30246936

Auteurs

Stefano Tappero (S)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy. stefano.m.tappero@gmail.com.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, University of Genova, Genova, Italy. stefano.m.tappero@gmail.com.
Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy. stefano.m.tappero@gmail.com.

Paolo Dell'Oglio (P)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Mattia Longoni (M)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Carlo Buratto (C)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Erika Palagonia (E)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Division of Urology, School of Medicine, Department of Clinical, Special and Dental Sciences, University Hospital "Ospedali Riuniti", Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.

Pietro Scilipoti (P)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Enrico Vecchio (E)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

Marco Martiriggiano (M)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

Silvia Secco (S)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Alberto Olivero (A)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Michele Barbieri (M)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Giancarlo Napoli (G)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Elena Strada (E)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Giovanni Petralia (G)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Dario Di Trapani (D)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Aldo Massimo Bocciardi (AM)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Antonio Galfano (A)

Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH