Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The surgical approach can be determined from the pathological specimen obtained after open or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the surgical approach using the pathological specimen obtained after open radical prostatectomy (ORP) or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALRP).

Methods

A prospective study has been performed in patients who underwent either ORP or RALRP for localized prostate cancer. Two dedicated uro-pathologists, blinded to the surgeons and the operating rooms’ schedules, analyzed the pathological specimens according to the Stanford protocol. Both pathologists also determined the surgical approach used based on several criteria pertaining to the pathological specimen.

Results

Overall, 117 patients with a median age of 63 years were included. The main characteristics (i.e., Gleason score, pTNM stage, preoperative PSA and margin) were comparable in both groups (p > 0.05). Pathologists 1 and 2 were able to significantly assess the surgical procedure from the pathological specimen provided (in 76.1 and 69.2 % of cases, respectively). Pathologist 1 had a better performance than pathologist 2 (AUC 0.75, IC 95 % [0.67–0.83] vs. AUC = 0.68 IC 95 % [0.59–0.77]) (p = 0.017). The κ index of the inter-observer agreement was satisfactory (0.76). In a univariate analysis, the criteria linked to the pathologist’s assessment were as follows: macroscopic integrity of the specimen (p = 0.04), presence of periprostatic fat (p = 0.04), width of periprostatic tissue (p < 0.001) and nerve-sparing status (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

It was possible to determine the surgical procedure from the analysis of the specimen obtained after a radical prostatectomy. In view of these data and from this perspective, one could infer that there are indeed oncological differences between the robotic and open approaches to radical prostatectomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012) Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62:10–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Garmo H, Stark JR, Busch C et al (2011) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 364:1708–1717

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mottrie A, Ficarra V (2010) Can robot-assisted radical prostatectomy still be considered a new technology pushed by marketers? The IDEAL evaluation. Eur Urol 58:525–527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mottrie A, De Naeyer G, Novara G, Ficarra V (2011) Robotic radical prostatectomy: a critical analysis of the impact on cancer control. Curr Opin Urol 21:179–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yates DR, Roupret M, Bitker MO, Vaessen C (2011) To infinity and beyond: the robotic toy story. Eur Urol 60:263–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:418–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:405–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC, Ahlering TE, Artibani W, Carroll PR et al (2012) Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena consensus panel. Eur Urol 62:368–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:382–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:431–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim SP, Boorjian SA, Shah ND, Weight CJ, Tilburt JC, Han LC et al (2013) Disparities in access to hospitals with robotic surgery for patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Urol 189:514–520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Xylinas E, Yates DR, Renard-Penna R, Seringe E, Bousquet JC, Comperat E et al (2011) Role of pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging in staging of prostate cancer specifically in patients diagnosed with clinically locally advanced tumours by digital rectal examination. World J Urol. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0811-z

  13. Dariane C, Le Cossec C, Drouin SJ, Wolff B, Granger B, Mozer P et al (2013) Comparison of oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men diagnosed with prostate cancer with PSA levels below and above 4 ng/mL. World J Urol. doi:10.1002/rcs.435

  14. Lebeau T, Roupret M, Ferhi K, Chartier-Kastler E, Bitker MO, Richard F et al (2011) The role of a well-trained team on the early learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures: the example of radical prostatectomy. Int J Med Robot. doi:10.1007/s00345-013-1089-0

  15. Lebeau T, Roupret M, Ferhi K, Chartier-Kastler E, Richard F, Bitker MO et al (2011) Assessing the complications of laparoscopic robot-assisted surgery: the case of radical prostatectomy. Surg Endosc 25:536–542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT (2002) Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. 1974. J Urol 167:953–958 (discussion 959)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E (1988) Morphometric and clinical studies on 68 consecutive radical prostatectomies. J Urol 139:1235–1241

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Amin MB, Chang SS, Egevad L, Epstein JI et al (2009) Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:1568–1576

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lepor H (2009) Status of radical prostatectomy in 2009: is there medical evidence to justify the robotic approach? Rev Urol 11:61–70

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M et al (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55:1037–1063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Drouin SJ, Vaessen C, Hupertan V, Comperat E, Misrai V, Haertig A et al (2009) Comparison of mid-term carcinologic control obtained after open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 27:599–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59:61–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Orvieto MA et al (2011) Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 59:702–707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Xylinas E, Ploussard G, Durand X, de La Taille A, Gillion N, Allory Y et al (2010) Evaluation of combined oncological and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: trifecta rate of achieving continence, potency and cancer control–a literature review. Urology 76:1194–1198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, D’Elia C, Secco S, Iafrate M et al (2009) A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int 104:534–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kang DC, Hardee MJ, Fesperman SF, Stoffs TL, Dahm P (2010) Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature. Eur Urol 57:930–937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service d’Urologie, Hopital Pitié-Salpétrière, AP-HP, 83 Bvd Hopital, 75013, Paris, France

    Sarah J. Drouin, Christophe Vaessen, Marc-Olivier Bitker, Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler, Pierre Mozer, Olivier Cussenot & Morgan Rouprêt

  2. Service d’Anatomopathologie, Hopital Pitié-Salpétrière, AP-HP, Paris, 75013, France

    Eva Comperat & Justine Varinot

  3. Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, UPMC Univ Paris 06, GRC5, ONCOTYPE-Uro, 75005, Paris, France

    Sarah J. Drouin, Eva Comperat, Justine Varinot, Christophe Vaessen, Marc-Olivier Bitker, Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler, Pierre Mozer, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Olivier Cussenot & Morgan Rouprêt

  4. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Shahrokh F. Shariat

Authors
  1. Sarah J. Drouin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva Comperat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Justine Varinot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christophe Vaessen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marc-Olivier Bitker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pierre Mozer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Shahrokh F. Shariat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Olivier Cussenot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Morgan Rouprêt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morgan Rouprêt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Drouin, S.J., Comperat, E., Varinot, J. et al. The surgical approach can be determined from the pathological specimen obtained after open or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 32, 489–493 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1107-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1107-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation