Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Primary robotic RLPND for nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer: a two-center analysis of intermediate oncologic and safety outcomes

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

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the intermediate-term oncologic outcomes and safety profile of the largest case series of primary robotic retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for low-clinical-stage non-seminomatous germ cell testicular cancer.

Methods

This was a two-center retrospective analysis of robotic RPLND cases for low-clinical-stage (stage I–IIB) non-seminomatous germ cell testicular cancer in the primary setting. Demographic, perioperative, operative and oncologic variables were collected between March 2008 and May 2019. Descriptive analyses were performed and presented as medians with interquartile ranges for continuous variables and frequency and proportions for categorical variables. A survival analysis of time to recurrence was performed using Cox proportional hazards model. Using logistic regression, risk factors for complications were analyzed. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

Results

A total of 58 patients (CS 1 = 56, CS IIA = 2, CS IIB = 0) were identified. The median follow-up was 47 months and the 2-year recurrence-free survival rate was 91%. The five recurrences were all out of the performed dissection template (pelvis = 1 and lung = 4). Only five patients (29%) with occult metastasis underwent adjuvant chemotherapy. The median operative time was 319 min [interquartile range (IQR) 276–355 min], estimated blood loss was 100 ml (IQR 75–200 ml), node count was 26 (IQR 20–31), and length of stay 2 d (IQR 1–3 days). There were 2 (3.3%) intraoperative complications, 19 (32.7%) 30-day postoperative complications to include 14 (24.1%) Clavien grade I, 4 (6.9%) Clavien grade II, 1 (1.7%) Clavien grade III and 0 Clavien grade IV complications. No statistical significance was found on multivariate or univariate analysis for survival analysis of time to recurrence and risk factors for complications.

Conclusions

This study represents the largest case series of primary R-RPLND for the treatment of low-stage non-seminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT). With 47 months of follow-up and a low rate of adjuvant chemotherapy, intermediate oncologic efficacy appears to be comparable to the gold standard open approach.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Network NCC. Testicular cancer version 1.2019. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx. Accessed 1 Apr 2019

  2. Fung C, Dinh P Jr, Ardeshir-Rouhani-Fard S, Schaffer K, Fossa SD, Travis LB (2018) Toxicities associated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy and radiotherapy in long-term testicular cancer survivors. Adv Urol. 2018:8671832. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8671832(Epub 2018/04/20, PubMed PMID: 29670654; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5835297)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Haugnes HS, Oldenburg J, Bremnes RM (2015) Pulmonary and cardiovascular toxicity in long-term testicular cancer survivors. Urol Oncol 33(9):399–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.11.012(Epub 2015/01/03, PubMed PMID: 25554583)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. de Wit R (2014) Optimal management of clinical stage I nonseminoma: new data for patients to consider. J Clin Oncol 32(34):3792–3793. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2014.56.5747(Epub 2014/10/01, PubMed PMID: 25267744)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Subramanian VS, Nguyen CT, Stephenson AJ, Klein EA (2010) Complications of open primary and post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. Urol Oncol 28(5):504–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2008.10.026(Epub 2008/12/23, PubMed PMID: 19097812)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rukstalis DB, Chodak GW (1992) Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in a patient with stage 1 testicular carcinoma. J Urol 148(6):1907–1909 (discussion 9–10, Epub 1992/12/01, PubMed PMID: 1433638)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bhayani SB, Ong A, Oh WK, Kantoff PW, Kavoussi LR (2003) Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer: a long-term update. Urology 62(2):324–327 (Epub 2003/08/02, PubMed PMID: 12893344)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mano R, Di Natale R, Sheinfeld J (2019) Current controversies on the role of retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for testicular cancer. Urol Oncol 37(3):209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.09.009(Epub 2018/11/18, PubMed PMID: 30446455; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6379133)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harris KT, Gorin MA, Ball MW, Pierorazio PM, Allaf ME (2015) A comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. BJU Int 116(6):920–923. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13121(Epub 2015/03/18, PubMed PMID: 25781349)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ng AT, Tam PC (2014) Current status of robot-assisted surgery. Hong Kong Med J 20(3):241–250. https://doi.org/10.12809/hkmj134167(Epub 2014/05/24, PubMed PMID: 24854139)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Davol P, Sumfest J, Rukstalis D (2006) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Urology 67(1):199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.07.022(Epub 2006/01/18, PubMed PMID: 16413370)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cheney SM, Andrews PE, Leibovich BC, Castle EP (2015) Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: technique and initial case series of 18 patients. BJU Int 115(1):114–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12804(Epub 2014/05/16, PubMed PMID: 24825773)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stepanian S, Patel M, Porter J (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: evolution of the technique. Eur Urol 70(4):661–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.03.031(Epub 2016/04/14, PubMed PMID: 27068395)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pearce SM, Golan S, Gorin MA, Luckenbaugh AN, Williams SB, Ward JF et al (2017) Safety and early oncologic effectiveness of primary robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer. Eur Urol 71(3):476–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.017(Epub 2016/05/29, PubMed PMID: 27234998)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Santomauro MG, Stroup SP, L’Esperance AH, Masterson JH, Derweesh IH, Auge BK, Crain DS, L’Esperance JO (2014) Supine robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. CRSLS. https://doi.org/10.4293/CRSLS.2014.00326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Carver BS, Shayegan B, Eggener S, Stasi J, Motzer RJ, Bosl GJ et al (2007) Incidence of metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumor outside the boundaries of a modified postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. J Clin Oncol 25(28):4365–4369. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.11.2078(Epub 2007/10/02, PubMed PMID: 17906201)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Eggener SE, Carver BS, Sharp DS, Motzer RJ, Bosl GJ, Sheinfeld J (2007) Incidence of disease outside modified retroperitoneal lymph node dissection templates in clinical stage I or IIA nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer. J Urol 177(3):937–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.045(discussion 42–3. Epub 2007/02/14, PubMed PMID: 17296380)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, Byrd DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK et al (eds) (2017) AJCC cancer staging manual, 8th edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rassweiler JJ, Scheitlin W, Heidenreich A, Laguna MP, Janetschek G (2008) Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: does it still have a role in the management of clinical stage I nonseminomatous testis cancer? A European perspective. Eur Urol 54(5):1004–1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.08.022(Epub 2008/08/30, PubMed PMID: 18722704)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Al-Ahmadie HA, Carver BS, Cronin AM, Olgac S, Tickoo SK, Fine SW et al (2013) Primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in low-stage testicular germ cell tumors: a detailed pathologic study with clinical outcome analysis with special emphasis on patients who did not receive adjuvant therapy. Urology 82(6):1341–1346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.04.082(Epub 2013/10/08, PubMed PMID: 24094656)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nayan M, Jewett MA, Sweet J, Anson-Cartwright L, Bedard PL, Moore M et al (2015) Lymph node yield in primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for nonseminoma germ cell tumors. J Urol 194(2):386–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.03.100(Epub 2015/04/01, PubMed PMID: 25823792)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Thompson RH, Carver BS, Bosl GJ, Bajorin D, Motzer R, Feldman D et al (2010) Evaluation of lymph node counts in primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Cancer 116(22):5243–5250. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25266(Epub 2010/07/29, PubMed PMID: 20665486; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4174298)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Tselos A, Moris D, Tsilimigras DI, Fragkiadis E, Mpaili E, Sakarellos P et al (2018) Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in testicular cancer treatment: a systematic review. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 28(6):682–689. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2017.0672(Epub 2018/02/24, PubMed PMID: 29474141)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Beck SD, Peterson MD, Bihrle R, Donohue JP, Foster RS (2007) Short-term morbidity of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in a contemporary group of patients. J Urol 178(2):504–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.123(discussion 6, Epub 2007/06/15, PubMed PMID: 17561131)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Smith JA Jr, Herrell SD (2005) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: do minimally invasive approaches offer significant advantages? J Clin Oncol 23(32):8170–8175. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.03.1963(Epub 2005/11/10, PubMed PMID: 16278469)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Williams SB, McDermott DW, Winston D, Bahnson E, Berry AM, Steele GS et al (2010) Morbidity of open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: contemporary perioperative data. BJU Int 105(7):918–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2009.08888.x(Epub 2009/09/15, PubMed PMID: 19747353)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Syan-Bhanvadia S, Bazargani ST, Clifford TG, Cai J, Miranda G, Daneshmand S (2017) Midline extraperitoneal approach to retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer: minimizing surgical morbidity. Eur Urol 72(5):814–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.024(Epub 2017/03/23, PubMed PMID: 28325537)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Moore LJ, Wilson MR, Waine E, Masters RS, McGrath JS, Vine SJ (2015) Robotic technology results in faster and more robust surgical skill acquisition than traditional laparoscopy. J Robot Surg 9(1):67–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0493-9(Epub 2015/11/05, PubMed PMID: 26530974)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Baniel J, Foster RS, Rowland RG, Bihrle R, Donohue JP (1994) Complications of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. J Urol 152(2 Pt 1):424–427 (Epub 1994/08/01 PubMed PMID: 8015086)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Heidenreich A, Albers P, Hartmann M, Kliesch S, Kohrmann KU, Krege S et al (2003) Complications of primary nerve sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors of the testis: experience of the German Testicular Cancer Study Group. J Urol 169(5):1710–1714. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000060960.18092.54(Epub 2003/04/11, PubMed PMID: 12686815)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Nicholas R. Rocco and Sean P. Stroup co-primary authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Naval Medical Center San Diego, 34800 Bob Wilson Drive, San Diego, CA, 92134, USA

    Nicholas R. Rocco, Sean P. Stroup, Michael T. Marshall, Michael G. Santomauro, Matthew S. Christman & James O. L’Esperance

  2. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Haidar M. Abdul-Muhsin & Erik P. Castle

Authors
  1. Nicholas R. Rocco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sean P. Stroup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haidar M. Abdul-Muhsin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael T. Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael G. Santomauro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthew S. Christman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. James O. L’Esperance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Erik P. Castle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NRR: data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. SPS: protocol/project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. HMA: data collection or management, data analysis. MTM: data analysis and manuscript writing/editing. MGS: data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. MSC: data analysis and manuscript writing/editing. JOL’: protocol/project development. EPC: protocol/project development and manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean P. Stroup.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

SPS, MGS, and JOL have served as surgical proctors for Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this retrospective study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the NMCSD Institutional Review Board (NMCSD.2012.0155) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

A waiver of informed consent was granted for this retrospective registry study in accordance with ethical standards and after approval of the NMCSD Institutional Review Board (NMCSD.2012.0155).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rocco, N.R., Stroup, S.P., Abdul-Muhsin, H.M. et al. Primary robotic RLPND for nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer: a two-center analysis of intermediate oncologic and safety outcomes. World J Urol 38, 859–867 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02900-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02900-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation