Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Biochemical Recurrence and Correlation with Various Parameters After Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: a Single Center Experience

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) is widely used as an early end point to assess treatment success and frequently prompts the initiation of secondary therapy after radical prostatectomy. We conducted an observational, ambispective study to evaluate BCR after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for clinically localized prostate cancer. We also analyzed correlation of BCR with pre-operative PSA level, D’Amico classification, pathological stage, post-operative GS, and positive surgical margins after RARP.

Material and Methods

A total of 90 patients with clinically localized carcinoma prostate (≤ T 2), who underwent RARP between April 2012 and April 2017 at our institute with 3 year of minimum follow-up were included in our study. Patients having locally advanced disease on clinical staging or died of unrelated cause in follow up or lost to follow up were excluded from study. Patients who had persistent detectable PSA (> 0.20 ng/ml) at 6 week with a second confirmatory level of PSA greater than 0.2 ng/ml at 3rd month were excluded from study.

Results

The age of the patient ranges from 46 to 79 years with the mean age of 65.36 ± 6.55 years. The mean PSA was 24.36 ± 26.68 ng/ml with range between 1.8 and 126.6 ng/ml. Nine patients (10%) developed BCR at 1-year follow-up and 81 patients were BCR-free. Thus, 1-year BCRFS and BCR rate were 90% and 10%, respectively in our study. Total 17 patients (18.9%) developed BCR during a 2-year period and 73 patients were free of BCR. Thus, 2-year BCRFS and BCR rate were 81.1% and 18.9%, respectively. A total of 29 patients (32.2%) had BCR and 61 patients were free of BCR at 3 years of follow-up. Thus, overall 3-year BCR rate and 3-year BCRFS rate were 32.2% and 67.8%, respectively. There was significant correlation of BCR with pre-operative PSA level, D’Amico classification, pathological stage, post-operative GS, and positive surgical margins.

Conclusions

There is relative paucity of data regarding the BCR rate after RARP in the Indian scenario. The BCR rate in our study was similar to previously published Western and limited Indian data on RARP series in localized prostate cancer. There was significant correlation of BCR with PSA, post-operative GS, pathological stage, PSM, and D'Amico classification.

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. 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  Google Scholar 

  2. Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, Olsson LE, Lobontiu A, Saint F et al (2001) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 165:1964–1966

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Berryhill R Jr, Jhaveri J, Yadav R, Leung R, Rao S, El-Hakim A et al (2008) Robotic prostatectomy: a review of outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology 72:15–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR, Bianchi M et al (2012) Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol 61:679–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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(5):702–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Menon M, Bhandari M, Gupta N, Lane Z, Peabody JO, Rogers CG et al (2010) Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol 58(6):838–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, D’Amico AV, Dmochowski RR et al (2007) Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol 177:540–545

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jain S, Saxena S, Kumar A (2014) Epidemiology of prostate cancer in India. Meta Gene 2:596–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Badani KK, Kaul S, Menon M (2007) Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 2766 procedures. Cancer 110:1951–1958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gupta NP, Yadav R, Akpo EE (2014) Continence outcomes following robotic radical prostatectomy: our experience from 150 consecutive patients. Indian J Urol 30:374–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dogra PN, Javali TD, Singh P, Kumar R, Seth A, Gupta NP et al (2012) Perioperative outcome of initial 190 cases of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy—a single-center experience. Indian J Urol 28:159–163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tholomier C, Bienz M, Hueber PA, Trinh QD, Hakim AE, Alhathal N et al (2014) Oncological and functional outcomes of 722 robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) cases: the largest Canadian 5-year experience. Can Urol Assoc J 8:195–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Alhathal N, Hakim AE (2013) Perioperative, oncological and functional outcomes of the first robotic prostatectomy program in Quebec: Single fellowship-trained surgeon’s experience of 250 cases. Can Urol Assoc J 7:326–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ghagane SC, Nerli RB, Hiremath MB, Wagh AT, Magdum PV (2016) Incidence of prostate cancer at a single tertiary care center in North Karnataka. Indian J Cancer 53(3):429–431

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tang K, Jiang K, Chen H, Chen Z, Xu H, Ye Z (2017) Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: a systematic review and a meta-analysis update. Oncotarget. 8(19):32237–32257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Su LM, Gilbert SM, Smith JA Jr. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Peters CA, editors. Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Campbell-Walsh's Urology. Philadelphia: Elsevier. 11th ed. Vol 3. 2016; 112: 2663–2684.

  17. Punnen S, Meng MV, Cooperberg MR, Greene KL, Cowan JE, Carroll PR (2013) How does robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compare with open surgery in men with high-risk prostate cancer? BJU Int 112:314–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pierorazio PM, Mullins JK, Eifler JB, Voth K, Hyams ES (2013) Contemporaneous comparison of open vs minimally-invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 112:751–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bijalwan P, Pooleri GK, Kalavampara SV et al (2018) Pathological outcomes and biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer in the Indian population. Indian J Urol 34(4):260–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gupta NP, Murugesan A, Kumar A, Yadav R (2016) Analysis of outcome following robotic assisted radical prostatectomy for patients with high risk prostate cancer as per D’Amico classification. Indian J Urol 32(2):115–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ozkanli SS, Zemheri IE, Yildirim A, Gur HD, Balbay MD, Senol S et al (2014) Gleason score at the margin can predict biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy, in addition to preoperative PSA and surgical margin status. Turk J Med Sci 44:397–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Haukaas SA, Halvorsen OJ, Daehlin L, Hostmark J, Akslen LA (2006) Is preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level significantly related to clinical recurrence after radical retropubic prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer? BJU Int 97:51–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim KH, Lim SK, Shin TY, Chung BH, Hong SJ, Rha KH (2013) Biochemical outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with follow-up more than 5-years. Asian J Androl 15:404–408

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Song C, Kang T, Yoo S, Jeong IG, Ro JY, Hong JH et al (2013) Tumor volume, surgical margin, and the risk of biochemical recurrence in men with organ-confined prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 31:168–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jayachandran J, Bañez LL, Levy DE, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Presti JC Jr et al (2008) Risk stratification for biochemical recurrence in men with positive surgical margins or extracapsular disease after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. J Urol 179:1791–1796

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, AIIMS, Jodhpur, India

    Mahendra Singh & Himanshu Pandey

  2. Department of Urology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, India

    Sachin Kathuria, Vipin Tyagi, Manu Gupta, Mrinal Pahwa & Ajay Sharma

  3. Department of Urology, Apex Hospital, Jaipur, India

    Saurabh Jain

  4. Department of Urology, Govt. Hospital, Srinagar, India

    Shahnawaz Rasool

Authors
  1. Mahendra Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sachin Kathuria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saurabh Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shahnawaz Rasool
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vipin Tyagi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Manu Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mrinal Pahwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Himanshu Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ajay Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahendra Singh.

Ethics declarations

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, M., Kathuria, S., Jain, S. et al. Evaluation of Biochemical Recurrence and Correlation with Various Parameters After Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: a Single Center Experience. Indian J Surg Oncol 13, 661–667 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-022-01554-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-022-01554-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation