Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of mid-term carcinologic control obtained after open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To determine the cancer control afforded by radical prostatectomy in patients who underwent either an open, laparoscopic, or robotic procedure for localized prostate cancer.

Methods

We collected data on all patients treated between 2000 and 2004. We recorded age, BMI, PSA, Gleason score and 2002 TNM stage, type of surgery, perioperative parameters, postoperative complications, pathological data, recurrence and outcome.

Results

Data were analyzed for 239 patients. Overall, the mean follow-up was 49.7 (18–103) months. Surgical procedures were open in 83 patients, laparoscopic in 85, and robot-assisted in 71. The transfusion rate was 5.6% for robotic cases, 5.9% for laparoscopic cases and 9.6% for open prostatectomy (p = 0.03). The positive margin rates in open, laparoscopic, and robotic cases were 18.1, 18.8, and 16.9% (p = 0.52), respectively. Only margin status, PSA level (>10), and Gleason score (>7) were associated with recurrence in univariate analysis (p < 0.05), and only the margin status and the Gleason score were significant in multivariate analysis. The statistical power was 0.7. Overall, the 5-year PSA-free survival rate was 88%. The 5-year PSA-free survival rates for the specific surgical approaches were 87.8% in open cases, 88.1% in laparoscopic cases, and 89.6% in robot-assisted prostatectomies, and there was no statistical difference between the approaches (p = 0.93).

Conclusion

Although open radical prostatectomy remains the gold standard procedure, we found no differences between these three techniques regarding early oncologic outcomes. These results are still preliminary, however, and further studies of larger populations with a longer follow-up are needed to make any statement regarding surgical strategy.

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. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Smigal C et al (2006) Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 56:106–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Haggman M, Andersson SO, Bratell S et al (2005) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 352:1977–1984. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa043739

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Boccon-Gibod L (2006) Radical prostatectomy: open? Laparoscopic? Robotic? Eur Urol 49:598–599. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.01.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eggleston JC, Walsh PC (1985) Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: pathological findings in the first 100 cases. J Urol 134:1146–1148

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lepor H (2005) Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Rev Urol 7:115–127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T (2003) Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 169:1689–1693. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000062614.56629.41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Joseph JV, Vicente I, Madeb R, Erturk E, Patel HR (2005) Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU Int 96:39–42. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05563.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting—the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 174:269–272. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000162082.12962.40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rozet F, Harmon J, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G (2006) Robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 24:171–179. doi:10.1007/s00345-006-0065-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr (2005) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology 66:105–107. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Sarle R, Hemal A, Peabody JO et al (2002) Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 168:945–949. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64548-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gettman MT, Hoznek A, Salomon L, Katz R, Borkowski T, Antiphon P et al (2003) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the extraperitoneal approach using the da Vinci robotic system. J Urol 170:416–419. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000076015.88739.a2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rozet F, Jaffe J, Braud G, Harmon J, Cathelineau X, Barret E et al (2007) A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience. J Urol 178:478–482. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW (2004) Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology 63:819–822. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2004.01.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Guazzoni G, Cestari A, Naspro R, Riva M, Centemero A, Zanoni M et al (2006) Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study. Eur Urol 50:98–104. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.02.051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M (2003) A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 92:205–210. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410X.2003.04311.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Herrmann TR, Rabenalt R, Stolzenburg JU, Liatsikos EN, Imkamp F, Tezval H et al (2007) Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter? World J Urol 25:149–160. doi:10.1007/s00345-007-0164-9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. D’Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Cote K, Hurwitz M, Beard C, Loffredo M et al (2004) Impact of the percentage of positive prostate cores on prostate cancer-specific mortality for patients with low or favorable intermediate-risk disease. J Clin Oncol 22:3726–3732. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.01.164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Gonen M, Cronin AM, Eastham JA, Schrag D et al (2008) Effects of pathologic stage on the learning curve for radical prostatectomy: evidence that recurrence in organ-confined cancer is largely related to inadequate surgical technique. Eur Urol 53:960–966. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.01.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Diblasio CJ, Kattan MW (2003) Use of nomograms to predict the risk of disease recurrence after definitive local therapy for prostate cancer. Urology 62(Suppl 1):9–18. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jiang Q, Snapinn S, Iglewicz B (2004) Calculation of sample size in survival trials: the impact of informative noncompliance. Biometrics 60:800–806. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.00231.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lakatos E (1988) Sample sizes based on the log-rank statistic in complex clinical trials. Biometrics 44:229–241. doi:10.2307/2531910

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Salomon L, Levrel O, de la Taille A, Anastasiadis AG, Saint F, Zaki S et al (2002) Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol 42:104–111. doi:10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00360-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Teber D, Su LM (2006) Laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy—critical analysis of the results. Eur Urol 49:612–624. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS, Herrell SD, Clark PE, Baumgartner R et al (2007) A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 178:2385–2390. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Klein EA, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Pontes JE, et al. (2008) Surgeon experience is strongly associated with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for all preoperative risk categories. J Urol 179:2212–2216. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.107 (discussion 2216–7)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schroeck FR, Krupski TL, Sun L, Albala DM, Price MM, Polascik TJ et al (2008) Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 54:785–793. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

There is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, GHU EST, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, University Paris VI, Paris, France

    Sarah J. Drouin, Christophe Vaessen, Vincent Hupertan, Vincent Misraï, Alain Haertig, Marc-Olivier Bitker, Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler, François Richard & Morgan Rouprêt

  2. Department of Pathology, GHU EST, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, University Paris VI, Paris, France

    Eva Comperat

  3. Academic Urology Department, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, 47-83 Bvd de l’hopital, 75013, Paris, France

    Morgan Rouprêt

Authors
  1. Sarah J. Drouin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christophe Vaessen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vincent Hupertan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eva Comperat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vincent Misraï
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alain Haertig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marc-Olivier Bitker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. François Richard
    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., Vaessen, C., Hupertan, V. et al. 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 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-009-0379-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-009-0379-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation