Advertisement

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer

  • Taekmin Kwon
  • Jun Hyuk Hong
Chapter

Abstract

In patients with high-risk compared with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), the biochemical recurrence (BCR) risk and the cancer-specific mortality rate are 3 times and 11 times higher, respectively. Therefore, high-risk patients are treated with multimodal approaches, including surgery. But, evidences supporting surgery as a monotherapy and showing optimal results has emerged recently. In a current review comapring robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open RP (radical prostatectomy), similar positive surgical margins and BCR rates, as well as reduced bleeding and the need for transfusion and potential benefits for relief and erectile function recovery were demonstrated. RARP ssems to be a safe and effective option for patients who have high-risk PCa or as the first step in a multimodal strategy. Preservation of neurovascular bundle (NVB) is feasible tn the selected cases and there is a possibility to improve functional outcomes. As for lymph node dissection (LND), its therapeutic role in RARP setting is still to be elucidated. Further longitudinal study is required to assess the long-term benefit of primary RARP in men with high-risk PCa.

References

  1. 1.
    Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML. Mayo Clinic validation of the D’amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179(4):1354–60; discussion 60–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Badani KK, Kaul S, Menon M. Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 2766 procedures. Cancer. 2007;110(9):1951–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Walz J, Joniau S, Chun FK, Isbarn H, Jeldres C, Yossepowitch O, et al. Pathological results and rates of treatment failure in high-risk prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2011;107(5):765–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooperberg MR, Vickers AJ, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Comparative risk-adjusted mortality outcomes after primary surgery, radiotherapy, or androgen-deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2010;116(22):5226–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Petrelli F, Vavassori I, Coinu A, Borgonovo K, Sarti E, Barni S. Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2014;12(4):215–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1057–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Wallerstedt A, Wilderang U, Thorsteinsdottir T, et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol. 2015;68(2):216–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):431–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):418–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):969–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Surcel CI, Sooriakumaran P, Briganti A, De Visschere PJ, Futterer JJ, Ghadjar P, et al. Preferences in the management of high-risk prostate cancer among urologists in Europe: results of a web-based survey. BJU Int. 2015;115(4):571–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ham WS, Park SY, Rha KH, Kim WT, Choi YD. Robotic radical prostatectomy for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer is feasible: results of a single-institution study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009;19(3):329–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sagalovich D, Calaway A, Srivastava A, Sooriakumaran P, Tewari AK. Assessment of required nodal yield in a high risk cohort undergoing extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and its impact on functional outcomes. BJU Int. 2013;111(1):85–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lavery HJ, Nabizada-Pace F, Carlucci JR, Brajtbord JS, Samadi DB. Nerve-sparing robotic prostatectomy in preoperatively high-risk patients is safe and efficacious. Urol Oncol. 2012;30(1):26–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Casey JT, Meeks JJ, Greco KA, Wu SD, Nadler RB. Outcomes of locally advanced (T3 or greater) prostate cancer in men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2009;23(9):1519–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yuh BE, Ruel NH, Mejia R, Wilson CM, Wilson TG. Robotic extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1004–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jung JH, Seo JW, Lim MS, Lee JW, Chung BH, Hong SJ, et al. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection including internal iliac packet should be performed during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(8):785–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):1–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rogers CG, Sammon JD, Sukumar S, Diaz M, Peabody J, Menon M. Robot assisted radical prostatectomy for elderly patients with high risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(2):193–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tyritzis SI, Wallerstedt A, Steineck G, Nyberg T, Hugosson J, Bjartell A, et al. Thromboembolic complications in 3,544 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with or without lymph node dissection. J Urol. 2015;193(1):117–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Novara G, Ficarra V. Reply to Stefano C.M. Picozzi, Cristian Ricci and Luca Carmignani's letter to the editor re: Giacomo Novara, Vincenzo Ficarra, Simone Mocellin, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:382–404. Eur Urol. 2013;63(2):e29–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jayram G, Decastro GJ, Large MC, Razmaria A, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk disease: a review of short-term outcomes from a high-volume center. J Endourol. 2011;25(3):455–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suardi N, Dell'Oglio P, Gallina A, Gandaglia G, Buffi N, Moschini M, et al. Evaluation of positive surgical margins in patients undergoing robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy according to preoperative risk groups. Urol Oncol. 2016;34(2):57 e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harty NJ, Kozinn SI, Canes D, Sorcini A, Moinzadeh A. Comparison of positive surgical margin rates in high risk prostate cancer: open versus minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 2013;39(5):639–46; discussion 47–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee D, Choi SK, Park J, Shim M, Kim A, Lee S, et al. Comparative analysis of oncologic outcomes for open vs. robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer. Korean J Urol. 2015;56(8):572–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gandaglia G, Abdollah F, Hu J, Kim S, Briganti A, Sammon JD, et al. Is robot-assisted radical prostatectomy safe in men with high-risk prostate cancer? Assessment of perioperative outcomes, positive surgical margins, and use of additional cancer treatments. J Endourol. 2014;28(7):784–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Abdollah F, Sood A, Sammon JD, Hsu L, Beyer B, Moschini M, et al. Long-term cancer control outcomes in patients with clinically high-risk prostate cancer treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a multi-institutional study of 1100 patients. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):497–505.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pierorazio PM, Mullins JK, Eifler JB, Voth K, Hyams ES, Han M, et al. Contemporaneous comparison of open vs minimally-invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2013;112(6):751–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Connolly SS, Cathcart PJ, Gilmore P, Kerger M, Crowe H, Peters JS, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy as the initial step in multimodal therapy for men with high-risk localised prostate cancer: initial experience of 160 men. BJU Int. 2012;109(5):752–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Busch J, Magheli A, Leva N, Hinz S, Ferrari M, Friedersdorff F, et al. Matched comparison of outcomes following open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk patients. World J Urol. 2014;32(6):1411–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Menon M, Muhletaler F, Campos M, Peabody JO. Assessment of early continence after reconstruction of the periprostatic tissues in patients undergoing computer assisted (robotic) prostatectomy: results of a 2 group parallel randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2008;180(3):1018–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Takenaka A, Tewari AK, Leung RA, Bigelow K, El-Tabey N, Murakami G, et al. Preservation of the puboprostatic collar and puboperineoplasty for early recovery of urinary continence after robotic prostatectomy: anatomic basis and preliminary outcomes. Eur Urol. 2007;51(2):433–40; discussion 40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Koo KC, Jung DC, Lee SH, Choi YD, Chung BH, Hong SJ, et al. Feasibility of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for very-high risk prostate cancer: surgical and oncological outcomes in men aged >/=70 years. Prostate Int. 2014;2(3):127–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yee DS, Narula N, Amin MB, Skarecky DW, Ahlering TE. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: current evaluation of surgical margins in clinically low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer. J Endourol. 2009;23(9):1461–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyUlsan University HospitalUlsanSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of UrologyAsan Medical CenterSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations