Advertisement

Surgical Management of Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

  • Antoni Vilaseca
  • Daniel P. Nguyen
  • Karim Touijer
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Localized prostate cancer can be managed with different treatment options based on the risk of progression of the disease and the patient morbidities and preferences. The most accepted treatment options include watchful waiting, external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, cryosurgery, high-intensity focused ultrasound, and radical prostatectomy. Radical prostatectomy is associated with excellent oncological outcomes in the localized setting but also with a variable degree of functional adverse events, mainly impotence and incontinence. Modification of the surgical technique with preservation of the neurovascular bundles improves postoperative sexual outcomes and continence. The advent of minimally invasive surgery has contributed to the emergence of many studies investigating the potential benefits on oncological and functional outcomes.

While surgery used to be offered mainly in the low-risk setting and rarely to high-risk patients, it has recently gained importance in the latter group, sometimes as part of a multimodal approach. The main advantages over other treatment options are the pathologic confirmation of the primary tumor grade and the regional staging provided with the pelvic lymph node dissection.

References

  1. Abdollah F, et al. Comparison of mortality outcomes after radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer: a population-based analysis. Int J Urol. 2012;19(9):836–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abern MR, et al. The impact of pathologic staging on the long-term oncologic outcomes of patients with clinically high-risk prostate cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(11):1656–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akakura K, et al. A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy plus endocrine therapy versus external beam radiotherapy plus endocrine therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: results at median follow-up of 102 months. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2006;36(12):789–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albertsen PC, et al. Long-term survival among men with conservatively treated localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1995;274(8):626–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alsaid B, et al. Tridimensional computer-assisted anatomic dissection of posterolateral prostatic neurovascular bundles. Eur Urol. 2010;58(2):281–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alsaid B, et al. Division of autonomic nerves within the neurovascular bundles distally into corpora cavernosa and corpus spongiosum components: immunohistochemical confirmation with three-dimensional reconstruction. Eur Urol. 2011;59(6):902–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Artibani W, et al. Learning curve and preliminary experience with da Vinci-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2008;80(3):237–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aus G, Hugosson J, Norlén L. Long-term survival and mortality in prostate cancer treated with noncurative intent. J Urol. 1995;154(2 Pt 1):460–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bader P et al. Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol. 2002;168(2):514–8.Google Scholar
  10. Beyer B, et al. A feasible and time-efficient adaptation of NeuroSAFE for da Vinci robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):138–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bill-Axelson A, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(16):1144–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bill-Axelson A, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(18):1708–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bill-Axelson A, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(10):932–42.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bolenz C, et al. Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):316–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bolla M, et al. Long-term results with immediate androgen suppression and external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): a phase III randomized trial. Lancet. 2002;360(9327):103–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boorjian SA, et al. Long-term outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol. 2007;178(3 Pt 1):864–70; discussion 870–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boorjian SA, et al. Long-term survival after radical prostatectomy versus external-beam radiotherapy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Cancer. 2011;117(13):2883–91.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Briganti A, et al. Identifying the best candidate for radical prostatectomy among patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):584–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burkhard FC, et al. Nerve sparing open radical retropubic prostatectomy – does it have an impact on urinary continence? J Urol. 2006;176(1):189–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carver BS, et al. Long-term outcome following radical prostatectomy in men with clinical stage T3 prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006;176(2):564–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Catarin MVG, et al. The role of membranous urethral afferent autonomic innervation in the continence mechanism after nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: a clinical and prospective study. J Urol. 2008;180(6):2527–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cooperberg MR, et al. High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990–2007. World J Urol. 2008;26(3):211–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Daly T et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; Issue 12. Art. No.:CD007234.Google Scholar
  24. De Carlo F, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes: a systematic review. Urol Int. 2014;93(4):373–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Di Pierro GB, et al. A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):1–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Droz JP, et al. Background for the proposal of SIOG guidelines for the management of prostate cancer in senior adults. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2010;73(1):68–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dubbelman YD, Dohle GR, Schröder FH. Sexual function before and after radical retropubic prostatectomy: a systematic review of prognostic indicators for a successful outcome. Eur Urol. 2006;50(4):711–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eastham JA, et al. Risk factors for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 1996;156(5):1707–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009a;55(5):1037–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, et al. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009b;104(4):534–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012a;62(3):418–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012b;62(3):405–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Freedland SJ, et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T3a disease. Cancer. 2007;109(7):1273–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Furukawa J, et al. Oncologic outcome of radical prostatectomy as monotherapy for men with high-risk prostate cancer. Curr Urol. 2016;9(2):67–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ganzer R, et al. Topographical anatomy of periprostatic and capsular nerves: quantification and computerised planimetry. Eur Urol. 2008;54(2):353–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol. 2000;163(6):1643–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Haglind E, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heesakkers J et al. Pathophysiology and contributing factors in postprostatectomy incontinence: a review. Eur Urol. 2017;71(6):936–944.Google Scholar
  39. Heidenreich A, Varga Z, von Knobloch R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1681–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heidenreich A, Ohlmann CH, Polyakov S. Anatomical extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52(1):29–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hsu C-Y, et al. Outcome of surgery for clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer: a single-institution experience. Eur Urol. 2007;51(1):121–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. James N, et al. Docetaxel and/or zoledronic acid for hormone-naïve prostate cancer: first survival results from STAMPEDE. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:5001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Johansson E, et al. Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(9):891–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Joniau S, et al. Radical prostatectomy in very high-risk localized prostate cancer: long-term outcomes and outcome predictors. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2012;46(3):164–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Joniau S, et al. Mapping of pelvic lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):450–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kaiho Y, et al. Intraoperative electrophysiological confirmation of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;173(4):1139–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kane CJ, et al. Changing nature of high risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;177(1):113–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kaushik D, et al. Oncological outcomes following radical prostatectomy for patients with pT4 prostate cancer. Int Braz J Urol. 2016;42(6):1091–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kim SC, et al. Factors determining functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: robot-assisted versus retropubic. Eur Urol. 2011;60(3):413–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Krambeck AE, et al. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int. 2009;103(4):448–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lepor H. Selecting candidates for radical prostatectomy. Rev Urol. 2000;2(3):182–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Litwin MS, et al. Differences in urologist and patient assessments of health related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: results of the CaPSURE database. J Urol. 1998;159(6):1988–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Loeb S, et al. What are the outcomes of radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer? Urology. 2010;76(3):710–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marien T, Sankin A, Lepor H. Sexual function/infertility factors predicting preservation of erectile function in men undergoing open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;181(4):1817–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Masterson TA, et al. The association between total and positive lymph node counts, and disease progression in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006;175(4):1320–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mattei A, et al. The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol. 2008;53(1):118–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Michl U, et al. Nerve-sparing surgery technique, not the preservation of the neurovascular bundles, leads to improved long-term continence rates after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):584–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Miller DC. Long-term outcomes among localized prostate cancer survivors: health-related quality-of-life changes after radical prostatectomy, external radiation, and brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(12):2772–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mitchell CR, et al. 20-year survival after radical prostatectomy as initial treatment for cT3 prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;110(11):1709–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nguyen DP, et al. A specific mapping study using fluorescence sentinel lymph node detection in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Urol. 2016;70(5):734–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pagliarulo V. Detection of occult lymph node metastases in locally advanced node-negative prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(18):2735–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Palisaar R-J, et al. Influence of nerve-sparing (NS) procedure during radical prostatectomy (RP) on margin status and biochemical failure. Eur Urol. 2005;47(2):176–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Petrelli F, et al. Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2014;12(4):215–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rabbani F, et al. Factors predicting recovery of erections after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2000;164(6):1929–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Recabal P, et al. Sexual function/infertility erectile function recovery after radical prostatectomy in men with high risk features. J Urol. 2016;196(2):507–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reeves F, et al. Preservation of the neurovascular bundles is associated with improved time to continence after radical prostatectomy but not long-term continence rates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68(4):692–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Resnick MJ, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(5):436–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Salonia A, et al. Prevention and management of postprostatectomy sexual dysfunctions. Part 1: choosing the right patient at the right time for the right surgery. Eur Urol. 2012;62(2):261–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schlomm T, et al. Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11 069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2012;62(2):333–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schover LR, et al. Defining sexual outcomes after treatment for localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;95(8):1773–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schuessler WW, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology. 1997;50(6):854–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schumacher MC, et al. Good outcome for patients with few lymph node metastases after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;54(2):344–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shelley MD, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of neo-adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate carcinoma. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009;35(1):9–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Steineck G, et al. Degree of preservation of the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy and urinary continence 1 year after surgery. Eur Urol. 2015;67(3):559–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sweeney CJ, et al. Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(8):737–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Takenaka A, et al. Pelvic autonomic nerve mapping around the prostate by intraoperative electrical stimulation with simultaneous measurement of intracavernous and intraurethral pressure. J Urol. 2007;177(1):225–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tal R, et al. Erectile function recovery rate after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis. J Sex Med. 2009;6(9):2538–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Taplin M-E, et al. Intense androgen-deprivation therapy with abiraterone acetate plus leuprolide acetate in patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer: results of a randomized phase II neoadjuvant study. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(33):3705–15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Touijer K, et al. Standard versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer in patients with a predicted probability of nodal metastasis greater than 1%. J Urol. 2007;178(1):120–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Touijer KA, et al. Long-term outcomes of patients with lymph node metastasis treated with radical prostatectomy without adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):20–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. von Bodman C, et al. Intraoperative frozen section of the prostate decreases positive margin rate while ensuring nerve sparing procedure during radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2013;190(2):515–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128(3):492–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ward J, et al. The impact of surgical approach (nerve bundle preservation versus wide local excision) on surgical margins and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004;172(4):1328–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Ward JF, et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int. 2005;95(6):751–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wawroschek F, et al. The influence of serial sections, immunohistochemistry, and extension of pelvic lymph node dissection on the lymph node status in clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2003;43(2):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Weckermann D, et al. Sentinel lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: experience with more than 1,000 patients. J Urol. 2007;177(3):916–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wilt TJ, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Xylinas E, et al. Oncological control after radical prostatectomy in men with clinical T3 prostate cancer: a single-centre experience. BJU Int. 2009;103(9):1173–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Yaxley JW, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016;388:1057–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yossepowitch O, et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized, high risk prostate cancer: critical analysis of risk assessment methods. J Urol. 2007;178(2):493–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Zelefsky MJ, et al. Metastasis after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a comparison of clinical cohorts adjusted for case mix. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(9):1508–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antoni Vilaseca
    • 1
  • Daniel P. Nguyen
    • 2
  • Karim Touijer
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of UrologyHospital Clinic de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Urology Service, Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Weill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Thomas Steuber
    • 1
  1. 1.Martini-Klinik am UKE GmbHHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations