Contemporary Laparoscopic and Open Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy: Pathologic Outcomes and Kattan Postoperative Nomograms Are Equivalent

Urology

Volumn 69, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 118-122

  Park, Sangtae ^a   Jaffer, Omar ^a   Lotan, Yair ^a   Saboorian, Hossein ^a   Roehrborn, Claus G ^a   Cadeddu, Jeffrey A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NOMOGRAM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADICAL RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMY; SEMINAL VESICLE; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SURVIVAL; UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS;

AGED; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOMOGRAMS; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TREATMENT FAILURE;

EID: 33846470438     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: 15279995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.09.033     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Schuessler W.W., Schulam P.G., Clayman R.V., et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 50 (1997) 854-857
2. Guillonneau B., and Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol 163 (2000) 418-422
3. Tewari A., Peabody J., Sarle R., et al. Technique of da Vinci robot-assisted anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 60 (2002) 569-572
4. Swindle P., Eastham J.A., Ohori M., et al. Do margins matter?. The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 174 (2005) 903-907
5. Rassweiler J., Schulze M., Teber D., et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: oncological results in the first 500 patients. J Urol 173 (2005) 761-764
6. Rassweiler J., Seemann O., Schulze M., et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 169 (2003) 1689-1693
7. Menon M., Tewari A., Baize B., et al. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 60 (2002) 864-868
8. Soderdahl D.W., Diaz J.I., Rabah D.M., et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: evaluation of specimen pathologic features to critically assess and modify surgical technique. Urology 66 (2005) 552-556
9. Stolzenburg J.U., Rabenalt R., Do M., et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results after 700 procedures. J Urol 174 (2005) 1271-1275
10. Derweesh I.H., Kupelian P.A., Zippe C., et al. Continuing trends in pathological stage migration in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol 22 (2004) 300-306
11. Cooperberg M.R., Park S., Carroll P.R., et al. Prostate cancer 2004: insights from national disease registries. Oncology (Williston Park) 18 (2004) 1239-1250 1256-1258
12. Brown J.A., Garlitz C., Gomella L.G., et al. Pathologic comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. Urology 62 (2003) 481-486
13. Kattan M.W., Wheeler T.M., and Scardino P.T. Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 17 (1999) 1499-1507
14. Stephenson A.J., Scardino P.T., Eastham J.A., et al. Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 23 (2005) 7005-7012
15. Guillonneau B., and Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol 163 (2000) 1643-1649
16. Henson D.E., Hutter R.V., Farrow G., and Task Force on the Examination of Specimens Removed From Patients With Prostate Cancer. Practice protocol for the examination of specimens removed from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland: a publication of the Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 118 (1994) 779-783
17. Catalona W.J., and Smith D.S. Cancer recurrence and survival rates after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer: intermediate-term results. J Urol 160 (1998) 2428-2434
18. Han M., Partin A.W., Pound C.R., et al. Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy: the 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Clin North Am 28 (2001) 555-565
19. Hull G.W., Rabbani F., Abbas F., et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 167 (2002) 528-534
20. Greene K.L., Meng M.V., Elkin E.P., et al. Validation of the Kattan preoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence using a community based cohort: results from cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor (CapSure). J Urol 171 (2004) 2255-2259
21. Jack G.S., Cookson M.S., Coffey C.S., et al. Pathological parameters of radical prostatectomy for clinical stages T1c versus T2 prostate adenocarcinoma: decreased pathological stage and increased detection of transition zone tumors. J Urol 168 (2002) 519-524
22. Ohori M., Wheeler T.M., Kattan M.W., et al. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 154 (1995) 1818-1824
23. Blute M.L., Bostwick D.G., Bergstralh E.J., et al. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 50 (1997) 733-739
24. Wieder J.A., and Soloway M.S. Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 160 (1998) 299-315
25. Karakiewicz P.I., Eastham J.A., Graefen M., et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology 66 (2005) 1245-1250