Contemporaneous comparison of open vs minimally-invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer

BJU International

Volumn 112, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 751-757

  Pierorazio, Phillip M ^a   Mullins, Jeffrey K ^a   Eifler, John B ^a   Voth, Kipp ^a   Hyams, Elias S ^a   Han, Misop ^a   Pavlovich, Christian P ^a   Bivalacqua, Trinity J ^a   Partin, Alan W ^a   Allaf, Mohamad E ^a   Schaeffer, Edward M ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

high risk; minimally invasive surgery; prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HIGH RISK PROSTATE CANCER; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OPEN RADICAL RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RACE; RADICAL RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMY; RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY;

HIGH-RISK; MINIMALLY-INVASIVE SURGERY; PROSTATE CANCER; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY;

ADULT; AGED; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; LAPAROTOMY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTICS; SURVIVAL RATE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84884289024     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11757.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Intuitive Surgical Inc. Annual Report. Sunnyvale, California. Available at: http://investor.intuitivesurgical.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=122359&p=irol- reportsAnnual Accessed December 1, 2012.
2. Berglund RK, Jones JS, Ulchaker JC, et al. Radical prostatectomy as primary treatment modality for locally advanced prostate cancer: a prospective analysis. Urology 2006; 67: 1253-1256
3. Pierorazio PM, Guzzo TJ, Han M, et al. Long-term survival after radical prostatectomy for men with high Gleason sum in pathologic specimen. Urology 2010; 76: 715-721
4. Van Poppel H, Joniau S,. An analysis of radical prostatectomy in advanced stage and high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 253-259
5. Zelefsky MJ, Eastham JA, Cronin AM, 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: 1508-1513
6. Kupelian PA, Buchsbaum JC, Elshaikh M, Reddy CA, Zippe C, Klein EA,. Factors affecting recurrence rates after prostatectomy or radiotherapy in localized prostate carcinoma patients with biopsy Gleason score 8 or above. Cancer 2002; 95: 2302-2307
7. Blute ML,. No proof of inferiority: open radical retropubic prostatectomy remains state-of-the-art surgical technique for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2009; 181: 2421-2423
8. Truesdale MD, Lee DJ, Cheetham PJ, Hruby GW, Turk AT, Badani KK,. Assessment of lymph node yield after pelvic lymph node dissection in men with prostate cancer: a comparison between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy in the modern era. J Endourol 2010; 24: 1055-1060
9. Jayram G, Decastro GJ, Large MC, 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: 455-457
10. Engel JD, Kao WW, Williams SB, Hong YM,. Oncologic outcome of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in the high-risk setting. J Endourol 2010; 24: 1963-1966
11. 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 2010; 30: 26-32
12. Shikanov SA, Thong A, Gofrit ON, et al. Robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for biopsy Gleason 8 to 10: prediction of favorable pathologic outcome with preoperative parameters. J Endourol 2008; 22: 1477-1481
13. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969-974
14. Paserotti C, Antunes A, Okano M, et al. Early Results on A Prospectived Randomized Trial: Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy (RALP) Versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy (RRP) Study. Washington, DC: American Urological Association, 2011
15. Bastian PJ, Boorjian SA, Bossi A, et al. High-risk prostate cancer: from definition to contemporary management. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 1096-1106
16. Briganti A, Joniau S, Gontero P, et al. Identifying the best candidate for radical prostatectomy among patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 584-592
17. Pierorazio PM, Ross AE, Lin BM, et al. Preoperative characteristics of high-Gleason disease predictive of favourable pathological and clinical outcomes at radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2012; 110: 1122-1128
18. Loeb S, Schaeffer EM, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Humphreys EB, Walsh PC,. What are the outcomes of radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer? Urology 2010; 76: 710-714
19. Bastian PJ, Gonzalgo ML, Aronson WJ, et al. Clinical and pathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer patients with a preoperative Gleason sum of 8 to 10. Cancer 2006; 107: 1265-1272
20. Lau WK, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, Slezak JM, Zincke H,. Radical prostatectomy for pathological Gleason 8 or greater prostate cancer: influence of concomitant pathological variables. J Urol 2002; 167: 117-122
21. Donohue JF, Bianco FJ Jr, Kuroiwa K, et al. Poorly differentiated prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: long-term outcome and incidence of pathological downgrading. J Urol 2006; 176: 991-995
22. Manoharan M, Bird VG, Kim SS, Civantos F, Soloway MS,. Outcome after radical prostatectomy with a pretreatment prostate biopsy Gleason score of >/=8. BJU Int 2003; 92: 539-544
23. Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE,. Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol 2002; 168: 514-518
24. 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: 1681-1686
25. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2007; 69: 147-151
26. Masterson TA, Bianco FJ Jr, Vickers AJ, et al. The association between total and positive lymph node counts, and disease progression in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2006; 175: 1320-1324
27. Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1251-1265
28. Joniau S, Van Baelen A, Spahn M, et al. In High-Risk Prostate Cancer, A Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection with >20 Lymph Nodes Removed at Radical Prostatectomy Significantly Improves Overall Survival. Washington, DC: American Urological Association (AUA), 2011
29. Briganti A, Capitanio U, Chun FK, et al. Impact of surgical volume on the rate of lymph node metastases in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection for clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 794-802
30. Bochner BH, Herr HW, Reuter VE,. Impact of separate versus en bloc pelvic lymph node dissection on the number of lymph nodes retrieved in cystectomy specimens. J Urol 2001; 166: 2295-2296
31. Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, Carter HB, Walsh PC,. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 172: 1840-1844
32. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2009; 302: 1557-1564
33. Vickers A, Bianco F, Cronin A, et al. The learning curve for surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy: implications for margin status as an oncological end point. J Urol 2010; 183: 1360-1365