A multinational, multi-institutional study comparing positive surgical margin rates among 22 393 open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients

European Urology

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 450-456

  Sooriakumaran, Prasanna ^a,b   Srivastava, Abhishek ^c   Shariat, Shahrokh F ^d,e   Stricker, Phillip D ^f   Ahlering, Thomas ^g   Eden, Christopher G ^h   Wiklund, Peter N ^b   Sanchez Salas, Rafael ⁱ   Mottrie, Alexandre ^j   Lee, David ^k   Neal, David E ^l,m   Ghavamian, Reza ^c   Nyirady, Peter ⁿ   Nilsson, Andreas ^b   Carlsson, Stefan ^b   Xylinas, Evanguelos ^d   Loidl, Wolfgang ^o   Seitz, Christian ^e   Schramek, Paul ^p   Roehrborn, Claus ^q   Cathelineau, Xavier ⁱ   Skarecky, Douglas ^g   Shaw, Greg ^m   Warren, Anne ^r   Delprado, Warick J ^f   Haynes, Anne Marie ^f   Steyerberg, Ewout ^s   Roobol, Monique J ^s   Tewari, Ashutosh K ^d   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^c MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^f ST VINCENT'S CLINIC   (Australia)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^h ROYAL SURREY COUNTY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ Department of Urology L'Institut Mutualiste Montsouris ^*  (France)

^j OLV HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^k UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^m IMPERIAL CANCER RESEARCH FUND   (United Kingdom)

ⁿ SEMMELWEIS UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

^o St Vincent's Hospital   (Austria)

^p St John of God Hospital   (Austria)

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

^r CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^s ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

more..

Author keywords

Laparoscopic; Margins; Open; Radical prostatectomy; Robotic

Indexed keywords

AGED; AUSTRALIA; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EUROPE; HIGH VOLUME HOSPITAL; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPY; LOW VOLUME HOSPITAL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; PROCEDURES; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES;

AGED; AUSTRALIA; EUROPE; HOSPITALS, HIGH-VOLUME; HOSPITALS, LOW-VOLUME; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84905922472     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: 18737560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.11.018     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. M.M. Center, A. Jemal, and J. Lortet-Tieulent et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates Eur Urol 61 2012 1079 1092
2. J.A. Wieder, and M.S. Soloway Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer J Urol 160 1998 299 315
3. J. Pfitzenmaier, S. Pahernik, T. Tremmel, A. Haferkamp, S. Buse, and M. Hohenfellner Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression? BJU Int 102 2008 1413 1418
4. R. Albadine, M.E. Hyndman, and A. Chaux et al. Characteristics of positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, open retropubic radical prostatectomy, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a comparative histopathologic study from a single academic center Hum Pathol 43 2012 254 260
5. S.G. Vesey, J.E. McCabe, L. Hounsome, and S. Fowler UK radical prostatectomy outcomes and surgeon case volume: based on an analysis of the British Association of Urological Surgeons Complex Operations Database BJU Int 109 2012 346 354
6. P. Dasgupta, and R.S. Kirby The current status of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy Asian J Androl 11 2009 90 93
7. N.J. Hegarty, and J.H. Kaouk Radical prostatectomy: a comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques Can J Urol 13 Suppl 1 2006 56 61
8. T.A. Laurila, W. Huang, and D.F. Jarrard Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy generate similar positive margin rates in low and intermediate risk patients Urol Oncol 27 2009 529 533
9. S.B. Williams, M.H. Chen, and A.V. D'Amico et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: likelihood of positive surgical margin(s) Urology 76 2010 1097 1101
10. S.B. Williams, A.V. D'Amico, A.C. Weinberg, X. Gu, S.R. Lipsitz, and J.C. Hu Population-based determinants of radical prostatectomy surgical margin positivity BJU Int 107 2011 1734 1740
11. J.A. Smith Jr., R.C. Chan, and S.S. Chang et al. 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 2007 2385 2389 discussion 2389-90
12. E. Silva, U. Ferreira, and G.D. Silva et al. Surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: a comparison between retropubic and laparoscopic surgery Int Urol Nephrol 39 2007 865 869
13. Q.-D. Trinh, A. Bjartell, and S.J. Freedland et al. A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy Eur Urol 64 2013 786 798
14. K. Touijer, K. Kuroiwa, and J.A. Eastham et al. Risk-adjusted analysis of positive surgical margins following laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy Eur Urol 52 2007 1090 1096
15. P. Sooriakumaran, M. John, P. Wiklund, D. Lee, A. Nilsson, and A.K. Tewari Learning curve for robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study of 3794 patients Ital J Urol Nephrol 63 2011 191 198
16. M. Liss, K. Osann, and D. Ornstein Positive surgical margins during robotic radical prostatectomy: a contemporary analysis of risk factors BJU Int 102 2008 603 608
17. A.R. Rodriguez, K. Rachna, and J.M. Pow-Sang Laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: impact of the learning curve on perioperative outcomes and margin status JSLS 14 2010 6 13
18. D.S. Yee, N. Narula, M.B. Amin, D.W. Skarecky, and T.E. Ahlering Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: current evaluation of surgical margins in clinically low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer J Endourol 23 2009 1461 1465
19. J.A. Eastham, M.W. Kattan, and E. Riedel et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens J Urol 170 2003 2292 2295
20. O. Yossepowitch, A. Bjartell, and J.A. Eastham et al. Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences Eur Urol 55 2009 87 99
21. A. Magheli, M.L. Gonzalgo, and L.M. Su et al. Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching BJU Int 107 2011 1956 1962
22. I.M. van Oort, H.M. Bruins, L.A. Kiemeney, B.C. Knipscheer, J.A. Witjes, and C.A. Hulsbergen-van de Kaa The length of positive surgical margins correlates with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy Histopathology 56 2010 464 471
23. A. Ochiai, T. Sotelo, P. Troncoso, V. Bhadkamkar, and R.J. Babaian Natural history of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy based on length of a positive margin Urology 71 2008 308 312
24. G. Novara, V. Ficarra, and S. Mocellin et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy Eur Urol 62 2012 382 404
25. A. Tewari, P. Sooriakumaran, D.A. Bloch, U. Seshadri-Kreaden, A.E. Hebert, and P. Wiklund 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 62 2012 1 15
26. P. Sooriakumaran, L. Haendler, and T. Nyberg et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years Eur Urol 62 2012 768 774
27. Sooriakumaran P, Ploumidis A, Nyberg T, et al. The impact of length and location of positive margins in predicting biochemical recurrence after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with a minimum follow-up time of five years. BJU Int. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.12483.