Comparative Effectiveness of Cancer Control and Survival after Robot-Assisted versus Open Radical Prostatectomy

Journal of Urology

Volumn 197, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 115-121

  Hu, Jim C ^a   O'Malley, Padraic ^a,e   Chughtai, Bilal ^a   Isaacs, Abby ^b   Mao, Jialin ^b   Wright, Jason D ^c   Hershman, Dawn ^c,d   Sedrakyan, Art ^b  

^a NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^c Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons ^*  (United States)

^d Department of Medicine   (United States)

^e DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

comparative effectiveness research; propensity score; prostatectomy; robotic surgical procedures

Indexed keywords

AGED; ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION THERAPY; ARTICLE; CANCER CONTROL; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SPECIFIC SURVIVAL; CANCER SURVIVAL; CAUSE OF DEATH; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OVERALL SURVIVAL; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOT ASSISTED SURGERY; AGE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER REGISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; PROSTATE TUMOR; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; SEER PROGRAM; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85003633034     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.115     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. 1 Torre, L.A., Bray, F., Siegel, R.L., et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin, 65, 2015, 87.
2. 2 Prostate Cancer UK: About prostate cancer, 2015. Available at http://prostatecanceruk.org/prostate-information/about-prostate-cancer. Accessed October 19, 2015.
3. 3 Hu, J.C., Gu, X., Lipsitz, S.R., et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA, 302, 2009, 1557.
4. 4 National Prostate Cancer Audit: First Year Annual Report – Organisation of Services and Analysis of Existing Clinical Data, 2014. Available at http://www.npca.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/NPCA-Annual-Report-FINAL-10_11_14.pdf.
5. 5 Bolenz, C., Freedland, S.J., Hollenbeck, B.K., et al. Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol, 65, 2014, 316.
6. 6 Hubanks, J.M., Umbreit, E.C., Karnes, R.J., et al. Open radical retropubic prostatectomy using high anterior release of the levator fascia and constant haptic feedback in bilateral neurovascular bundle preservation plus early postoperative phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibition: a contemporary series. Eur Urol, 61, 2012, 878.
7. 7 Hu, J.C., Gandaglia, G., Karakiewicz, P.I., et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol, 66, 2014, 666.
8. 8 Lallas, C.D., Fashola, Y., Den, R.B., et al. Predictors of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy at a single institution: preoperative and pathologic factors, and the impact of surgeon variability and technique on incidence and location. Can J Urol, 21, 2014, 7479.
9. 9 Hu, J.C., Wang, Q., Pashos, C.L., et al. Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol, 26, 2008, 2278.
10. 10 Wong, Y.N., Mitra, N., Hudes, G., et al. Survival associated with treatment vs observation of localized prostate cancer in elderly men. JAMA, 296, 2006, 2683.
11. 11 Elixhauser, A., Steiner, C., Harris, D.R., et al. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care, 36, 1998, 8.
12. 12 Schemper, M., Smith, T.L., A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials, 17, 1996, 343.
13. 13 D'Agostino, R.B. Jr., Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med, 17, 1998, 2265.
14. 14 Rassen, J.A., Glynn, R.J., Brookhart, M.A., et al. Covariate selection in high-dimensional propensity score analyses of treatment effects in small samples. Am J Epidemiol, 173, 2011, 1404.
15. 15 Austin, P.C., Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat, 10, 2011, 150.
16. 16 Franklin, J.M., Rassen, J.A., Ackermann, D., et al. Metrics for covariate balance in cohort studies of causal effects. Stat Med, 33, 2014, 1685.
17. 17 Yang D and Dalton JE: A unified approach to measuring the effect size between two groups using SAS®. Presented at SAS Global Forum 2012, Orlando, Florida, April 22-25, 2012.
18. 18 Lin, D.Y., Cox regression analysis of multivariate failure time data: the marginal approach. Stat Med, 13, 1994, 2233.
19. 19 Parsons, J.K., Messer, K., Palazzi, K., et al. Diffusion of surgical innovations, patient safety, and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. JAMA Surg, 149, 2014, 845.
20. 20 Juo, Y.Y., Hyder, O., Haider, A.H., et al. Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches? First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching. JAMA Surg, 149, 2014, 177.
21. 21 Kim, S.P., Shah, N.D., Karnes, R.J., et al. Hospitalization costs for radical prostatectomy attributable to robotic surgery. Eur Urol, 64, 2013, 11.
22. 22 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.
23. 23 Philippou, P., Waine, E., Rowe, E., Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open: comparison of the learning curve of a single surgeon. J Endourol, 26, 2012, 1002.
24. 24 Rozet, F., Jaffe, J., Braud, G., et al. A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience. J Urol, 178, 2007, 478.
25. 25 Gagnon, L.O., Goldenberg, S.L., Lynch, K., et al. Comparison of open and robotic-assisted prostatectomy: the University of British Columbia experience. Can Urol Assoc J, 8, 2014, 92.
26. 26 Papachristos, A., Basto, M., Te Marvelde, L., et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: an Australian single-surgeon series. ANZ J Surg, 85, 2015, 154.
27. 27 Jayadevappa, R., Bloom, B.S., Chhatre, S., et al. Health related quality of life and direct medical care cost in newly diagnosed younger men with prostate cancer. J Urol, 174, 2005, 1059.
28. 28 Smith, J.A. Jr., Herrell, S.D., Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: do minimally invasive approaches offer significant advantages?. J Clin Oncol, 23, 2005, 8170.
29. 29 Diaz, M., Peabody, J.O., Kapoor, V., et al. Oncologic outcomes at 10 years following robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 67, 2015, 1168.
30. 30 Bill-Axelson, A., Holmberg, L., Ruutu, M., et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med, 364, 2011, 1708.