Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Oncological Results: A Reverse Systematic Review

被引:13
作者
Moretti, Tomas Bernardo Costa [1 ,2 ]
Magna, Luis Alberto [3 ]
Reis, Leonardo Oliveira [1 ,2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] State Univ Campinas UNICAMP, Fac Med Sci, Doctoral Program Med Pathophysiol, Campinas, Brazil
[2] State Univ Campinas UNICAMP, UroScience & Dept Urol, Campinas, Brazil
[3] State Univ Campinas UNICAMP, Dept Med Genet, Campinas, Brazil
[4] Pontificia Univ Catolica Campinas, Ctr Life Sci, PUC Campinas, R John Boyd Dunlop S-N, BR-13060904 Campinas, Brazil
关键词
laparoscopic; methodology; open; radical prostatectomy; reverse systematic review; robot assisted; biochemical recurrence; positive surgical margin; oncological outcomes; CANCER; METAANALYSIS;
D O I
10.1089/end.2022.0819
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context: Systematic reviews (SR) have always been used as the best evidence to compare three radical prostatectomy (RP) techniques: retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP). Despite the superiority of minimally invasive surgery in relation to perioperative outcomes, the literature still cannot establish which technique is superior in relation to oncological outcomes. A new methodology called Reverse Systematic Review (RSR) was created to gather the best evidence in the literature based on a heterogeneous sample, allowing the comparison of oncological outcomes from a population point of view.Objective: To apply the RSR to compare RP techniques in relation to oncological outcomes: positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence rate (BCR).Evidence Acquisition: A search was carried out in eight databases between 2000 and 2020 through SR studies referring RRP, LRP, or RARP (80 SR). All references used in these SR were captured referring to 1724 reports. Preoperative and oncological outcomes were compared and correlated among RRP, LRP, and RARP.Evidence Synthesis: Five hundred fifty-nine (32.4%) reports for RRP, 413 (23.9%) for LRP, and 752 (43.7%) for RARP, and a total of 1,353,485 patients were found. Regarding PSM, 284 reports were collected for RRP, 324 for LRP, and 499 for RARP, with rates of 23.6%, 20.7%, and 19.2%, respectively, and only the RRP with statistical difference (p < 0.001). Using a nonlinear regression model, the BCR was correlated with follow-up time at 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 years: 10%, 15%, 18%, 20%, 23%, and 38% for RRP; 6%, 9%, 13%, 20%, 23%, and 10% for LRP; and 8%, 12%, 16%, 23%, 27%, and 19% for RARP. The absence of long-term work for RARP prevented more accurate projections of BCR.Conclusions: RSR proved to be effective in generating a population and heterogeneous sample capable of demonstrating better oncological results for minimally invasive surgery (LRP and RARP) compared to RRP. It demonstrated the maturity of temporal follow-up data for RRP and LRP and the impact of absence of late follow-up from RARP studies on the long-term rate of BCR.Patient Summary: After 20 years of coexistence of the three main radical prostatectomy techniques, the RSR was able to detect better results from minimally invasive surgery in relation to PSMs and long-term BCRs.
引用
收藏
页码:521 / 530
页数:10
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]   Establishing a Minimum Dataset for Prospective Registration of Systematic Reviews: An International Consultation [J].
Booth, Alison ;
Clarke, Mike ;
Ghersi, Davina ;
Moher, David ;
Petticrew, Mark ;
Stewart, Lesley .
PLOS ONE, 2011, 6 (11)
[2]   An international registry of systematic-review protocols [J].
Booth, Alison ;
Clarke, Mike ;
Ghersi, Davina ;
Moher, David ;
Petticrew, Mark ;
Stewart, Lesley .
LANCET, 2011, 377 (9760) :108-109
[3]   Robotic Urologic Oncologic Surgery: Ever-Widening Horizons [J].
Cacciamani, Giovanni ;
Desai, Mihir ;
Siemens, D. Robert ;
Gill, Inderbir S. .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 208 (01) :8-9
[4]  
Cao L., 2019, MEDICINE, V98, DOI DOI 10.1097/MD.0000000000015770
[5]   The ''Natural History'' of Evidence on Radical Prostatectomy: What Have 20 Years of Robots Given Us? [J].
Costa Moretti, Tomas Bernardo ;
Reis, Leonardo Oliveira .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2022, 8 (06) :1859-1860
[6]   Development and application of Reverse Systematic Review on laparoscopic radical prostatectomy [J].
Costa Moretti, Tomas Bernardo ;
Magna, Luis Alberto ;
Reis, Leonardo Oliveira .
UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2019, 37 (10) :647-658
[7]   Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-Up [J].
Eastham, James A. ;
Auffenberg, Gregory B. ;
Barocas, Daniel A. ;
Chou, Roger ;
Crispino, Tony ;
Davis, John W. ;
Eggener, Scott ;
Horwitz, Eric M. ;
Kane, Christopher J. ;
Kirkby, Erin ;
Lin, Daniel W. ;
McBride, Sean M. ;
Morgans, Alicia K. ;
Pierorazio, Phillip M. ;
Rodrigues, George ;
Wong, William W. ;
Boorjian, Stephen A. .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 208 (01) :19-25
[8]  
European Association of Urology, 2017, EAU ANN C AMSTERDAM, V2017 ed.
[9]   Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Cumulative Analysis of Comparative Studies [J].
Ficarra, Vincenzo ;
Novara, Giacomo ;
Artibani, Walter ;
Cestari, Andrea ;
Galfano, Antonio ;
Graefen, Markus ;
Guazzoni, Giorgio ;
Guillonneau, Bertrand ;
Menon, Mani ;
Montorsi, Francesco ;
Patel, Vipul ;
Rassweiler, Jens ;
Van Poppel, Hendrik .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2009, 55 (05) :1037-1063
[10]   Laparoscopic and robot-assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review [J].
Ilic, Dragan ;
Evans, Sue M. ;
Allan, Christie Ann ;
Jung, Jae Hung ;
Murphy, Declan ;
Frydenberg, Mark .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 121 (06) :845-853