Comparative Effectiveness of Robot-assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy Cancer Control

被引:87
作者
Hu, Jim C. [1 ]
Gandaglia, Giorgio [2 ,3 ]
Karakiewicz, Pierre I. [2 ,7 ]
Nguyen, Paul L. [4 ]
Trinh, Quoc-Dien [5 ]
Shih, Ya-Chen Tina [6 ]
Abdollah, Firas [2 ,7 ]
Chamie, Karim [1 ]
Wright, Jonathan L. [8 ,9 ]
Ganz, Patricia A. [10 ]
Sun, Maxine [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Los Angeles, David Geffen Sch Med, Dept Urol, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[2] Univ Montreal, Ctr Hlth, Canc Prognost Hlth Outcomes Unit, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[3] Univ Vita Salute San Raffaele, Dept Urol, Milan, Italy
[4] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[5] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Ctr Surg & Publ Hlth, Div Urol Surg, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[6] Univ Chicago, Dept Med, Program Econ Canc, Sect Hosp Med, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[7] Univ Montreal, Ctr Hlth, Dept Urol, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[8] Univ Washington, Sch Med, Dept Urol, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[9] Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, Seattle, WA 98104 USA
[10] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Canc Prevent & Control Res Jonsson Comprehens Can, David Geffen Sch Med, Fielding Sch Publ Hlth, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
关键词
Robotic-assisted surgery; Positive margins; Cancer control; Radical prostatectomy; POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGINS; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMY; RADIATION-THERAPY; UNITED-STATES; FOLLOW-UP; TRIAL; RATES; SATISFACTION; RADIOTHERAPY;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.015
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
Background: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) remains controversial, and no improvement in cancer control outcomes has been demonstrated over open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Objective: To examine population-based, comparative effectiveness of RARP versus ORP pertaining surgical margin status and use of additional cancer therapy. Design, setting, and participants: This was a retrospective observational study of 5556 RARP and 7878 ORP cases from 2004 to 2009 from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked data. Intervention: RARP versus ORP. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Propensity-based analyses were performed to minimize treatment selection biases. Generalized linear regression models were computed for comparison of RP surgical margin status and use of additional cancer therapy (radiation therapy [RT] or androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]) by surgical approach. Results and limitations: In the propensity-adjusted analysis, RARP was associated with fewer positive surgical margins (13.6% vs 18.3%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.75), largely because of fewer RARP positive margins for intermediate-risk (15.0% vs 21.0%; OR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.75) and high-risk (15.1% vs 20.6%; OR: 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.77) disease. In addition, RARP was associated with less use of additional cancer therapy within 6 mo (4.5% vs 6.2%; OR: 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.81), 12 mo (OR: 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.86), and 24 mo (OR: 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.78) of surgery. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of prostate-specific antigen levels to determine biochemical recurrence. Conclusions: RARP is associated with improved surgical margin status relative to ORP for intermediate- and high-risk disease and less use of postprostatectomy ADT and RT. This has important implications for quality of life, health care delivery, and costs. Patient summary: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) versus open RP is associated with fewer positive margins and better early cancer control because of less use of additional androgen deprivation and radiation therapy within 2 yr of surgery. (C) 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:666 / 672
页数:7
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], NY TIMES
[2]   New Technology and Health Care Costs - The Case of Robot-Assisted Surgery [J].
Barbash, Gabriel I. ;
Glied, Sherry A. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2010, 363 (08) :701-704
[3]   Costs of Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review [J].
Bolenz, Christian ;
Freedland, Stephen J. ;
Hollenbeck, Brent K. ;
Lotan, Yair ;
Lowrance, William T. ;
Nelson, Joel B. ;
Hu, Jim C. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 65 (02) :316-324
[4]   Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy:: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911) [J].
Bolla, M ;
van Poppel, H ;
Collette, L ;
van Cangh, P ;
Vekemans, K ;
Da Pozzo, L ;
de Reijke, TM ;
Verbaeys, A ;
Bosset, JF ;
van Velthoven, R ;
Maréchal, JM ;
Scalliet, P ;
Haustermans, K ;
Piérart, M .
LANCET, 2005, 366 (9485) :572-578
[5]   The Impact of Positive Surgical Margins on Mortality Following Radical Prostatectomy During the Prostate Specific Antigen Era [J].
Boorjian, Stephen A. ;
Karnes, R. Jeffrey ;
Crispen, Paul L. ;
Carlson, Rachel E. ;
Rangel, Laureano J. ;
Bergstralh, Eric J. ;
Blute, Michael L. .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 183 (03) :1003-1009
[6]   Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality [J].
Chalfin, Heather J. ;
Dinizo, Michael ;
Trock, Bruce J. ;
Feng, Zhaoyong ;
Partin, Alan W. ;
Walsh, Patrick C. ;
Humphreys, Elizabeth ;
Han, Misop .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 110 (11) :1684-1689
[7]  
D'Agostino RB, 1998, STAT MED, V17, P2265, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981015)17:19<2265::AID-SIM918>3.0.CO
[8]  
2-B
[9]   Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer [J].
D'Amico, AV ;
Whittington, R ;
Malkowicz, SB ;
Schultz, D ;
Blank, K ;
Broderick, GA ;
Tomaszewski, JE ;
Renshaw, AA ;
Kaplan, I ;
Beard, CJ ;
Wein, A .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (11) :969-974
[10]   Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens [J].
Eastham, JA ;
Kattan, MW ;
Riedel, E ;
Begg, CB ;
Wheeler, TM ;
Gerigk, C ;
Gonen, M ;
Reuter, V ;
Scardino, PT .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2003, 170 (06) :2292-2295