Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Korean population: A 5-year propensity-score matched comparative analysis versus open radical prostatectomy

被引:13
|
作者
Koo, Kyo Chul
Tuliao, Patrick
Yoon, Young Eun
Chung, Byung Ha
Hong, Sung Joon
Yang, Seung Choul
Rha, Koon Ho [1 ]
机构
[1] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Dept Urol, Seoul 120752, South Korea
关键词
prostate cancer; prostatectomy; robotics; treatment outcome; POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGINS; LYMPH-NODE DISSECTION; RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY; OUTCOMES; CANCER; INTERMEDIATE;
D O I
10.1111/iju.12447
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
Objectives: To compare the oncological outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with those of open radical prostatectomy in contemporary Korean prostate cancer patients. Methods: From a group of 1172 patients consisting of 592 (50.5%) robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and 580 (49.5%) open radical prostatectomy cases carried out between 1992 and 2008, 175 robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy cases were matched with an equal number of open radical prostatectomy cases by propensity scoring based on patient age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, biopsy Gleason score and clinical tumor stage. Competing-risks survival analyses were used to evaluate oncological outcomes, including rates of positive surgical margin, biochemical-recurrence, adjuvant therapy, cancer-specific survival, overall survival and metastasis-free survival during the mean follow up of 58.4 months. Results: Positive surgical margin rates were comparable between robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy cohorts (19.4% vs 21.8%), with comparable rates for all pathological stages and risk subgroups. Positive surgical margin rates according to location were comparable, with the apical margin being the most common location. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy recovered higher lymph node yields compared with open radical prostatectomy (12.5 vs 3.8; P < 0.001). The robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and the open radical prostatectomy groups showed equal oncological outcomes regarding 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (log-rank P = 0.651), metastasis-free survival (log-rank P = 0.876), cancer-specific survival (log-rank P = 0.076) and overall survival (log-rank P = 0.648), respectively. Between groups, there was no difference in the rate of adjuvant therapy, time to first adjuvant therapy failure or in the rate of subsequent secondary treatment. Conclusions: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy represents an effective surgical approach for the treatment of prostate cancer in the Korean population, as it provides equivalent oncological outcomes to open radical prostatectomy.
引用
收藏
页码:781 / 785
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: 5-Year Oncological and Biochemical Outcomes
    Liss, Michael A.
    Lusch, Achim
    Morales, Blanca
    Beheshti, Nima
    Skarecky, Douglas
    Narula, Navneet
    Osann, Kathryn
    Ahlering, Thomas E.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 188 (06): : 2205 - 2210
  • [2] Comparison of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Seo, Hyun-Ju
    Lee, Na Rae
    Son, Soo Kyung
    Kim, Dae Keun
    Rha, Koon Ho
    Lee, Seon Heui
    YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 57 (05) : 1165 - 1177
  • [3] Lymphocele after extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A propensity score-matching study
    Lee, Joo Yong
    Diaz, Richilda Red
    Cho, Kang Su
    Yu, Ho Song
    Chung, Jae Seung
    Ham, Won Sik
    Choi, Young Deuk
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 20 (12) : 1169 - 1176
  • [4] Biochemical Recurrence Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Analysis of 1384 Patients with a Median 5-year Follow-up
    Menon, Mani
    Bhandari, Mahendra
    Gupta, Nilesh
    Lane, Zhaoli
    Peabody, James O.
    Rogers, Craig G.
    Sammon, Jesse
    Siddiqui, Sameer A.
    Diaz, Mireya
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2010, 58 (06) : 838 - 846
  • [5] Comparative study of extraperitoneal singe-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and transperitoneal multiport robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using propensity score matching
    Yoon, Ji Hyung
    Kwon, Taekmin
    Kim, Seong Cheol
    Park, Sungchan
    Cheon, Sang Hyeon
    TRANSLATIONAL ANDROLOGY AND UROLOGY, 2024, 13 (06) : 1004 - 1013
  • [6] Comparative Effectiveness of Cancer Control and Survival after Robot-Assisted versus Open Radical Prostatectomy
    Hu, Jim C.
    O'Malley, Padraic
    Chughtai, Bilal
    Isaacs, Abby
    Mao, Jialin
    Wright, Jason D.
    Hershman, Dawn
    Sedrakyan, Art
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 197 (01): : 115 - 121
  • [7] Perioperative mortality and morbidity of outpatient versus inpatient robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A propensity matched analysis
    Khalil, Mahmoud, I
    Bhandari, Naleen Raj
    Payakachat, Nalin
    Davis, Rodney
    Raheem, Omer A.
    Kamel, Mohamed H.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2020, 38 (01) : 3.e1 - 3.e6
  • [8] Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience
    Park, Jinsung
    Yoo, Dae-Seon
    Song, Cheryn
    Park, Sahyun
    Park, Sejun
    Kim, Seong Cheol
    Cho, Yongmee
    Ahn, Hanjong
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 32 (01) : 193 - 199
  • [9] Comparative Effectiveness of Robot-assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy Cancer Control
    Hu, Jim C.
    Gandaglia, Giorgio
    Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
    Nguyen, Paul L.
    Trinh, Quoc-Dien
    Shih, Ya-Chen Tina
    Abdollah, Firas
    Chamie, Karim
    Wright, Jonathan L.
    Ganz, Patricia A.
    Sun, Maxine
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 66 (04) : 666 - 672
  • [10] Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in indian men of age 75 years and above: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Carbin, Danny Darlington
    Tamhankar, Ashwin Sunil
    Ahluwalia, Puneet
    Gautam, Gagan
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2022, 16 (04) : 799 - 806