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
  • [31] Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience
    Jinsung Park
    Dae-Seon Yoo
    Cheryn Song
    Sahyun Park
    Sejun Park
    Seong Cheol Kim
    Yongmee Cho
    Hanjong Ahn
    [J]. World Journal of Urology, 2014, 32 : 193 - 199
  • [32] Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in indian men of age 75 years and above: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Danny Darlington Carbin
    Ashwin Sunil Tamhankar
    Puneet Ahluwalia
    Gagan Gautam
    [J]. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2022, 16 : 799 - 806
  • [33] Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies
    Wang, Junji
    Hu, Ke
    Wang, Yu
    Wu, Yinyu
    Bao, Erhao
    Wang, Jiahao
    Tan, Chunlin
    Tang, Tielong
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2023, 17 (06) : 2617 - 2631
  • [34] Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques
    Krambeck, Amy E.
    DiMarco, David S.
    Rangel, Laureano J.
    Bergstralh, Eric J.
    Myers, Robert P.
    Blute, Michael L.
    Gettman, Matthew T.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2009, 103 (04) : 448 - 453
  • [35] Orgasmic Dysfunction After Robot-assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy
    Capogrosso, Paolo
    Ventimiglia, Eugenio
    Serino, Alessandro
    Stabile, Armando
    Boeri, Luca
    Gandaglia, Giorgio
    Deho, Federico
    Briganti, Alberto
    Montorsi, Francesco
    Salonia, Andrea
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 70 (02) : 223 - 226
  • [36] New steps of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the extraperitoneal approach: a propensity-score matched comparison between extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approach in Japanese patients
    Kurokawa, Satoshi
    Umemoto, Yukihiro
    Mizuno, Kentaro
    Okada, Atsushi
    Nakane, Akihiro
    Nishio, Hidenori
    Hamamoto, Shuzo
    Ando, Ryosuke
    Kawai, Noriyasu
    Tozawa, Keiichi
    Hayashi, Yutaro
    Yasui, Takahiro
    [J]. BMC UROLOGY, 2017, 17
  • [37] Anastomotic complications after robot-assisted laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy
    Jacobsen, Andre
    Berg, Kasper Drimer
    Iversen, Peter
    Brasso, Klaus
    Roder, Martin Andreas
    [J]. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 50 (04) : 274 - 279
  • [38] Comparison of lymph node yield in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with that in open radical retropubic prostatectomy
    Lallas, Costas D.
    Pe, Mark L.
    Thumar, Adeep B.
    Chandrasekar, Thenappan
    Lee, Franklin C.
    McCue, Peter
    Gomella, Leonard G.
    Trabulsi, Edouard J.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2011, 107 (07) : 1136 - 1140
  • [39] Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs. open radical prostatectomy: latest evidences on perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes
    Dell'Oglio, Paolo
    Mottrie, Alexandre
    Mazzone, Elio
    [J]. CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY, 2020, 30 (01) : 73 - 78
  • [40] Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: comparison of oncological outcomes at a single center
    Okegawa, Takatsugu
    Omura, Shota
    Samejima, Mio
    Ninomiya, Naoki
    Taguchi, Satoru
    Nakamura, Yu
    Yamaguchi, Tsuyoshi
    Tambo, Mitsuhiro
    Fukuhara, Hiroshi
    [J]. PROSTATE INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 8 (01) : 16 - 21