Tag: RARP

Posts

Article of the week: Single-port robot assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP): a systematic review and pooled analysis of the preliminary experiences

July 22, 2020/by Prokar Dasgupta

This is the final Article of the Week selected by the outgoing Editor-in-Chief from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

If you only have time to read one article this week, we recommend this one.

Single‐port robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and pooled analysis of the preliminary experiences

Enrico Checcucci*, Sabrina De Cillis*, Angela Pecoraro*, Dario Peretti*, Gabriele Volpi*, Daniele Amparore*, Federico Piramide*, Alberto Piana*, Matteo Manfredi*, Cristian Fiori*, Riccardo Autorino^†, Prokar Dasgupta^‡, Francesco Porpiglia* and on behalf of the Uro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party of the European Association of Urology

*Department of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy, ^†Division of Urology, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA, and ^‡King’s College London, Guy’s Hospital, London, UK

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

To summarize the clinical experiences with single‐port (SP) robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) reported in the literature and to describe the peri‐operative and short‐term outcomes of this procedure.

Material and Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed in December 2019 using Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), Cochrane databases, Scopus and Web of Science (PROSPERO registry number 164129). All studies that reported intra‐ and peri‐operative data on SP‐RARP were included. Cadaveric series and perineal or partial prostatectomy series were excluded.

Results

The pooled mean operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay and catheterization time were 190.55 min, 198.4 mL, 1.86 days and 8.21 days, respectively. The pooled mean number of lymph nodes removed was 8.33, and the pooled rate of positive surgical margins was 33%. The pooled minor complication rate was 15%. Only one urinary leakage and one major complication (transient ischaemic attack) were recorded. Regarding functional outcomes, pooled continence and potency rates at 12 weeks were 55% and 42%, respectively.

Conclusions

The present analysis confirms that SP‐RARP is safe and feasible. This novel robotic platform resulted in similar intra‐operative and peri‐operative outcomes to those obtained with the standard multiport da Vinci system. The advantages of single incision can be translated into a preservation of the patient’s body image and self‐esteem and cosmesis, which have a great impact on a patient’s quality of life.

Article of the Week: Comparing LRP and RARP to ORP to treat PCa

June 6, 2018/by admin Z.9

Every Week, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Laparoscopic and robot‐assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review

Dragan Ilic*, Sue M. Evans†, Christie Ann Allan*, Jae Hung Jung‡§¶, Declan Murphy** and Mark Frydenberg††

*Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, †Centre of Research Excellence in Patient Safety, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia, ‡Department of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea, §Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, ¶Urology Section, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA, **Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, and ††Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

To determine the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with localized prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We included all randomized or pseudo‐randomized controlled trials that directly compared LRP and RARP with ORP. Two review authors independently examined full‐text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random‐effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The primary outcomes were prostate cancer‐specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence‐free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions.

Results

We included two unique studies in a total of 446 randomized participants with clinically localized prostate cancer. All available outcome data were short‐term (up to 3 months). We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer‐specific survival. Based on one trial, RARP probably results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (mean difference [MD] −1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] −4.65 to 2.05; moderate quality of evidence) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI: −1.84 to 9.64; moderate quality of evidence). No study addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence‐free survival or overall survival. Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.41, 95% CI: 0.16−1.04; low quality of evidence) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.02–1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at 1 day (MD −1.05, 95% CI: −1.42 to −0.68; low quality of evidence) and up to 1 week (MD −0.78, 95% CI: −1.40 to −0.17; low quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI: −0.32 to 0.34; moderate quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably reduces the length of hospital stay (MD −1.72, 95% CI: −2.19 to −1.25; moderate quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12–0.46; low quality of evidence). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1,000 men (95% CI: 78–48 fewer).

Conclusions

There is no evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared with ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life appear similar. Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions.

Editorial: RARP and a Parachute

June 6, 2018/by admin Z.9

Radical prostatectomy is probably the most scrutinized, debated and re‐invented procedure in the field of urology. This is with good reason. Dr Hugh Hampton Young gave the first formal account of a radical treatment for prostate cancer in 1905. It was a procedure performed perineally with the prime intention of total cancer extirpation. The oncological results were tremendous given the nascency of the procedure. Functional outcomes, however, were less so, with only ~25% of the patients achieving urinary continence and almost none achieving potency 1. Seminal studies undertaken by Drs Patrick C. Walsh and Pieter J. Donker in the 1980s led to the next major advance in technique: nerve‐sparing. It lead to dramatic improvements in sexual and urinary function preservation, with urinary continence achieved in upwards of 90% and potency in upwards of 60% of patients 2, 3. Nerve‐sparing retropubic radical prostatectomy was rapidly adopted by urologists across the world. No randomized trial was conducted as the operation ‘made sense’, and it would have been unethical to offer patients an alternative, inferior operation. Retropubic radical prostatectomy, however, remained a morbid operation that was difficult to master; 1 200 mL blood loss and 20% incontinence, 15% stricture and 60–90% erectile dysfunction rates were the norm. Robot‐assisted surgery changed much of this. This surgery was perfected and popularized by Dr Mani Menon and his team at the Henry Ford Hospital. Blood loss dropped to ~100 mL, and incontinence and stricture rates today are ~1–5% with potency rates between 70% and 80% 4.

In the systematic review by Ilic et al. 5 trials that compared open with minimally invasive radical prostatectomy were evaluated. The authors are commended for combing through vast quantities of data to arrive at the final sample of two clinical trials (one laparoscopic, one robot‐assisted). The authors found no data on oncological endpoints. With respect to functional outcomes, the data reported in their systematic review are essentially from the recent Yaxley trial. It is true that randomized controlled trials form the backbone of medical progress, but they must be interpreted with care. The Yaxley trial has been criticized for comparing surgeons of vastly varying surgical expertise (1 500‐case experience for open prostatectomies, 200‐case experience for robot‐assisted prostatectomies), having a small sample size (~150 patients in each arm) and having a limited follow‐up (3 months). In line with this, Dr Gordon Smith has eloquently argued about the judicious use of randomized trials in evidence‐based medicine in his classic paper on parachutes and gravitational challenge 6. It is our sincere belief that robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy is a procedure in the service of the patients, and we believe that anyone who has performed both an open radical prostatectomy and a robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy would agree. Operating deep in the pelvis and being able to visualize the anatomy up‐close with robotic assistance ‘makes sense’, much like the anatomical radical prostatectomy did in the 1980s 2, 3.

‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’, the old saying goes. In case of radical prostatectomy, the converse has been true, for the most part. The procedure is still not perfect, and nuances need to be worked out. Nonetheless, over the last century, radicalprogress has been made in the surgery for prostate; the two issues that now remain to be solved are: improving potency and improving cost‐effectiveness. With the potential arrival of competing robotic systems and improvements in technology, the costs associated with robotic surgery may become less of an issue in the future. With regard to potency, focal therapies, whether surgical or otherwise, hold promise.

Akshay Sood, Firas Abdollah, and Mani Menon

Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA

Read the full article

References

1 Young HH. The cure of cancer of the prostate by radical perineal prostatectomy (prostato‐seminal Vesiculectomy): History, Literature and Statistics of Young’s Operation1. J Urol 1945; 53: 188–252
Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar

2 Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982; 128: 492–7
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar

3 Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate 1983; 4: 473–85
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar

4 Menon M, Dalela D, Jamil M et al. Functional recovery, oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy: an evidence‐based analysis comparing the Retzius sparing and standard approaches. J Urol 2018; 199: 1210–7
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar

5 Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M. Laparoscopic and robot‐assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review. BJU Int 2018; 121: 845–53
Wiley Online Library Google Scholar

6 Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2003; 20: 1459–61
Crossref Google Scholar

Residents’ Podcast: Pelvic Drain Placement After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

April 6, 2018/by Jesse Ory & Jeff Himmelman

Jesse Ory, Kyle Lehmann, Jeff Himmelman and Scott Bagnell

Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

To determine if eliminating the prophylactic placement of a pelvic drain (PD) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) affects the incidence of early (90-day) postoperative adverse events.

Patients and Methods

In this parallel-group, blinded, non-inferiority trial, we randomised patients planning to undergo RARP to one of two arms: no drain placement (ND) or PD placement. Patients with demonstrable intraoperative leakage upon bladder irrigation were excluded. Randomisation sequence was determined a priori using a computer algorithm, and included a stratified design with respect to low vs intermediate/high D’Amico risk classifications. Surgeons remained blinded to the randomisation arm until final eligibility was verified at the end of the RARP. The primary endpoint was overall incidence of 90-day complications which, based on our standard treatment using PD retrospectively, was estimated at 13%. The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%, and the planned sample size was 312. An interim analysis was planned and conducted when one-third of the planned accrual and follow-up was completed, to rule out futility if the delta margin was in excess of 0.1389.

Results

From 2012 to 2016, 189 patients were accrued to the study, with 92 patients allocated to the ND group and 97 to the PD group. Due to lower than expected accrual rates, accrual to the study was halted by regulatory entities, and we did not reach the intended accrual goal. The ND and PD groups were comparable for median PSA level (6.2 vs 5.8 ng/mL, P = 0.5), clinical stage (P = 0.8), D’Amico risk classification (P = 0.4), median lymph nodes dissected (17 vs 18, P = 0.2), and proportion of patients receiving an extended pelvic lymph node dissection (70.7% vs 79.4%, P = 0.3). Incidence of 90-day overall and major (Clavien–Dindo grade >III) complications in the ND group (17.4% and 5.4%, respectively) was not inferior to the PD group (26.8% and 5.2%, respectively; P < 0.001 and P = 0.007 for difference of proportions <10%, respectively). Symptomatic lymphocoele rates (2.2% in the ND group, 4.1% in the PD group) were comparable between the two arms (P = 0.7).

Conclusions

Incidence of adverse events in the ND group was not inferior to the group who received a PD. In properly selected patients, PD placement after RARP can be safely withheld without significant additional morbidity.

BJUI Podcasts now available on iTunes, subscribe here https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/bju-international/id1309570262

February 2018 – About the Cover

January 31, 2018/by admin Z.9

This issue’s article of the month, Does RARP benefit patients with oligometastatic PCa?, is from Seoul, South Korea.

The cover image shows Seoul Tower, a communication and observation tower located on Namsan Mountain. At 236m, it marks the second highest point in Seoul.

Tower ©istock.com/tawatchaiprakobkit

Click here for this issue’s Table of Contents

RSM Urology Winter Meeting 2017, Northstar, California

February 17, 2017/6 Comments/by Niyati Lobo

This year’s Annual RSM Urology Section Winter Meeting, hosted by Roger Kirby and Matt Bultitude, was held in Lake Tahoe, California.

A pre-conference trip to sunny Los Angeles provided a warm-up to the meeting for a group of delegates who flew out early to visit Professor Indy Gill at the Keck School of Medicine. We were treated to a diverse range of live open, endourological and robotic surgery; highlights included a salvage RARP with extended lymph node dissection and a robotic simple prostatectomy which was presented as an alternative option for units with a robot but no/limited HoLEP expertise.

On arrival to Northstar, Dr Stacy Loeb (NYU) officially opened the meeting by reviewing the social media urology highlights from 2016. Next up was Professor Joseph Smith (Nashville) who gave us a fascinating insight into the last 100 years of urology as seen through the Journal of Urology. Much like today, prostate cancer and BPH were areas of significant interest although, in contrast, early papers focused heavily on venereal disease, TB and the development of cystoscopy. Perhaps most interesting was a slightly hair-raising description of the management of IVC bleeding from 1927; the operating surgeon was advised to clamp as much tissue as possible, close and then return to theatre a week later in the hopes the bleeding had ceased!

With the promise of beautifully groomed pistes and stunning views of Lake Tahoe, it was hardly surprising that the meeting was attended by a record number of trainees. One of the highlights of the trainee session was the hilarious balloon debate which saw participants trying to convince the audience of how best to manage BPH in the newly inaugurated President Trump. Although strong arguments were put forward for finasteride, sildenafil, Urolift, PVP and HoLEP, TURP ultimately won the debate. A disclaimer: this was a fictional scenario and, to the best of my knowledge, Donald Trump does not have BPH.

The meeting also provided updates on prostate, renal and bladder cancer. A standout highlight was Professor Nick James’ presentation on STAMPEDE which summarized the trial’s key results and gave us a taste of the upcoming data we can expect to see in the next few years.

We were fortunate to be joined by prominent American faculty including Dr Trinity Bivalacqua (Johns Hopkins) and Dr Matt Cooperberg (UCSF) who provided state-of-the-art lectures on potential therapeutic targets and biomarkers in bladder and prostate cancer which promise to usher in a new era of personalized therapy.

A personal highlight was Tuesday’s session on learning from complications. It was great to hear some very senior and experienced surgeons speaking candidly about their worst complications. As a trainee, it served as a reminder that complications are inevitable in surgery and that it is not their absence which distinguishes a good surgeon but rather the ability to manage them well.

There was also plenty for those interested in benign disease, including topical discussions on how to best provide care to an increasingly ageing population with multiple co-morbidities. This was followed by some lively point-counterpoint sessions on robot-assisted versus open renal transplantation (Ravi Barod and Tim O’Brien), Urolift vs TURP (Tom McNicholas and Matt Bultitude) and HOLEP vs prostate artery embolization for BPH (Ben Challacombe and Rick Popert). Professor Culley Carson (University of North Carolina) concluded the session with a state-of-the art lecture on testosterone replacement.

In addition to the excellent academic programme, delegates enjoyed fantastic skiing with perfect weather and unparalleled views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. For the more adventurous skiiers, there was also a trip to Squaw Valley, the home of the 1960 Winter Olympics. Another highlight was a Western-themed dinner on the shores of Lake Tahoe which culminated in almost all delegates trying their hand at line dancing to varying degrees of success! I have no doubt that next year’s meeting in Corvara, Italy will be equally successful and would especially encourage trainees to attend what promises to be another excellent week of skiing and urological education.

Miss Niyati Lobo
ST3 Urology Trainee, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust

@niyatilobo

Article of the Week: Evaluating health resource use and secondary care costs for RP and partial nephrectomy

June 8, 2016/2 Comments/by admin Z.9

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Mr. Jim Adshead, discussing his paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Health resource use after robot-assisted surgery vs open and conventional laparoscopic techniques in oncology: analysis of English secondary care data for radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy

David Hughes*†, Charlotte Camp*, Jamie O’Hara*† and Jim Adshead‡

*HCD Economics, Daresbury, †Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of Chester, Chester, and ‡Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK

Read the full article

Objectives

To evaluate postoperative health resource utilisation and secondary care costs for radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England, via a comparison of robot-assisted, conventional laparoscopic and open surgical approaches.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively analysed the secondary care records of 23 735 patients who underwent robot-assisted (RARP, n = 8 016), laparoscopic (LRP, n = 6 776) or open radical prostatectomy (ORP, n = 8 943). We further analysed 2 173 patients who underwent robot-assisted (RAPN,n = 365), laparoscopic (LPN, n = 792) or open partial nephrectomy (OPN, n = 1 016). Postoperative inpatient admissions, hospital bed-days, excess bed-days and outpatient appointments at 360 and 1 080 days after surgery were reviewed.

Results

Patients in the RARP group required significantly fewer inpatient admissions, hospital bed-days and excess bed-days at 360 and 1 080 days than patients undergoing ORP. Patients undergoing ORP had a significantly higher number of outpatient appointments at 1 080 days. The corresponding total costs were significantly lower for patients in the RARP group at 360 days (£1679 vs £2031 for ORP; P < 0.001) and at 1 080 days (£3461 vs £4208 for ORP; P < 0.001). In partial nephrectomy, Patients in the RAPN group required significantly fewer inpatient admissions and hospital bed-days at 360 days compared with those in the OPN group; no significant differences were observed in outcomes at 1 080 days. The corresponding total costs were lower for patients in the RAPN group at 360 days (£779 vs £1242 for OPN,P = 0.843) and at 1 080 days (£2122 vs £2889 for ORP; P = 0.570). For both procedure types, resource utilisation and costs for laparoscopic surgeries lay at the approximate midpoint of those for robot-assisted and open surgeries.

Conclusion

Our analysis provides compelling evidence to suggest that RARP leads to reduced long-term health resource utilisation and downstream cost savings compared with traditional open and laparoscopic approaches. Furthermore, despite the limitations that arise from the inclusion of a small sample, these results also suggest that robot-assisted surgery may represent a cost-saving alternative to existing surgical options in partial nephrectomy. Further exploration of clinical cost drivers, as well as an extension of the analysis into subsequent years, could lend support to the wider commissioning of robot-assisted surgery within the NHS.

Editorial: Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery; what do we know?

June 8, 2016/by Carl Wijburg

The introduction of the daVinci robotic surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has led to a continuous discussion about the cost-effectiveness of its use. The capital costs and extra costs per procedure for robot-assisted procedures are well known, but there are limited data on healthcare consumption in the longer term. In this issue of BJUI, a retrospective study investigated the NHS-registered, relevant care activities up to three years after surgery comparing robot-assisted, conventional laparoscopic, and open surgical approaches to radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy [1].

The robotic system is particularly useful in difficult to perform laparoscopic surgeries, which are easier to perform with the daVinci system due to improved three-dimensional vision, ergonomics, and additional dexterity of the instruments. Because the use of the robotic system is more costly, to justify its use the outcomes for patients should be improved. Therefore, more detailed information about the clinical and oncological outcomes, as well as the incidence of complications after surgery with the daVinci system, is needed.

Lower rates of positive surgical margins for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) vs open and laparoscopic RP have been reported [2]. There also is evidence of an earlier recovery of functional outcomes, such as continence. RARP is associated with improved surgical margin status compared with open RP and reduced use of androgen-deprivation therapy and radiotherapy after RP, which has important implications for quality of life and costs. Ramsay et al. [3] reported that RARP could be cost-effective in the UK with a minimum volume of 100–150 cases per year per robotic system.

Centralisation of complex procedures will not only result in better outcomes, but also facilitate optimal economical usage of expensive medical devices. Furthermore, the skills learned to perform the RARP procedure can be used during other procedures, such as robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and radical cystectomy (RARC). The recent report by Buse et al. [4] confirms that RAPN is cost-effective in preventing perioperative complications in a high-volume centre, when compared with the open procedure. Minimally invasive techniques for complex procedures, such as a RC, take more time to perform, but result in less blood loss. A systematic review by Novara et al. [5] showed a longer operation time for RARC, but fewer transfusions and fewer complications compared with open surgery. However, there is no solid evidence about the cost-effectiveness of this technique to date. The RAZOR trial (randomised trial of open versus robot assisted radical cystectomy, DOI: 10.1111/bju.12699) is likely to provide some answers about differences in cost, complications, and quality of life when the results of the study become available later this year.

Additionally, the robotic system has been shown to shorten the learning curve of complex laparoscopic procedures in simulation models [6]. Recently, a newly structured curriculum to teach RARP has been validated by the European Association of Urology-Robotic Urology Section [7]. The effect of the shorter learning curve on the cost of the procedures has not yet been well studied for cost-effectiveness. However, due to the shorter learning curves, patients have lower risks of complications, which from the patients’ perspective is more important than any increased costs.

The study reported in this issue [1]; however, does not include the ‘out of pocket’ expenses of patients, it does not report on the differences in patient and tumour characteristics, and outcomes such as complications and oncological safety. These issues are all challenges to be addressed in a thorough prospective (randomised) trial on the cost-effectiveness of the use of robot-assisted surgery, including quality-of-life measurements and complications of the surgical procedures. In the Netherlands the RACE trial (comparative effectiveness study open RC vs RARC, www.racestudie.nl) started in 2015 and the results are expected in 2018–2019.

Read the full article

Carl J. Wijburg

Department of Urology, Robotic Surgery , Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands

References

1 Hughes D, Camp C, O’Hara J, Adshead J. Health resource use after robot-assisted surgery vs open and conventional laparoscopic techniques in oncology: analysis of English secondary care data for radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 2016; 117: 940–7

2 HuJC, Gandaglia G, Karakiewicz PI et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 666–72

3 Ramsay C, Pickard R , Soomro N et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical beneﬁt and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 2012; 16: 1–313

4 Buse S, Hach CE, Klumpen P et al. Cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for the prevention of perioperative complications. World J Urol 2015; [Epub ahead of print]. DOI:10.1007/s00345-015-1742-x

5 Novara G, Catto JW, Wilson T et al. Systematic review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 376–401

6 Moore LJ, Wilson MR, Waine E, Masters RS, McGrath JS, Vine SJ. Robotic technology results in faster and more robust surgical skill acquisition than traditional laparoscopy. J Robot Surg 2015; 9: 67–73

7 Ahmed K, Khan R, Mottrie A et al. Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts. BJU Int 2015; 116: 93–101

Video: Health resource use after robot-assisted surgery vs open and conventional laparoscopic techniques

June 8, 2016/by admin Z.9

Health resource use after robot-assisted surgery vs open and conventional laparoscopic techniques in oncology: analysis of English secondary care data for radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy

David Hughes*† ,Charlotte Camp*, Jamie O’Hara*† and Jim Adshead‡

Read the full article

Objectives

Patients and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Controversies in management of high-risk prostate and bladder cancer

October 12, 2015/by Stacy Loeb

Recently, there has been substantial progress in our understanding of many key issues in urological oncology, which is the focus of this month’s BJUI. One of the most substantial paradigm shifts over the past few years has been the increasing use of radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk prostate cancer and increasing use of active surveillance for low-risk disease [1,2].

Consistent with these trends, this month’s BJUI features several useful articles on the management of high-risk prostate cancer. The ﬁrst article by Abdollah et al. [3] reports on a large series of 810 men with D’Amico high-risk prostate cancer (PSA level >20 ng/mL, Gleason score 8–10, and/or clinical stage ≥T2c) undergoing robot-assisted RP (RARP). Despite high-risk characteristics preoperatively, 55% had specimen-conﬁned disease at RARP, which was associated with higher 8-year biochemical recurrence-free (72.7% vs 31.7%, P < 0.001) and prostate cancer-speciﬁc survival rates (100% vs 86.9%, P < 0.001). The authors therefore designed a nomogram to predict specimen-conﬁned disease at RARP for D’Amico high-risk prostate cancer. Using PSA level, clinical stage, maximum tumour percentage quartile, primary and secondary biopsy Gleason score, the nomogram had 76% predictive accuracy. Once externally validated, this could provide a useful tool for pre-treatment assessment of men with high-risk prostate cancer.

Another major controversy in prostate cancer management is the optimal timing of postoperative radiation therapy (RT) for patients with high-risk features at RP. In this month’s BJUI, Hsu et al. [4] compare the results of adjuvant (≤6 months after RP with an undetectable PSA level), early salvage (administered while PSA levels at ≤1 ng/mL) and late salvage RT (administered at PSA levels of >1 ng/mL) in 305 men with adverse RP pathology from the USA Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry. At 6.2 years median follow-up, late salvage RT was associated with signiﬁcantly higher rates of metastasis and/or prostate cancer-death. By contrast, there was no difference in prostate cancer mortality and/or metastasis between early salvage vs adjuvant RT. A recent study from the USA National Cancer Data Base reported infrequent and declining use of postoperative RT within 6 months for men with adverse RP pathology, from 9.1% in 2005 to 7.3% in 2011 [5]. As we await data from prospective studies comparing adjuvant vs early salvage RT, the results of Hsu et al. [4] are encouraging, suggesting similar disease-speciﬁc outcomes if salvage therapy is administered at PSA levels of <1 ng/mL.

Finally, this issue’s ‘Article of the Month’ by Baltaci et al. [6] examines the timing of second transurethral resection of the bladder (re-TURB) for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The management ofbladder cancer at this stage is a key point to improve the overall survival of bladder cancer. Re-TURB is already recommended in the European Association of Urology guidelines [7], but it remains controversial as to whether all patients require re-TURB and what timing is optimal. The range of 2–6 weeks after primary TURB was established based on a randomised trial assessing the effect of re-TURB on recurrence in patients treated with intravesical chemotherapy [8], but it has not been subsequently tested in a randomised trial. Baltaci et al. [6], in a multi-institutional retrospective review of 242 patients, report that patients with high-risk NMIBC undergoing early re-TURB (14–42 days) have better recurrence-free survival vs later re-TURB (73.6% vs 46.2%, P < 0.01). Although prospective studies are warranted to conﬁrm their results, these novel data suggest that early re-TURB is signiﬁcantly associated with lower rates of recurrence and progression.

References

1 Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990–2013. JAMA 2015; 314: 80–2

2 Loeb S, Berglund A, Stattin P. Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2013; 190: 1742–9

3 Abdollah F, Klett DE, Sood A et al. Predicting pathological outcomes in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for high- risk prostate cancer: a preoperative nomogram. BJU Int 2015; 116: 703–12

4 Hsu CC , Paciorek AT, Cooperberg MR, Roach M 3rd, Hsu IC, Carroll PR. Postoperative radiation therapy for patients at high-risk of recurrence after radical prostat ectomy: does timing matter? BJU Int 2015; 116: 713–20

5 Sineshaw HM, Gray PJ, Efstathiou JA, Jemal A. Declining use of radiotherapy for adverse features after radical prostatectomy: results from the National Cancer Data Base. Eur Urol 2015; [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1016/ j.eururo.2015.04.003

6 Baltacı S, Bozlu M, Yıldırım A et al. Signiﬁcance of the interval between ﬁrst and second transurethral resection on recurrence and progression rates in patients with high-ris k non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer treated with maintenance intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin. BJU Int 2015; 116: 721–6

7 Babjuk M, Bohle A, Burger M et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (Ta, T1, and CIS). Available at: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines- Non-muscle-invasive-Bladder-Cancer-2015-v1.pdf. Accessed September 2015

8 Divrik RT, Yildirim U, Zorlu F, Ozen H. The effect of repeat transurethral resection on recurrence and progression rates in patients with T1 tumors of the bladder who received intravesical mitomycin: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Urol 2006; 175: 1641–4

Stacy Loeb – Department of Urology, Population Health, and the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York City, NY, USA

Maria J. Ribal – Department of Urology, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain