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

被引:14
|
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] Open versus Robot-assisted radical Prostatectomy
    Ganzer, R.
    Stolzenburg, J. -U.
    UROLOGE, 2017, 56 (01): : 65 - 66
  • [2] HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER OPEN AND ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: A PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHED ANALYSIS
    Kretschmer, Alexander
    Bischoff, Robert
    Buchner, Alexander
    Chaloupka, Michael
    Weinhold, Philipp
    Westhofen, Thilo
    Jokisch, Friedrich
    Strittmatter, Frank
    Becker, Armin
    Stief, Christian G.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 203 : E1137 - E1137
  • [3] 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
  • [4] 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
  • [5] Comparison of Acute Kidney Injury After Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
    Joo, Eun-Young
    Moon, Yeon-Jin
    Yoon, Syn-Hae
    Chin, Ji-Hyun
    Hwang, Jai-Hyun
    Kim, Young-Kug
    MEDICINE, 2016, 95 (05) : 1 - 6
  • [6] 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
  • [7] 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
  • [8] Comparison of urinary and sexual patient-reported outcomes between open radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity score matched, population-based study in Victoria
    Michael Rechtman
    Andrew Forbes
    Jeremy L. Millar
    Melanie Evans
    Lachlan Dodds
    Declan G. Murphy
    Sue M. Evans
    BMC Urology, 22
  • [9] Comparison of urinary and sexual patient-reported outcomes between open radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity score matched, population-based study in Victoria
    Rechtman, Michael
    Forbes, Andrew
    Millar, Jeremy L.
    Evans, Melanie
    Dodds, Lachlan
    Murphy, Declan G.
    Evans, Sue M.
    BMC UROLOGY, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [10] Radical Prostatectomy After Previous Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy in a Matched-Pair Analysis
    Martinschek, Andreas
    Heinzelmann, Kathrin
    Ritter, Manuel
    Heinrich, Elmar
    Trojan, Lutz
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2012, 26 (09) : 1136 - 1141