Clinical and oncological outcomes of robot‑assisted radical prostatectomy with nerve sparing vs. non‑nerve sparing
for high‑risk prostate cancer cases

Takahara,Kiyoshi; Sumitomo,Makoto; Fukaya,Kosuke; Jyoudai,Takahito; Nishino,Masashi; Hikichi,Masaru; Zennami,Kenji; Nukaya,Takuhisa; Ichino,Manabu; Fukami,Naohiko; Sasaki,Hitomi; Kusaka,Mamoru; Shiroki,Ryoichi

doi:10.3892/ol.2019.10692

Clinical and oncological outcomes of robot‑assisted radical prostatectomy with nerve sparing vs. non‑nerve sparing for high‑risk prostate cancer cases

Authors:
- Kiyoshi Takahara
- Makoto Sumitomo
- Kosuke Fukaya
- Takahito Jyoudai
- Masashi Nishino
- Masaru Hikichi
- Kenji Zennami
- Takuhisa Nukaya
- Manabu Ichino
- Naohiko Fukami
- Hitomi Sasaki
- Mamoru Kusaka
- Ryoichi Shiroki
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Urology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Aichi 470‑1192, Japan
Published online on: July 31, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2019.10692
Pages: 3896-3902

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Robot‑assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is one of the most widely used procedures for localized prostate cancer (PCa). In the present study, the clinical and oncological outcomes of RARP with bilateral or unilateral nerve sparing (NS) for D'Amico high‑risk PCa cases were assessed. Among the 767 cases who received RARP at Fujita Health University Hospital between August 2009 and December 2016, 230 high‑risk PCa cases who were observed for >6 months comprised the retrospective study cohort. Bilateral NS was performed with the bilateral neurovascular bundle in eight, unilateral in 125 and none in 97 cases. Perioperative parameters [surgery time, console time, estimated blood loss, pathological stage, positive lymph node metastases [pN (+)], and surgical margin positivity] did not exhibit significant differences between the NS and non‑NS cohorts. During a median follow‑up time of 25 months, the 1‑ and 3‑year biochemical recurrence (BCR)‑free survival rates in the NS/non‑NS cohorts were 84.4/86.0 and 72.7/75.0%, respectively. There were no significant differences identified between the two groups at each time period. According to multivariate analysis, the resection margin was an important factor for time to BCR, regardless of the NS technique used. The numbers of pads used daily at 3 and 6 months after RARP between the NS/non‑NS cohorts were 1.1/1.5 and 0.6/1.0, respectively (P=0.045 and P=0.009), suggesting that the NS technique resulted in significantly improved outcomes regarding urinary continence recovery. In selected high‑risk PCa cases, the NS technique resulted in equivalent oncological outcomes and improved urinary continence compared with the non‑NS RARP group.

View Figures

View References

1	Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C and Parkin DM: Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 127:2893–2917. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Reed AB and Parekh DJ: Biomarkers for prostate cancer detection. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 10:103–114. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider JR, Taari K, Busch C, Nordling S, Häggman M, Andersson SO, Spångberg A, et al: Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 370:932–942. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB, Orvieto MA, Chauhan S, Ficarra V, Melegari S, Palmer KJ and Patel VR: Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol. 24:2003–2015. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Ficarra V, Borghesi M, Suardi N, De Naeyer G, Novara G, Schatteman P, De Groote R, Carpentier P and Mottrie A: Long-term evaluation of survival, continence and potency (SCP) outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int. 112:338–345. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Novara G, Aragona M and Artibani W: Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A systematic review. Eur Urol. 51:45–56. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Guillonneau B, Menon M, Montorsi F, et al: Retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 55:1037–1063. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Srivastava A, Chopra S, Pham A, Sooriakumaran P, Durand M, Chughtai B, Gruschow S, Peyser A, Harneja N, Leung R, et al: Effect of a risk-stratified grade of nerve-sparing technique on early return of continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 63:438–444. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD and Walsh PC: Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 281:1591–1597. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Gleason DF and Mellinger GT: Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 111:58–64. 1974. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ and Blute ML: Mayo Clinic validation of the D'amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 179:1354–1361. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Bastian PJ, Boorjian SA, Bossi A, Briganti A, Heidenreich A, Freedland SJ, Montorsi F, Roach M III, Schröder F, van Poppel H, et al: High-risk prostate cancer: From definition to contemporary management. Eur Urol. 61:1096–1106. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Cooperberg MR, Vickers AJ, Broering JM and Carroll PR: Comparative risk-adjusted mortality outcomes after primary surgery, radiotherapy, or androgen-deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 116:5226–5234. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Petrelli F, Vavassori I, Coinu A, Borgonovo K, Sarti E and Barni S: Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 12:215–224. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, Epstein J, Graefen M, Montironi R and Touijer K: Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol. 65:303–313. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Mossanen M, Nepple KG, Grubb RL III, Androile GL, Kallogjeri D, Klein EA, Stephenson AJ and Kibel AS: Heterogeneity in definitions of high-risk prostate cancer and varying impact on mortality rates after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Oncol. 1:143–148. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ and Wein A: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 280:969–974. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, Compton CC, Gershenwald JE, Brookland RK, Meyer L, Gress DM, Byrd DR and Winchester DP: The eighth edition AJCC Cancer staging manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more ‘personalized’ approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin. 67:93–99. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Walsh PC: Anatomic radical prostatectomy: Evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol. 160:2418–2424. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Castiglione F, Ralph DJ and Muneer A: Surgical techniques for managing post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction. Curr Urol Rep. 18:902017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Nguyen LN, Head L, Witiuk K, Punjani N, Mallick R, Cnossen S, Fergusson DA, Cagiannos I, Lavallée LT, Morash C and Breau RH: The risks and benefits of cavernous neurovascular bundle sparing during radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 198:760–769. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Michl U, Tennstedt P, Feldmeier L, Mandel P, Oh SJ, Ahyai S, Budäus L, Chun FKH, Haese A, Heinzer H, et al: Nerve-sparing surgery technique, not the preservation of the neurovascular bundles, leads to improved long-term continence rates after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 69:584–589. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Fondurulia J, Chen MH, Kaplan I, Beard CJ, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Wein A and Coleman CN: Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 17:168–172. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Shikanov SA, Thong A, Gofrit ON, Zagaja GP, Steinberg GD, Shalhav AL and Zorn KC: Robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for biopsy Gleason 8 to 10: Prediction of favorable pathologic outcome with preoperative parameters. J Endourol. 22:1477–1481. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Kumar A, Samavedi S, Bates AS, Mouraviev V, Coelho RF, Rocco B and Patel VR: Safety of selective nerve sparing in high risk prostate cancer during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. 11:129–138. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Yuh B, Artibani W, Heidenreich A, Kimm S, Menon M, Novara G, Tewari A, Touijer K, Wilson T, Zorn KC and Eggener SE: The role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of high-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol. 65:918–927. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Yuh BE, Ruel NH, Mejia R, Wilson CM and Wilson TG: Robotic extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 61:1004–1010. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Fujita N, Koie T, Ohyama C, Tanaka Y, Soma O, Matsumoto T, Yamamoto H, Imai A, Tobisawa Y, Yoneyama T, et al: Overall survival of high-risk prostate cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy followed by radical prostatectomy at a single institution. Int J Clin Oncol. 22:1087–1093. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Koie T, Mitsuzuka K, Yoneyama T, Narita S, Kawamura S, Kaiho Y, Tsuchiya N, Tochigi T, Habuchi T, Arai Y, et al: Neoadjuvant luteinizing-hormone-releasing hormone agonist plus low-dose estramustine phosphate improves prostate-specific antigen-free survival in high-risk prostate cancer patients: A propensity score-matched analysis. Int J Clin Oncol. 20:1018–1025. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Casey JT, Meeks JJ, Greco KA, Wu SD and Nadler RB: Outcomes of locally advanced (T3 or greater) prostate cancer in men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol. 23:1519–1522. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Lavery HJ, Nabizada-Pace F, Carlucci JR, Brajtbord JS and Samadi DB: Nerve-sparing robotic prostatectomy in preoperatively high-risk patients is safe and efficacious. Urol Oncol. 30:26–32. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Connolly SS, Cathcart PJ, Gilmore P, Kerger M, Crowe H, Peters JS, Murphy DG and Costello AJ: Robotic radical prostatectomy as the initial step in multimodal therapy for men with high-risk localised prostate cancer: Initial experience of 160 men. BJU Int. 109:752–759. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Jayram G, Decastro GJ, Large MC, Razmaria A, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL and Brendler CB: Robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk disease: A review of short-term outcomes from a high-volume center. J Endourol. 25:455–457. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI