Prostate Cancer Detection and Complications of Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-fusion Guided Prostate Biopsies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the rates of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and complications associated with transperineal (TP) and transrectal (TR) biopsy approaches to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-fusion targeted biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified men who underwent TP or TR MRI-targeted biopsy with concurrent systematic random biopsy from August 2020 to August 2021. Primary outcomes were detection rates of csPCa and 30-day complication rates between the 2 MRI-biopsy groups. Data were additionally stratified by prior biopsy status. RESULTS: A total of 361 patients were included in the analysis. No demographic differences were observed. No significant differences were observed between TP and TR approaches on any of the outcomes of interest. TR MRI-targeted biopsies identified csPCa in 47.2% of patients, and TP MRI-targeted biopsies identified csPCa in 48.6% of patients (P = .78). No significant differences were observed in csPCa detection between the 2 approaches for patients on active surveillance (P = .59), patients with prior negative biopsy (P = .34), and patients who were biopsy naïve (P = .19). Complication rates did not vary by approach (P = .45). CONCLUSION: Neither the identification of csPCa by MRI-targeted biopsy nor rates of complications differed significantly based on a TR or TP approach. No differences were seen between MRI-targeted approaches based on prior biopsy or active surveillance status.

Outcomes over 20 years performing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a single-surgeon experience.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a single surgeon's 20-year experience with robotic radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Patients who had undergone robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy by a single surgeon were identified via an IRB approved prospectively maintained prostate cancer database. Patients were divided into 5-year cohorts (cohort A 2001-2005; cohort B 2006-2010; cohort C 2011-2015; cohort D 2016-2021) for analysis. Oncologic and quality of life outcomes were recorded at the time of follow-up visits. Continence was defined as 0-1 pad with occasional dribbling. Potency was defined as intercourse or an erection sufficient for intercourse within the last 4 weeks. RESULTS: Three thousand one hundred fifty-two patients met criteria for inclusion. Clavien ≥ 3 complication rates decreased from 5.9% to 3.2%, p = 0.021. There was considerable Gleason grade group (GG) and stage migration to more advanced disease between cohort A (6.4% GG4 or GG5, 16.2% pT3 or pT4, 1.2% N1) and cohort D (17% GG4 or GG5, 45.5% pT3 or pT4, 14.4% N1; p < 0.001). Consistent with this, an increasing proportion of patients required salvage treatments over time (14.6% of cohort A vs 22.5% of cohort D, p < 0.001). 1-year continence rates improved from 74.8% to greater than 92.4%, p < 0.001. While baseline potency and use of intraoperative nerve spare decreased, for patients potent at baseline, there were no significant differences for potency at one year (p = 0.065). CONCLUSIONS: In this 20-year review of our experience with robotic prostatectomy, complication rates and continence outcomes improved over time, and there was a migration to more advanced disease at the time of surgery.

The Effect of a Peritoneal Iliac Flap on Lymphocele Formation After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Results From the PLUS Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a peritoneal flap on the formation of lymphoceles after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy with bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection. METHODS: We conducted a single surgeon, assessor blinded prospective randomized controlled trial (the Prospective Lymphocele Ultrasound Study) in men undergoing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy with bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection. At the conclusion of the node dissection, patients were block randomized 1:1 to either standard of care (no bladder peritoneal flap) or to the creation of a bladder peritoneal flap. Lymphocele formation was assessed by pelvic ultrasound postoperatively. The primary outcome was lymphocele formation. Rates of lymphocele formation and complications were analyzed using chi-square. Other outcomes, including length of stay, number of lymph nodes removed, lymphocele volume, and quality of life measures, were analyzed by t-tests or Wilcoxon Ranked Sum Tests, as appropriate. An a priori power calculation was performed using O'Brien-Fleming alpha sharing for the interim analyses. Two preplanned interim analyses were performed when 45 and 90 patients per group had follow-up ultrasounds. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference in lymphocele formation was seen on the second interim analysis for 183 patients (4.3% vs. 15.6%, p = .011) stopping enrollment; this remained significant in the final analysis of 216 patients (3.6% vs 14.2%, p = .006). No other significant differences were observed. CONCLUSION: This prospective randomized trial supports the implementation of this simple modification for robotic assisted radical prostatectomy with bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection.

What is the most effective way to ensure that patients successfully undergo germline testing for prostate cancer?

INTRODUCTION: We sought to identify the most effective way to refer patients with prostate cancer to germline testing. METHODS: After IRB approval, we queried the electronic medical records (EMR) to identify patients (ages 18-89) with prostate cancer who were referred for or offered germline testing for prostate cancer from May 1, 2019 to February 24, 2021 through either telephone referral, EMR referral or in-office testing. The 3 cohorts were compared on receipt of testing and time to testing. Multivariate logistic regression and Cox regression evaluated the influence of referral cohort and reason for testing on receipt of testing and time to testing, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients met study inclusion criteria; 47 were referred for germline testing via telephone, 70 were referred through the EMR and 67 were offered testing in the office. No significant demographic or clinical differences were observed. Telephone referral yielded the lowest response (17%; P < 0.001) with the longest time interval between referral and testing (103 days; P < 0.001); in-office testing yielded the highest response (66%). More patients were referred because of both family history and high risk characteristics in the EMR and in-office testing cohorts (21.4% and 25.4% respectively). Referral method was significantly (P < 0.001) associated with receipt of test, while reason for testing was not. Referral method was also independently related to time to testing (P < 0.001) while reason for referral was not. CONCLUSIONS: Urologists should offer germline testing in the office for the most effective and expedient results.

Outcomes of MRI fusion-guided versus systematic standard prostate biopsies.

INTRODUCTION: The current utility of MRI-fusion targeted biopsy as either an adjunct to or replacement for systematic template biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer is disputed. The purpose of this study is to assess the current effectiveness of MRI-targeted versus systematic template prostate biopsies at two institutions and to consider possible underlying factors that could impact variability between detection rates in our patient population compared to others. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review from our prospectively maintained prostate cancer databases was conducted. Patients with prostate MRI lesions (PI-RADSv2) receiving concurrent systematic 12-core and MRI-fusion targeted biopsies were reviewed. Clinically significant cancer was considered to be Grade Group ≥ 2. RESULTS: A total of 457 patients were included in the analysis; 255 patients received their biopsy at Institution A and 202 at Institution B. Overall cancer detection rate was 68%; the clinically significant cancer detection rate was 34%. Both MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies identified unique cases of clinically significant prostate cancer that the other modality missed. Out of 157 cases of clinically significant prostate cancer, MRI-targeted biopsy identified 29/157 cases (18%) missed by systematic biopsy, while systematic biopsy identified 37/157 cases (24%) missed by MRI-targeted biopsy (p = .39). Individual biopsy performance was similar when stratified by active surveillance or prior biopsy status, PI-RADSv2 score, and institution. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-fusion targeted and systematic biopsy each identified unique cases of clinically significant prostate cancer. Both biopsy modalities should be utilized in order to provide the greatest sensitivity for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Identification of a five gene signature to predict time to biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Identification of novel biomarkers associated with high-risk prostate cancer or biochemical recurrence can drive improvement in detection, prognosis, and treatment. However, studies can be limited by small sample sizes and sparse clinical follow-up data. We utilized a large sample of prostate specimens to identify a predictive model of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy and we validated this model in two external data sets. METHODS: We analyzed prostate specimens from patients undergoing radical prostatectomy at Hartford Hospital between 2008 and 2011. RNA isolated from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prostates was hybridized to a custom Affymetrix microarray. Regularized (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator [Lasso]) Cox regression was performed with cross-validation to identify a model that incorporated gene expression and clinical factors to predict biochemical recurrence, defined as postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 0.2 ng/ml or receipt of triggered salvage treatment. Model performance was assessed using time-dependent receiver operating curve (ROC) curves and survival plots. RESULTS: A total of 606 prostate specimens with gene expression and both pre- and postoperative PSA data were available for analysis. We identified a model that included Gleason grade and stage as well as five genes (CNRIP1, endoplasmic reticulum protein 44 [ERP44], metaxin-2 [MTX2], Ras homolog family member U [RHOU], and OXR1). Using the Lasso method, we determined that the five gene model independently predicted biochemical recurrence better than a model that included Gleason grade and tumor stage alone. The time-dependent ROCAUC for the five gene signature including Gleason grade and tumor stage was 0.868 compared to an AUC of 0.767 when Gleason grade and tumor stage were included alone. Low and high-risk groups displayed significant differences in their recurrence-free survival curves. The predictive model was subsequently validated on two independent data sets identified through the Gene Expression Omnibus. The model included genes (RHOU, MTX2, and ERP44) that have previously been implicated in prostate cancer biology. CONCLUSIONS: Expression of a small number of genes is associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence independent of classical pathological hallmarks.

Does post prostatectomy decipher score predict biochemical recurrence and impact care?

PURPOSE: To examine the ability of the Decipher test to predict early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and to impact clinical decisions in advance of metastasis and death. METHODS: We identified Decipher tests ordered after radical prostatectomy for adverse pathology in men treated for prostate cancer between 1/1/14 and 8/31/18. Biochemical recurrence was defined as prostate-specific antigen > 0.02 ng/mL. Decipher score is reported as lower risk (< 0.6) and higher risk ≥ 0.60). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to examine the relationship between Decipher score and time to biochemical recurrence (months). Cox regression was used to analyze the relationship between Decipher score and time to biochemical recurrence while controlling for a number of clinical characteristics. Secondary analyses focused on a subset of men with prostate-specific antigen > 0.02 and < 0.20 ng/mL to determine if high-risk Decipher scores were associated with receipt of salvage treatment. RESULTS: A total of 203 cases were analyzed: 37.9% and 62.1% had lower and higher risk Decipher scores respectively, and 56.2% had a biochemical recurrence. Median (inter-quartile range) follow-up was 20 (13.5, 25.3) months. Decipher score was significantly associated with time to biochemical recurrence (p = 0.027) while in the secondary analyses, high-risk Decipher scores (≥ 0.60) were associated with salvage treatment (p = 0.018). Stage category and Decipher score were significant predictors of time from elevated PSA to salvage treatment in the secondary analyses. CONCLUSION: While it might not contribute statistically, Decipher score can be clinically useful in helping patients reach treatment decisions.

Use of EPIC 26 to identify men likely to benefit from surgical interventions for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To examine outcomes of surgical procedures for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy (post-RP UI) and to identify patients who may benefit from a surgical intervention to treat post-RP UI. METHODS: A retrospective chart review identified men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) from July 2004 through July 2016 at our institution. Cases underwent surgical interventions for UI following RP. Controls had RP during the study period but did not have an intervention for UI following RP. We used the UI scale of the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC) 26 to: (1) quantify post-RP UI before and after UI intervention overall and for specific surgical procedures; (2) evaluate the significance of improvement in post-RP UI before and after UI intervention and (3) identify controls with levels of post-RP UI that were comparable to the cases. RESULTS: Two thousand nine hundred and sixty-eight RPs were performed; 48 patients underwent further surgical intervention (39 slings, 9 artificial urinary sphincter, AUS). For 20 cases with complete EPIC UI data (15 slings, 5 AUS), the median (IQR) pre-UI intervention score was 27.00 (IQR 22.75-42.75). Improvement was significant overall (p < 0.001) and for slings (p = 0.001). 71/2085 controls had post-prostatectomy UI scores ≤ 27.0, suggesting that they may have benefited from a post-RP surgical intervention for UI. CONCLUSION: Data support the effectiveness of surgery to treat post-RP UI. A sizeable population of unidentified men may benefit from a surgical intervention to treat urinary incontinence after RP.

Caprini score and surgical times linked to the risk for venous thromboembolism after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the Caprini score as an independent predictor of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and to identify appropriate cut-points for clinical use. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent RARP for prostate cancer between December 2003 and February 2016. VTE cases developed the condition within 90 days of discharge. The control group was comprised of patients whose RARP most closely preceded and followed each VTE case in time and who were matched on lymph node dissection and surgeon. The Caprini score was calculated for each patient, and the groups were compared on a number of clinical variables. Multiple logistic regression was used to evaluate whether the Caprini score was an independent predictor of VTE. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were used to establish appropriate clinical cutpoints. RESULTS: A total of 3719 patients underwent RARP during the study period. A total of 52 (1.4%) of patients met the criteria for cases. Data were available for 97 patients who met the criteria for controls. Multiple logistic regression indicated that the Caprini score and operative time were independently both significant predictors of VTE (p=0.005 and p=0.044, respectively). ROC indicated that the Caprini score showed a significant but moderate relationship to VTE (area under curve [AOC]=0.64; p=0.004). A Caprini score >6 was the best arithmetic balance for sensitivity (61.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 47.0-74.7) and specificity (59.8; 95% CI: 49.3-69.6). CONCLUSION: The Caprini score predicts postoperative VTE in patients undergoing RARP.

Prostate cancer genomics: comparing results from three molecular assays.

INTRODUCTION: OncotypeDx, Prolaris, and Decipher have each been validated to predict outcomes and guide treatment for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer, but they have yet to be compared to one another. Here we assess the correspondence between the results of each. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review to identify patients who underwent at least two of the three genomic tests at Hartford Hospital between 2014 and 2017. We used test-specific definitions of a favorable prediction for each to compare the percent agreement between each pair. Results were also compared to treatment recommendations based on current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. We compared pair-wise agreement using Cohen's kappa (K). RESULTS: Twenty-two patients received at least two different genomic tests. For 12 patients who received both the Decipher and Prolaris, % agreement and K were 66.7 and 0.31 (p = .276), respectively. For 8 patients who received both Prolaris and Oncotype DX, % agreement and K were 75 and 0.39 (p = .168), respectively. Two patients received both Decipher and Oncotype DX, yielding 50% agreement and an incalculable K. For Prolaris versus NCCN, % agreement and K were 75 and .21, respectively (p = .117; n = 20). For Decipher versus NCCN, % agreement and K were 60 and .15, respectively (p = .268; n = 15). For Oncotype DX versus NCCN (n = 10), agreement was 50%, K was incalculable. CONCLUSIONS: Notable differences exist in prognostic outcomes obtained from OncotypeDx, Prolaris, and Decipher.

Impact of Urology Resident Involvement on intraoperative, Long-Term Oncologic and Functional Outcomes of Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of resident involvement in robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy on oncologic, functional, and intraoperative outcomes, both short and long term. METHODS: We queried our prospectively maintained database of prostate cancer patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy from November 20, 2007 to December 27, 2016. We analyzed cases performed by 1 surgeon on a specific day of the week when the morning case involved at least 1 resident (R) and the afternoon case involved the attending physician only (nonresident [NR]). We compared R versus NR on a number of clinical, perioperative, and oncological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 230 NR and 230 R cases met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Over one third (36.7%) of the NR group was Gleason 4+3 (Grade Group 3) or higher, relative to 25.9% of the R group, P = .015. Median operative time (OT) was significantly longer for R versus NR (200 minutes versus 156 minutes, P<.001) as was robotic time (161 minutes versus119 minutes, P<.001). No significant differences were noted for any other measure. Median follow-up for oncological outcomes was 30 and 33.5 months for NR and R, respectively (P= .3). Median OT and median estimated blood loss were both significantly greater in later years relative to the earlier years for R (2012-2016 versus 2007-2011; P< .001 for OT; P= .041 for median estimated blood loss) but not for NR. CONCLUSION: Neither safety nor quality is diminished by R involvement in robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Return to work after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retro-pubic prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: We compared the return-to-work interval (RTWI) after radical retro-pubic prostatectomy (RRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in men being treated for early-stage prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We mailed a 28-item questionnaire to a random sample of 2,696 patients who either had RRP from 1995 to 2004 or RALP from 2004 to 2011. RESULTS: We received analyzable questionnaires from 315 patients; 178 had RALP and 137 had RPP. The median RTWI was shorter in the RALP group than in the RRP group (3 versus 4 weeks, p = .016). The percent of subjects who had not returned to work 4 weeks after surgery was 23.6% for RALP and 38.2% for RRP (p = .010). In multivariate regression analysis, surgical approach was a significant predictor of RTWI independent of other social/clinical variables that were associated with either surgical approach or RTWI (p = .014). CONCLUSION: Our data support a shortening of RTWI by RALP.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network® Favorable Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer-Is Active Surveillance Appropriate?

PURPOSE: We compared pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients at favorable intermediate risk who fulfilled current NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) Guidelines® for active surveillance criteria to outcomes in patients who met more traditional criteria for active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried our institutional review board approved prostate cancer database for patients who met NCCN criteria for very low risk (T1c, Grade Group 1, 3 or fewer of 12 cores, 50% or less core volume and prostate specific antigen density less than 0.15 ng/ml), low risk (T1-T2a, Grade Group 1 and prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml) or favorable intermediate risk (major pattern grade 3 and less than 50% positive biopsy cores) and who had 1 intermediate risk factor, including T2b/c, Grade Group 2 or prostate specific antigen 10 to 20 ng/ml. Men at intermediate risk who did not meet favorable criteria were labeled as being at unfavorable intermediate risk. Patients at favorable intermediate risk were compared to those at very low and low risk, and those at unfavorable intermediate risk to identify differences in rates of adverse pathological findings at radical prostatectomy, including Gleason score Grade Group 3-5, nonorgan confined disease or nodal involvement. Time to biochemical recurrence was compared among the groups using Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 3,686 patients underwent radical prostatectomy between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015. Of these men 1,454, 250 and 1,362 fulfilled the criteria for low, favorable intermediate and unfavorable intermediate risk, respectively. The rate of adverse pathological findings in favorable intermediate risk cases was significantly higher than in low risk cases and significantly lower than in unfavorable intermediate risk cases (27.4% vs 14.8% and 48.5%, respectively, each p <0.001). Time to biochemical recurrence differed significantly among the risk groups (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to men at low risk those at favorable intermediate risk represent a distinct group. Care should be taken when selecting these patients for active surveillance and monitoring them once they are in an active surveillance program.

Impact of active surveillance on pathology and nerve sparing status.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed whether, in comparison to immediate surgery, a time delay in performing radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients electing to undergo a period of active surveillance (AS) of low grade prostate cancer, is associated with adverse pathologic features, biochemical recurrence and the ability to perform effective nerve sparing surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From our RP database of 2769 patients, we identified 41 men under AS who subsequently underwent RP. This study group was compared to control group A (164 patients who chose RP rather than AS), matched for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and initial diagnostic biopsy characteristics. With time, PSA and biopsy characteristics in the AS study group changed, prompting these men to undergo RP. These changes were matched to create a separate control group B (123 patients most of whom did not meet AS criteria). The incidence of nerve sparing surgery, pathologic features, and biochemical recurrence were compared. Outcome variables were compared using Chi-square tests of proportions. Fisher's Exact test was used for recurrence rates due to the low expected frequencies in some cells. RESULTS: Compared with control group A, the AS patients experienced higher rates of Gleason score upgrading (33/41; 81.1% versus 76/164; 46.3%, p < 0.001), biochemical recurrence (5/41; 11.4% versus 2/164; 1.3%, p = 0.012) and lower rates of bilateral nerve sparing surgery (31/41; 75.6% versus 154/164; 93.9%, p < 0.001). Control group B and active surveillance group were comparable across all indices measured. CONCLUSIONS: Delaying RP, through undergoing a period of AS, had a significant negative impact on the incidence of bilateral nerve sparing surgery and adverse pathologic features when compared to patients with similar parameters at the time of diagnosis. Close monitoring and surveillance biopsies did not improve pathologic outcomes compared to patients from whom a single diagnostic biopsy was obtained (and were not candidates for AS), and who subsequently underwent immediate surgery.

Prostate biopsy volume predicts final tumor volume.

AIM: To assess the ability of prostate biopsy volume to effectively predict actual tumor volume, and whether increasing the number of prostate biopsy cores improves the ability to forecast actual tumor volume. METHODS: 765 patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy (2009-2010) were identified. Of these, 663 had complete demographics, biopsy, and final pathology data available. The number ofbiopsy samples, biopsy tumor volume, and actual tumor volume were calculated from pathology reports. RESULTS: Data from 663 radical prostatectomy specimens indicated a positive linearrelationship between biopsy tumor volume and actual tumor volume (R=0.524, P< 0.0001). The number ofbiopsy samples collected (i.e., < or =6, 7-8, 9-10, 11-12, 13-14, or > or =15) did not affect the ability of biopsy tumor volume to predict final tumor volume. CONCLUSIONS: The routine collection of biopsy tumor volume may prove useful in predicting actual tumor volume and the construction of more effective preoperative nomograms.

Does heparin prophylaxis reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing robot-assisted prostatectomy?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major complication of urologic surgery. Data are limited regarding the benefits of heparin prophylaxis for patients undergoing minimally invasive urologic surgery. The American Urological Association recommends sequential compression devices (SCDs) for urologic laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures but provides no clear recommendations for the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis. We compare the rates of postoperative VTE in two groups of patients undergoing robot-assisted prostatectomy (RP) by two surgeons-one who consistently used heparin with SCDs (group 1) and the other who used SCDs alone (group 2) for prophylaxis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An Institutional Review Board approved, prospectively managed database was analyzed. Group 1 received SCDs just before induction and 5000 units of heparin subcutaneously just after induction. SCDs were continued postoperatively, and heparin was administered twice a day until discharge. VTE rate, patient age, body mass index (BMI), operative time, lymphocele rate, length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), Gleason score, and pathologic stage were compared. Categorical variables were analyzed with the chi square test of proportions and continuous variables with t test using SPSS v 14 software. RESULTS: There were 1486 consecutive patients who underwent RP between August 2007 and December 30, 2011. Of these, 922 patients received heparin/SCDs and 564 received SCDs alone. Age, BMI, EBL, medial LOS, Gleason score, and pathologic stage were the same in the two groups. There was a higher rate of positive nodes in group 2 (1.3% vs 3.5%). There was one lymphocele in each group. Although operative times were longer in group 2 (229 vs 170 min, P<0.001), the incidence of VTE was not statistically different (1.0% vs 0.7%, P=0.78). BMI, operative time, EBL, and the performance of lymph node dissection were not associated with VTE. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of VTE in patients undergoing RP is low and not significantly reduced with the administration of prophylactic heparin/SCDs compared with SCDs alone.

Prostate cancer biochemical recurrence rates after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To determine prostate cancer biochemical recurrence rates with respect to surgical margin (SM) status for patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). METHODS: IRB-approved radical prostatectomy database was queried. Patients were stratified as low, intermediate, and high risk according to D'Amico's risk classification. Postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values were obtained every 3 mo for the first year, then biannually and annually thereafter. Biochemical recurrence was defined as ≥0.2ng/mL. Patients receiving adjuvant or salvage treatment were included. Positive surgical margin was defined as presence of cancer cells at inked resection margin in the final specimen. Margin presence (negative/positive), margin multiplicity (single/multiple), and margin length (≤ 3mm focal and >3mm extensive) were noted. Kaplan-Meier curves of biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) as a function of SM were generated. Forward stepwise multivariate Cox regression was performed, with preoperative PSA, Gleason score, pathologic stage, prostate gland weight, and SM as covariates. RESULTS: At our institution, 1437 patients underwent RALP (2003-2009). Of these, 1159 had sufficient data and were included in our analysis. Mean follow-up was 16 mo. Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated significant increase in BRFS in low-risk and intermediate-risk groups with negative SM. Overall BRFS at 5 y was 72%. Gleason score, pathologic stage, and SM status were significant prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Negative surgical margins resulted in lower biochemical recurrence rates for low-risk and intermediate-risk groups. Multifocal and longer positive margins were associated with higher biochemical recurrence rates compared with unifocal and shorter positive margins. Documenting biochemical recurrence rates for RALP is important, because this treatment for localized prostate cancer is validated.

Does prior abdominal surgery influence outcomes or complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy?

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) in patients with prior abdominal surgery is associated with increased operating times, positive surgical margins, or complications. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective review of a prospective, prostatectomy database was performed. Patients undergoing surgery between January 1, 2004, and February 29, 2008 were included. Transition from open retropubic prostatectomy to RALP took place through 2004, at which point all surgical candidates were offered RALP, regardless of prior surgical history. Learning curves from all surgeons were included. Patients with prior abdominal surgery were compared with those patients without prior surgery with respect to total operating time, robotic-assist time, surgical margin positivity, and rate of complications. RESULTS: A total of 1083 patients underwent RALP between January 1, 2004, and February 29, 2008, at our institution; of these, 839 had sufficient data available for analysis. In all, 251 (29.9%) patients had prior abdominal surgery, whereas 588 (70.1%) had no prior abdominal surgery. Total operating times were 209 and 204 minutes (P = .20), robotic console times were 165 and 163 minutes (P = .59), and surgical margin positivity was 21.1% and 27.2% (P = .08) for patients with and without prior abdominal surgery, respectively. The incidence of complications was 14.3% and 17.3% for patients with and without prior abdominal surgery (P = .33). CONCLUSIONS: Prior abdominal surgery was not associated with a statistically significant increase in overall operating time, robotic assist time, margin positivity, or incidence of complications in patients undergoing RALP. Robotic prostatectomy can be safely and satisfactorily performed in patients who have had a wide variety of prior abdominal surgery types.