Prognostic Importance of Lymphovascular Invasion for Specific Subgroup of Patients with Prostate Cancer After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (The MSUG94 Group).

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether lymphovascular invasion (LVI) was associated with oncological outcomes in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: This retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted on 3195 patients with PCa who underwent RARP in nine institutions in Japan. The primary endpoints were the associations between biochemical recurrence (BCR) and LVI and between BCR and clinicopathological covariates, while the secondary endpoints were the association between LVI and the site of clinical recurrence and metastasis-free survival (MFS). RESULTS: In total, 2608 patients met the inclusion criteria. At the end of the follow-up period, 311 patients (11.9%) were diagnosed with BCR and none died of PCa. In patients with pathological stage T2 (pT2) + negative resection margins (RM-), and pT3+ positive RM (RM+), LVI significantly worsened BCR-free survival (BRFS). For patients with PCa who had pT3 and RM+, the 2-year BRFS rate in those with LVI was significantly worse than in those without LVI. Patients with LVI had significantly worse MFS than those without LVI with respect to pT3, RM+, and pathological Gleason grade (pGG). In multivariate analysis, LVI was significantly associated with BRFS in patients with pT3 PCa, and with worse MFS in PCa patients with pT3, RM+, and pGG ≥ 4. CONCLUSIONS: LVI was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence and metastasis after RARP, particularly in patients with pT3 and RM+ PCa. Locally advanced PCa with positive LVI and RM+ requires careful follow-up because of the high likelihood of recurrence.

Six-year outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy are the leading respective techniques of prostatectomy and radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer, almost no study has directly compared their outcomes; none have compared mortality outcomes. METHODS: We compared 6­year outcomes of RARP (n = 500) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT, a rotational intensity-modulated radiotherapy, n = 360) in patients with cT1-4N0M0 prostate cancer. We assessed oncological outcomes, namely overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), radiological recurrence-free survival (rRFS), and biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), using propensity score matching (PSM). We also assessed treatment-related complication outcomes of prostatectomy and radiotherapy. RESULTS: The median follow-up duration was 79 months (> 6 years). PSM generated a matched cohort of 260 patients (130 per treatment group). In the matched cohort, RARP and VMAT showed equivalent results for OS, CSS, and rRFS: both achieved excellent 6­year outcomes for OS (> 96%), CSS (> 98%), and rRFS (> 91%). VMAT had significantly longer bRFS than RARP, albeit based on different definitions of biochemical recurrence. Regarding complication outcomes, patients who underwent RARP had minimal (2.6%) severe perioperative complications and achieved excellent continence recovery (91.6 and 68.8% of the patients achieved ≤ 1 pad/day and pad-free, respectively). Patients who underwent VMAT had an acceptable rate (20.0%) of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary complications and a very low rate (4.4%) of grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal complications. CONCLUSION: On the basis of PSM after a 6-year follow-up, RARP and VMAT showed equivalent and excellent oncological outcomes, as well as acceptable complication profiles.

Comparison of sexual function after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and carbon-ion radiotherapy for Japanese prostate cancer patients using propensity score matching.

BACKGROUND: The quality of life of patients is an important consideration when selecting treatments for localized prostate cancer (PCa). We retrospectively compared sexual function after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) using propensity score matching. METHODS: In total, 127 Japanese PCa patients treated with RARP and 190 treated with CIRT monotherapy were evaluated. We evaluated the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) score before treatment and 12 and 24 months after treatment. After propensity score matching, data from 101 patients from each group were analyzed. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Gunma University Hospital (no. IRB2020-050, 1839). RESULTS: After propensity score matching, the mean EPIC sexual function summary scores in the RARP and CIRT groups were 46.4 and 48.2, respectively. At 12 and 24 months after treatment, these scores were 27.9 (39.9% decrease) and 28.2 (39.2% decrease) in the RARP group and 41.4 (14.1% decrease) and 41.6 (13.7% decrease) in the CIRT group, respectively. Both groups demonstrated significantly decreased scores after 12 and 24 months of treatment compared to before treatment (all p < 0.05). At 12 and 24 months, the sexual function summary score was significantly higher in the CIRT group than in the RARP group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a smaller decrease in the EPIC sexual function score in the CIRT group than in the RARP group. These results provide useful information for treatment decision-making of Japanese PCa patients.

Feasibility, safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a new robotic surgical system: a prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) gains increasing popularity in the surgical management of prostate cancer (PCa) but is challenged by its prohibitive expense. A domestic robotic system has been developed to address this issue, but data comparing the self-developed robot with the widely used robot is lacking. We performed a randomized clinical trial to compare KD-SR-01® and DaVinci® robots in terms of perioperative, short-term oncological and functional outcomes in RARP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with clinically localized PCa. Patients were randomized to undergo either KD-SR-01®-RARP (K-RARP) or DaVinci®-RARP (D-RARP) by the same surgical team. The baseline, perioperative, short-term oncologic and urinary functional data were collected and compared. RESULTS: We enrolled 39 patients, including 20 patients undergoing K-RARP and 19 undergoing D-RARP. Demographic and tumor characteristics were comparable between groups. All surgeries were performed successfully with no conversion to open. The operative time was similar (P = 0.095) and K-RARP offered less volume of intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.001). Four patients in the K-RARP group and three in the D-RARP group developed postoperative complications (P = 0.732). Patients undergoing K-RARP had less volume of drainage (P = 0.022). Positive surgical margins were observed in three patients undergoing K-RARP and five undergoing D-RARP (P = 0.451). During the follow up, one patient receiving K-RARP group and two receiving D-RARP group had measurable prostate specific antigen (P = 0.605). Urine leakage, urinary control and pad usage were comparable between groups at six weeks post-surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The two surgical robots yielded similar results in feasibility, safety and short-term oncologic and functional efficacy for RARP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been registered at www.chictr.org.cn with a registration number of ChiCTR2200057000 on 25th February 2022.

Versius robotic surgical system: case series of 18 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies.

OBJECTIVE: To present the results of the first series of patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with the use of the Versius® Surgical System (CMR Surgical Ltd., Cambridge, UK). RARP has demonstrated better perioperative outcomes compared to open RP. However, RARP remains limited by platform availability and cost-effectiveness issues. The increasing competition from new robotic surgical platforms may further drive utilisation of the robotic approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected prospectively for our first 18 consecutive patients with localised prostate cancer who underwent RARP at our centre over a 3-month period. We recorded parameters, including patient demographics and perioperative outcomes. We also report our optimised set-up with regard to trocar placement, bedside unit placement, and overall composition of the operating room for this procedure. Describing the incremental modifications carried out to achieve reductions in set-up and operating times to optimise utilisation of the Versius system. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) set-up time was 8.5 (7-10) min. The median (IQR) console time was 201 (170-242) min. The median (IQR) operative time was 213 (186-266) min. The median (IQR) total surgery time was 226 (201-277) min. Bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy median (IQR) time was 19 (17-20) min. There were no complications and/or limitations related to the use of the Versius system including need for conversion. There were no relevant intra- or postoperative complications at the 1-month follow-up related to the use of the Versius system. Patients were discharged after a median (IQR) of 4 (3.75-5) days, and the transurethral catheter was removed after a mean (range) of 8 (7-14) days. Continence at 2 months was achieved in 72.2% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Performing RARP using the Versius system is feasible, safe, and easily reproducible. Our set-up enables a rapid docking approach and efficient completion of the surgery.

Saline-assisted fascial exposure (SAFE) technique to improve nerve-sparing in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a summary of our initial experience and assess the impact of the Saline-Assisted Fascial Exposure (SAFE) technique on erectile function (EF), urinary continence, and oncological outcomes after Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (RALP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2021 to July 2022, we included patients with a baseline Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) score of ≥17 and a high probability of extracapsular extension (ECE), ranging from 21% to 73%, as per the Martini et al. nomogram. A propensity score matching was carried out at a ratio of 1:2 between patients who underwent RALP + SAFE (33) and RALP alone (66). The descriptive statistical analysis is presented. The SAFE technique was performed using two approaches, transrectal guided by micro-ultrasound or transperitoneal. Its principle entails a low-pressure injection of saline solution in the periprostatic fascia to achieve an atraumatic dissection of the neural hammock. Potency was defined as a SHIM score of ≥17 and continence as no pads per day. RESULTS: At follow-up intervals of 6, 13, 26, and 52 weeks, the SHIM score differed significantly between the two groups, favouring the RALP + SAFE (P = 0.01, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.01, respectively). These results remained significant when the mean SHIM score was assessed. As shown by the cumulative incidence curve, EF rates were higher in the RALP + SAFE compared to the RALP alone group (log-rank P < 0.001). The baseline SHIM and use of the SAFE technique were independent predictors of EF recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the SAFE technique led to better SHIM scores at 6, 13, 26, and 52 weeks after RALP in patients at high risk of ECE who underwent a partial NS procedure.

Can nerve monitoring during radical prostatectomy improve functional outcomes? A randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how the use of the ProPep® Nerve Monitoring System (ProPep Surgical, Austin, TX, USA) for intraoperative specific sparing of the pudendal nerve fibres influences postoperative functional outcomes after unilateral nerve-sparing (UNS) or non-nerve-sparing (NNS) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomised 100 men undergoing UNS or NNS RARP to ProPep nerve monitoring during RARP (intervention) or standard of care RARP (control). Functional outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form (ICIQ-SF), the International Prostate Symptom Score, the Danish Prostate Symptom Score, the International Index of Erectile Function, the Erection Hardness Scale, and 24-h pad tests. The primary outcome was the difference in ICIQ-SF score between the groups at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included differences in the remaining outcome measures and continence rates at all time points. Continence was defined as the use of no pads and the answer 'Never' to the question: 'How often do you experience urinary incontinence?' or a urine loss of <8 g on the 24-h pad test. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis at 12 months with 41 in each group. At 12 months the mean ICIQ-SF scores were 5.37 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.71-7.03) and 5.66 (95% CI 4.05-7.27) for the intervention and control groups, respectively (P = 0.8). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the remaining outcomes. However, the continence rate was higher in the intervention group at 6 months (63% vs 44%, P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative nerve monitoring did not result in better functional outcomes following UNS or NNS RARP. Larger studies are needed to explore if ProPep can reduce the time to continence after RARP.

Managing prostate cancer after proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: feasibility and outcomes of single-port transvesical robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (PC-IPAA) face unique challenges in managing prostate cancer due to their hostile abdomens and heightened small bowel mucosa radiosensitivity. In such cases, external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is contraindicated, and while brachytherapy provides a safer option, its oncologic effectiveness is limited. The Single-Port Transvesical Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (SP TV-RARP) offers promise by avoiding the peritoneal cavity. Our study aims to evaluate its feasibility and outcomes in patients with PC-IPAA. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was done on patients with PC-IPAA who had undergone SP TV-RARP from June 2020 to June 2023 at a high-volume center. Outcomes and clinicopathologic variables were analyzed. RESULTS: Eighteen patients underwent SP TV-RARP without experiencing any complications. The median hospital stay was 5.7 h, with 89% of cases discharged without opioids. Foley catheters were removed in an average of 5.5 days. Immediate urinary continence was seen in 39% of the patients, rising to 76 and 86% at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Half of the cohort had non-organ confined disease on final pathology. Two patients with ISUP GG3 and GG4 exhibited detectable PSA post-surgery and required systemic therapy; both had SVI, multifocal ECE, and large cribriform pattern. Positive surgical margins were found in 44% of cases, mostly Gleason pattern 3, unifocal, and limited. After 11.1 months of follow-up, no pouch failure or additional BCR cases were found. CONCLUSION: Patients with PC-IPAA often exhibit aggressive prostate cancer features and may derive the greatest benefit from surgical interventions, particularly given that radiation therapy is contraindicated. SP TV-RARP is a safe option for this group, reducing the risk of bowel complications and promoting faster recovery.

Da Vinci vs. Hugo RAS for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparative single-center study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate Hugo RAS against the Da Vinci system for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) in prostate cancer treatment. METHODS: We compared outcomes of 150 patients with prostate cancer undergoing RARP with either Hugo or Da Vinci systems. Our analysis included operative, postoperative, pathological, and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Both groups had 75 patients. Baseline characteristics and tumor features were similar. Intraoperatively, Da Vinci had a shorter docking time (10.45 vs. 18.62 min, p = 0.02), but total operative times were comparable (145.34 vs 138.95, p = 0.85). Hugo outperformed in neck dissection and lymphadenectomy times (22 vs 13.67 min, p = 0.027 and 37.82 vs 45.77 min, p = 0.025). Postoperative metrics like stay duration, catheter time, and complications showed no significant difference. Functional results, using IPSS and IIEF5, were similar between systems. Six Da Vinci patients (8%) and nine Hugo patients (12%) experienced social incontinence (p = 0.072). Pathological outcomes like T stage, Gleason Score, and nodes removed were alike. However, Hugo had more positive surgical margins (20% vs. 10.67%, p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: RARP outcomes using Hugo RAS were similar to the Da Vinci system in our study. More research and extended follow-up are required to ascertain long-term oncological and functional results.

Checking vesicourethral anastomosis for urinary extravasation during radical prostatectomy: is it still necessary in the robotic era? A prospective, randomized case-control study.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the role of intraoperative control of the watertightness of vesicourethral anastomosis extravasation control (VUAEC) in predicting vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA) healing and early postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: 100 patients who underwent RARP between October 2020 and May 2023 were consecutively included in the study. Preoperatively, the patients were randomized to undergo VUAEC (Group-A) or not (Group-B). Patients in Group-A were evaluated in 2 subgroups: those with no extravasation observed during VUAEC (Group-A1; n = 31 (62%)) and those with extravasation (Group-A2; n = 19 (38%)). On the 8th post-operative day, a gravity cystogram (GC) was performed on all patients to assess VUA healing. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of clinical features, drain removal time, length of hospital stay, extravasation on GC, catheter removal time and postoperative complications (p > 0.05, for each). There was also no statistically significant difference between the subgroups in terms of drain removal time, length of hospital stays, catheter removal time (p > 0.05, for each). In Group-A2, urinary extravasation on GC was found in a greater percentage, but the difference remained statistically insignificant (p = 0.082). CONCLUSIONS: Performing intraoperative VUAEC did not have a significant role in the prediction of VUA healing and early postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing RARP. The current study did not identify a substantial clinical benefit of routine intraoperative VUAEC.