Comparative Outcomes of Salvage Retzius-Sparing versus Standard Robotic Prostatectomy: An International, Multi-Surgeon Series.

PURPOSE: Salvage radical prostatectomy is rare due to the risk of postoperative complications. We compare salvage Retzius-sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (SRS-RARP) with salvage standard robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (SS-RARP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 72 patients across 9 centers were identified (40 SRS-RARP vs 32 SS-RARP). Demographics, perioperative data, and pathological and functional outcomes were compared using Student's t-test and ANOVA. Cox proportional hazard models and Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to assess risk of incontinence and time to continence. Linear regression models were constructed to investigate postoperative pad use and console time. RESULTS: Median followup was 23 vs 36 months for SRS-RARP vs SS-RARP. Console time and estimated blood loss favored SRS-RARP. There were no differences in complication rates or oncologic outcomes. SRS-RARP had improved continence (78.4% vs 43.8%, p <0.001 for 0-1 pad, 54.1% vs 6.3%, p <0.001 for 0 pad), lower pads per day (0.57 vs 2.03, p <0.001), and earlier return to continence (median 47 vs 180 days, p=0.008). SRS-RARP was associated with decreased incontinence defined as >0-1 pad (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10-0.79, p=0.016), although not when defined as >0 pad (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31-1.01, p=0.053). On adjusted analysis SRS-RARP was associated with decreased pads per day. Lymph node dissection and primary treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy were associated with longer console time. CONCLUSIONS: SRS-RARP is a feasible salvage option with significantly improved urinary function outcomes. This may warrant increased utilization of SRS-RARP to manage men who fail nonsurgical primary treatment for prostate cancer.

Fidelity of a PDX-CR model for bladder cancer.

Patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) are widely recognised as a more physiologically relevant preclinical model than standard cell lines, but are expensive and low throughput, have low engraftment rate and take a long time to develop. Our newly developed conditional reprogramming (CR) technology addresses many PDX drawbacks, but lacks many in vivo factors. Here we determined whether PDXs and CRCs of the same cancer origin maintain the biological fidelity and complement each for translational research and drug development. Four CRC lines were generated from bladder cancer PDXs. Short tandem repeat (STR) analyses revealed that CRCs and their corresponding parental PDXs shared the same STRs, suggesting common cancer origins. CRCs and their corresponding parental PDXs contained the same genetic alterations. Importantly, CRCs retained the same drug sensitivity with the corresponding downstream signalling activity as their corresponding parental PDXs. This suggests that CRCs and PDXs can complement each other, and that CRCs can be used for in vitro fast, high throughput and low cost screening while PDXs can be used for in vivo validation and study of the in vivo factors during translational research and drug development.

Survival and secondary interventions following treatment for locally-advanced prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The utility of radical prostatectomy (RP) for locally-advanced prostate cancer remains unknown. Retrospective data has shown equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to radiation therapy (RT). RP may provide local tumor control and prevent secondary interventions from local invasion, and may decrease costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare data from 1995-2011 we identified men with locally-advanced prostate cancer undergoing RP or RT. Rates of post-treatment diagnoses and interventions were identified using ICD-9 and CPT codes. Skeletal related events (SRE), androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) utilization, all-cause mortality, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and costs were compared. RESULTS: A total of 8367 men with locally-advanced prostate cancer were identified (6200 RP, 2167 RT). RT was associated with increased urinary obstruction, hematuria, infection, and cystoscopic intervention while RP was associated with increased urethral stricture intervention and erectile dysfunction. Compared to RT, RP was associated with decreased all-cause mortality (3.1 versus 5.2 deaths/100-person-years, p < 0.001), prostate cancer-specific mortality (0.8 versus 2.0 deaths/100-person-years, p < 0.001), SREs (2.0 versus 3.4 events/100 person-years, p < 0.001), and ADT utilization overall (7.4 versus 33.8 doses/100-person-years, p < 0.001) and > 3 years after treatment (3.6 versus 4.6 doses/100-person-years, p < 0.001). Overall and cancer specific costs were significantly lower for RP versus RT. CONCLUSIONS: RT for locally-advanced prostate cancer has a higher incidence of mortality, secondary diagnoses and interventions, SRE, and ADT utilization compared to RP. This may lead to increased costs and have implications for quality of life. Our findings support the utility of RP in appropriately selected men with locally-advanced prostate cancer given the possible decreased morbidity and survival benefit.

Is there any evidence of a "July effect" in patients undergoing major cancer surgery?

BACKGROUND: The "July effect" refers to the phenomenon of adverse impacts on patient care arising from the changeover in medical staff that takes place during this month at academic medical centres in North America. There has been some evidence supporting the presence of the July effect, including data from surgical specialties. Uniformity of care, regardless of time of year, is required for patients undergoing major cancer surgery. We therefore sought to perform a population-level assessment for the presence of a July effect in this field. METHODS: We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to abstract data on patients undergoing 1 of 8 major cancer surgeries at academic medical centres between Jan. 1, 1999, and Dec. 30, 2009. The primary outcomes examined were postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality. Univariate analyses and subsequently multivariate analyses, controlling for patient and hospital characteristics, were performed to identify whether the time of surgery was an independent predictor of outcome after major cancer surgery. RESULTS: On univariate analysis, the overall postoperative complication rate, as well as genitourinary and hematologic complications specifically, was higher in July than the rest of the year. However, on multivariate analysis, only hematologic complications were significantly higher in July, with no difference in overall postoperative complication rate or in-hospital mortality for all 8 surgeries considered separately or together. CONCLUSION: On the whole, the data confirm an absence of a July effect in patients undergoing major cancer surgery.

CONTEXTE: L'effet « juillet ¼ désigne les répercussions négatives que peut avoir sur les soins aux patients le roulement du personnel médical qui survient au cours de ce mois d'été dans les centres médicaux universitaires d'Amérique du Nord. Certaines preuves ont étayé l'existence de l'effet juillet, notamment des données provenant des spéciali tés chirurgicales. Peu importe le temps de l'année, l'uniformité des soins est indispensable pour les patients qui doivent subir des interventions chirurgicales majeures pour le cancer. Nous avons donc voulu effectuer une évaluation à l'échelle des populations au sujet de l'existence d'un effet juillet dans cette branche de la médecine. MÉTHODES: Nous avons utilisé la base de données Nationwide Inpatient Sample pour extraire les données relatives aux patients soumis à l'une de 8 interventions chirurgicales majeures pour le cancer dans des centres médicaux universitaires entre le 1er janvier 1999 et le 30 décembre 2009. Les principaux paramètres examinés ont été les complications postopératoires et la mortalité perhospitalière. Nous avons effectué des analyses univariées et, par la suite, des analyses multivariées en tenant compte des caractéristiques des patients et des hôpitaux afin de vérifier si la date à laquelle la chirurgie a eu lieu était un prédicteur indépendant des résultats après une chirurgie majeure pour le cancer. RÉSULTATS: L'analyse univariée a révélé que les taux de complications postopératoires globales et de complications des interventions urogénitales et hématologiques plus spécifiquement ont été plus élevés en juillet qu'à d'autres moments de l'année. Toutefois, à l'analyse multivariée, seules les complications des suites d'interventions pour un cancer hématologique ont été significativement plus élevées en juillet, sans différence au plan du taux de complications postopératoires globales ou du taux de mortalité perhospitalière pour les 8 interventions considérées séparément ou ensemble. CONCLUSION: Globalement, les données confirment l'absence d'un effet juillet chez les patients soumis à une intervention chirurgicale majeure pour un cancer.

Outcomes and Safety of Suprapubic vs Urethral Catheterization Following Pelvic Fascia‒Sparing Robotic Prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Urethral catheter (UC) discomfort remains a burden following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Suprapubic catheters (SPCs) may reduce patient discomfort and increase satisfaction. Pelvic fascia‒sparing (PFS) RARP reduces the technical challenges of intraoperative SPC placement. We examined postoperative outcomes of SPC vs UC placement following PFS-RARP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospective institutional review board‒approved database of PFS-RARP patients from June 2020 to December 2022 receiving SPC (n = 108) or UC (n = 104) postoperatively. Demographics and clinical and perioperative outcomes were captured. Postoperative patient-reported quality of life was measured using EPIC-CP (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice). Patients with intraoperative complications or intraoperative leaks or undergoing salvage prostatectomy were excluded. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes. RESULTS: No significant differences in demographics or oncologic outcomes existed. There were no differences in complications, including urethral stricture or anastomotic leak. Men receiving SPC vs UC had earlier return to continence (7 vs 16 days, P < .001) and higher continence rates at catheter removal (67.6% vs 43.3%, P = .0003). On adjusted analyses, SPC was an independent predictor of continence at catheter removal (OR 2.21, P = .023). There were no differences between groups in preoperative or postoperative EPIC-CP scores, including no differences in postoperative quality of life (P = .46). CONCLUSIONS: SPC after PFS-RARP is a safe and feasible alternative to UC. SPC is associated with an earlier return to continence and higher continence rates at catheter removal. Use of SPC may increase overall patient satisfaction following PFS-RARP.

Long-term outcomes of pelvic-fascia sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard technique: Superior urinary function and quality of life without compromising oncologic efficacy in a single-surgeon series.

BACKGROUND: Prostatic fascia-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (PFS-RARP) has improved short-term postoperative continence compared to standard prostatectomy (S-RARP) but long-term differences remain unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred two S-RARP followed by 239 PFS-RARPs were performed by a single surgeon. Univariate analyses were performed with t-test, χ2, Wilcoxon rank sum, Fisher exact, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Regression models analyzed associates of EPIC-CP scores and oncologic outcomes. Cox proportional hazards modeling assessed postoperative continence. Primary outcomes included patient-reported urinary incontinence (UI) via EPIC-CP and continence rates. Secondary outcomes included EPIC-CP scores, positive surgical margins (PSM), and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Perioperative outcomes and time to continence were measured. RESULTS: Median follow-up for PFS-RARP vs. S-RARP was 26 vs. 65 months. PFS-RARP demonstrated improved EPIC-CP UI and total scores at 24 months. On multivariate analysis, PFS-RARP was associated with improved EPIC-CP UI and total scores through 18 months, but not with PSM or BCR. PFS-RARP had a 39% and 66% reduced risk of incontinence using 0 and 0 to 1 pad-use definitions (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 - 0.95; HR:0.34, 95% CI 0.16 - 0.76). Continence returned faster with PFS-RARP (0 PPD: 91.0 days vs. 261 days, P < 0.001; 0-1 PPD: 32.7 days vs. 171 days, P < 0.001). There were no differences in PSM (35% vs. 25%, P = 0.064). There were more anterior PSM in PFS-RARP vs. S-RARP (47% vs. 26% P = 0.035), but no differences in BCR (16% vs. 22% P = 0.241). CONCLUSIONS: PFS-RARP improves continence and patient-reported QOL up to 24 months postoperatively without compromising oncologic outcomes.

Functional and oncologic outcomes of prostate capsule-sparing radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Radical cystectomy (RC) is the gold standard treatment for patients with organ-confined bladder cancer. However, despite the success of this treatment, many men who undergo orthotopic neobladder substitution develop significant erectile dysfunction and urinary symptoms, including daytime and nighttime urinary incontinence. Prostate-capsule-sparing radical cystectomy (PCS-RC) with orthotopic neobladder (ONB) has been described in the literature as a surgical technique to improve functional outcomes in appropriately selected patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of manuscripts on PCS-RC with ONB published after 2000. We included retrospective and prospective studies with more than 25 patients and compared PCS-RC with nerve-sparing or conventional RC. Studies in which the entire prostate was spared (including the transitional zone) were excluded. Comparative studies were analyzed to assess rates of daytime continence, nighttime continence, and satisfactory erectile function in patients undergoing PCS-RC compared with those undergoing conventional RC. Fourteen reports were included in the final review. Our data identify high rates of daytime (83%-97%) and nighttime continence (60%-80%) in patients undergoing PCS-RC with ONB. In comparative studies, meta-analysis results demonstrate no difference in daytime continence (RR:1.12; 95% CI: 0.72-1.73) in those undergoing PCS-RC compared to those undergoing conventional RC. Similarly, nighttime continence was similar between the 2 groups (RR:1.85; 95% CI: 0.57-6.00. Erectile function was improved in those undergoing PCS-RC (RR 5.35; 95% CI: 1.82-15.74) in the PCS-RC series. Bladder cancer margin positivity and recurrence rates were similar to those reported in the literature with conventional RC with an average weighted follow-up of 52.2 months. While several studies utilized different prostate cancer (CaP) screening techniques, the rates of CaP were low (incidence 0.02; 95% CI:0.01-0.04), and oncologic outcomes were similar to standard RC. PCS-RC is associated with improved nighttime continence and erectile function compared to conventional RC techniques. Further work is needed to standardize CaP screening before surgery, but the data suggest low rates of CaP with similar oncologic outcomes when compared to RC.

Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted and Systematic Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Infectious Complications: The PREVENT Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The transrectal biopsy approach is traditionally used to detect prostate cancer. An alternative transperineal approach is historically performed under general anesthesia, but recent advances enable transperineal biopsy to be performed under local anesthesia. We sought to compare infectious complications of transperineal biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis versus transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis. METHODS: We assigned biopsy-naïve participants to undergo transperineal biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis versus transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis (rectal culture screening for fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria and antibiotic targeting to culture and sensitivity results) through a multicenter, randomized trial. The primary outcome was post-biopsy infection captured by a prospective medical review and patient report on a 7-d survey. The secondary outcomes included cancer detection, noninfectious complications, and a numerical rating scale (0-10) for biopsy-related pain and discomfort during and 7-d after biopsy. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 658 participants were randomized, with zero transperineal versus four (1.4%) transrectal biopsy infections (difference -1.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.2%, 0.3%; p = 0.059). The rates of other complications were very low and similar. Importantly, detection of clinically significant cancer was similar (53% transperineal vs 50% transrectal, adjusted difference 2.0%; 95% CI -6.0, 10). Participants in the transperineal arm experienced worse periprocedural pain (0.6 adjusted difference [0-10 scale], 95% CI 0.2, 0.9), but the effect was small and resolved by 7-d. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Office-based transperineal biopsy is tolerable, does not compromise cancer detection, and did not result in infectious complications. Transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis achieved similar infection rates, but requires rectal cultures and careful attention to antibiotic selection and administration. Consideration of these factors and antibiotic stewardship should guide clinical decision-making. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this multicenter randomized trial, we compare prostate biopsy infectious complications for the transperineal versus transrectal approach. The absence of infectious complications with transperineal biopsy without the use of preventative antibiotics is noteworthy, but not significantly different from transrectal biopsy with targeted antibiotic prophylaxis.

Health care-associated infections after major cancer surgery: temporal trends, patterns of care, and effect on mortality.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 1.7 million individuals per year are affected with health care-associated infections (HAIs) in the United States. The authors examined trends in the incidence of HAI after major cancer surgery (MCS) and risk factors for HAI to describe the effects of HAI on mortality after MCS. METHODS: Patients undergoing 1 of 8 MCS procedures within the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between 1999 and 2009 were identified (n = 2,502,686). Generalized linear regression models were used to estimate the impact of the primary predictors (procedure type, age, sex, race, insurance status, Charlson comorbidity index, hospital volume, and hospital bed size) on the odds of HAI and in-hospital mortality. Trends in incidence were evaluated with linear regression. RESULTS: Overall, MCS-associated HAI incidence increased 2.7% per year (P < .001), whereas mortality decreased 1.3% per year (P < .001). Male gender (odds ratio [OR], 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.14), advancing age (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.02), black race (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.21-1.31), ≥1 comorbidities (OR, from 1.08 [95% CI, 1.04-1.13] to 1.31 [95% CI, 1.27-1.35]), and nonprivate insurance (OR, from 1.18 [95% CI, 1.15-1.22] to 1.67 [95% CI, 1.59-1.76]) were associated with an increased odds of HAI on multivariable analysis. Conversely, increasing hospital volume was associated with lower odds of HAI (OR, 0.999; 95% CI, 0.99-0.99). Patients with MCS-associated HAI had increased odds of mortality (OR, 8.66; 95% CI, 8.51-8.82). CONCLUSIONS: Between 1999 and 2009, the incidence of MCS-associated HAI events increased; however, HAI-associated mortality decreased. That said, significant disparities exist in the hospital and demographic attributes associated with MCS-associated HAI, with attendant health policy implications. Moreover, HAI remains detrimentally linked to mortality during hospitalization.

Incidence and treatment patterns in males presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms to the emergency department in the United States.

PURPOSE: Due to varying clinical definitions of lower urinary tract symptoms, it has been difficult to determine comparable prevalence and incidence rates of lower urinary tract symptoms and their treatment modalities. We assessed the incidence of emergency department visits in men with lower urinary tract symptoms who presented to emergency departments in the United States and factors associated with an increased likelihood of hospitalization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Emergency department visits from 2006 to 2009 associated with a primary diagnosis of lower urinary tract symptoms using established criteria were abstracted from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. Age adjusted incidence rates of emergency department visits and charges were calculated. We performed multivariable analysis to examine patient and hospital characteristics of those hospitalized and those with benign prostatic hyperplasia related adverse events. RESULTS: A weighted estimate of 1,178,423 emergency department visits for lower urinary tract symptoms was recorded with a national incidence of 197.6/100,000 males per year. A total of 112,288 visits (9.5%) resulted in hospitalization. Adverse events were identified in 734,269 patients (62.3%). The most common adverse events were catheterization in 44.6% of cases, infection in 17.4%, hematuria in 9.6%, bladder stones in 1.7%, hydronephrosis in 1.2% and acute renal failure in 0.1%. On multivariable analysis independent predictors of hospital admission included comorbidities, socioeconomic status, hospital characteristics and adverse events such as sepsis, acute renal failure and hydronephrosis. Independent predictors of adverse events included patient age, year of visit, socioeconomic status, hospital characteristics and concomitant neurological disease. In 2009 total emergency department charges for lower urinary tract symptoms were $494,981,922. CONCLUSIONS: The number of men with lower urinary tract symptoms who visit the emergency department has remained stable, while emergency department charges have increased by 40%. The rate of adverse events increased during the study period. These findings might suggest over reliance on medical and conservative therapy in the contemporary era.

Use of surveillance imaging following treatment of small renal masses.

PURPOSE: With the increasing incidence of small renal masses, there is greater use of ablation, nephron sparing surgery and surveillance compared to radical nephrectomy. However, patterns of care in the use of posttreatment imaging remain uncharacterized. The purpose of this study is to determine the rate of posttreatment imaging after various treatments for small renal mass. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare data during 2005 to 2009, we identified 1,682 subjects diagnosed with small renal mass and treated with open partial nephrectomy (330), minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (160), open radical nephrectomy (404), minimally invasive radical nephrectomy (535), thermal ablation (212) and surveillance (42). Use of imaging was compared within 24 months of treatment and multivariate regression models were constructed to identify factors associated with increased imaging use. RESULTS: On adjusted analyses thermal ablation was associated with almost eightfold greater odds of surveillance imaging compared with open radical nephrectomy (OR 7.7, 95% CI 1.01-59.4). Specifically, thermal ablation was associated with increased computerized tomography (OR 5.28) and magnetic resonance imaging (OR 2.19) use and decreased ultrasound use (OR 0.59). Minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (OR 3.28) and open partial nephrectomy (OR 3.19) were also associated with increased computerized tomography use to a lesser extent. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects undergoing nephron sparing surgery undergo more posttreatment imaging compared to open radical nephrectomy. Although possibly associated with lower morbidity, thermal ablation is associated with significantly greater use of imaging compared to other small renal mass treatments. This may increase costs and radiation exposure, although further study is needed for confirmation.

Comparative effectiveness, costs and trends in treatment of small renal masses from 2005 to 2007.

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and what does the study add?: Retrospective data have suggested an increased survival benefit for patients undergoing partial nephrectomy compared to radical nephrectomy, possibly as a result of the avoidance of long-term renalin sufficiency and subsequent sequelae. However, recent level-one evidence has questioned this benefit. Both retrospective studies and randomized controlled trials are not without limitations. There are few population-based data available with respect to the outcomes of partial nephrectomy vs radical nephrectomy. Additionally, there are no population-based studies analyzing the surgical approach (minimally-invasive vs open), as well as other modalities, such as ablation and surveillance. Finally, there is very little information available on the potential differences in cost for each approach. The present study comprises the first comprehensive population-based analysis of the trends, outcomes and costs of all treatment modalities for T1a renal masses from 2005 to 2007. OBJECTIVE: To perform a comprehensive analysis of the outcomes and costs for treatments for small renal masses (SRM) using a population-based approach. Partial nephrectomy may be associated with improved survival, although level-one evidence has questioned this survival advantage. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data, we identified 1682 subjects who were diagnosed with SRM from 2005 to 2007. Treatment included open radical nephrectomy (ORN; n = 404), minimally-invasive radical nephrectomy (MIRN; n = 535), open partial nephrectomy (OPN; n = 330), minimally-invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN; n = 160), ablation (n = 211) and surveillance (n = 42). Postoperative complications, renal insufficiency diagnosis, overall mortality, cancer-specific mortality and postoperative costs were compared. Covariates were balanced before outcomes analysis using propensity score methods. RESULTS: Although the use of nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) increased over the study period, radical nephrectomy remained the predominant approach for SRM in 2007. Minimally-invasive approaches had shorter lengths of stay (P < 0.001), whereas open approaches had more overall complications, respiratory complications and intensive care unit admissions (all P < 0.003). MIRN and ORN were associated with more peri-operative medical complications, acute renal failure, haemodialysis use and long-term chronic renal insufficiency diagnosis vs NSS (all P < 0.001). Ablation, MIRN and ORN were associated with the highest overall mortality rates (P < 0.001), whereas MIRN and ORN were associated with the highest cancer-specific mortality rates (P < 0.001). Treatment costs were lowest for surveillance ($2911) followed by ablation ($10730), MIRN ($15373), MIPN ($15695), OPN ($16986) and ORN ($17803). CONCLUSIONS: Although not the predominant treatment approach for SRM over the study period, the use of NSS increased and was associated with improved survival, fewer complications and less renal insufficiency. Minimally-invasive approaches confer lower costs.

Patterns of care and outcomes of radiotherapy for lymph node positivity after radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use and outcomes of adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) for men with lymph node (LN)-positive disease after radical prostatectomy (RP) using a population-based approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data from 1995 to 2007 was used to identify 577 men with LN metastases discovered during RP and absence of distant metastases, of which 177 underwent ART ≤1 year of RP. Propensity score models were used to compare overall mortality and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) for men that did and those that did not receive ART. RESULTS: Men in both groups received adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy at similar rates after propensity weighting adjustments (33.6% vs 33.7%, P = 0.977). ART was not associated with differences in overall (5.09 vs 3.77 events per 100 person-years, P = 0.153) or PCSM (2.89 vs 1.31, P = 0.090) relative to men who did not receive ART. CONCLUSIONS: ART after RP in men with LN-positive prostate cancer was not associated with improved overall or disease-specific survival, in contrast to previous single-centre studies. Prospective randomised studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of ART in this patient population.

Effect of minimizing tension during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on urinary function recovery.

OBJECTIVES: Although most prostatectomy studies emphasize optimal nerve-sparing dissection planes, subtle technical variation also affects functional outcomes. The impact of minimizing assistant/surgeon tension on urinary function has not been quantified. We assess urinary function after attenuating neurovascular bundle (NVB) and rhabdosphincter tension during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: Retrospective study of prospectively collected data for 268 (RARP-T) versus 342 (RARP-0T) men with versus without tension on the NVB and rhabdosphincter during RARP. Outcomes compared include Expanded Prostate Cancer Index (EPIC) urinary function, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, and positive surgical margins (PSM). RESULTS: In unadjusted analysis, men undergoing RARP-T versus RARP-0T were older, had higher biopsy and pathologic Gleason grade, and higher preoperative prostate specific antigen (all p ≤ 0.023). Baseline urinary function was similar. Postoperatively, RARP-0T versus RARP-T was associated with higher 5-month urinary function scores (69.7 versus 64, p = 0.049). In adjusted analyses, RARP-0T versus RARP-T was associated with improved 5-month urinary function [Parameter Estimate (PE) 7.37, Standard Error (SE) 2.67, p = 0.006], while bilateral versus non-/unilateral nerve-sparing was associated with improved 12-month urinary function and continence (both p ≤ 0.035). RARP-0T versus RARP-T was associated with shorter operative times (PE 6.66, SE 1.90, p = 0.001) and higher EBL (PE 20.88, SE 6.49, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in PSM. CONCLUSIONS: While the use of tension aids in dissection of anatomic planes, avoidance of NVB counter-traction and minimizing tension on the rhabdosphincter during apical dissection attenuates neuropraxia and leads to earlier urinary function recovery. Bilateral versus non-/unilateral nerve-sparing also improves urinary function recovery.

Anatomic and technical considerations for optimizing recovery of urinary function during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The advent of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy purported fewer complications including postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI). PPI is associated with worse quality of life. We evaluate recently reported robot-assisted radical prostatectomy surgical techniques aimed at limiting PPI, describe their anatomic basis and summarize their outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: RARP techniques to reduce PPI include bladder neck preservation, bladder neck reconstruction, urethral length preservation, periurethral suspension stitch, posterior reconstruction, combined anterior and posterior reconstruction, preservation of the endopelvic fascia, complete anterior preservation, selective suturing of dorsal venous complex and nerve sparing approach. Outcomes of reconstructive techniques seem to be conflicting, whereas outcomes of techniques aiming to preserve the native urinary continence system seem to hasten urinary function recovery. However, few of these techniques have been shown to affect long-term urinary continence. SUMMARY: Surgical techniques preserving the natural urinary continence mechanism appear to improve short-term urinary continence, whereas techniques reconstructing pelvic anatomy have mixed results. The search for the ideal technique to minimize PPI remains hampered by the lack of prospective multi-institutional studies and the long-term follow up. Although reconstructive techniques are safe with few drawbacks, meticulous surgical technique and preservation of the natural continence mechanism should remain the mainstay of PPI prevention.

Protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing transperineal prostate biopsy to reduce infectiouscomplications.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately one million prostate biopsies are performed annually in the USA, and most are performed using a transrectal approach under local anaesthesia. The risk of postbiopsy infection is increasing due to increasing antibiotic resistance of rectal flora. Single-centre studies suggest that a clean, percutaneous transperineal approach to prostate biopsy may have a lower risk of infection. To date, there is no high-level evidence comparing transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy. We hypothesise that transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia has a significantly lower risk of infection, similar pain/discomfort levels and comparable detection of non-low-grade prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a multicentre, prospective randomised clinical trial to compare transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy for elevated prostate-specific antigen in the first biopsy, prior negative biopsy and active surveillance biopsy setting. Prostate MRI will be performed prior to biopsy, and targeted biopsy will be conducted for suspicious MRI lesions in addition to systematic biopsy (12 cores). Approximately 1700 men will be recruited and randomised in a 1:1 ratio to transperineal versus transrectal biopsy. A streamlined design to collect data and to determine trial eligibility along with the two-stage consent process will be used to facilitate subject recruitment and retention. The primary outcome is postbiopsy infection, and secondary outcomes include other adverse events (bleeding, urinary retention), pain/discomfort/anxiety and critically, detection of non-low-grade (grade group ≥2) prostate cancer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board of the Biomedical Research Alliance of New York approved the research protocol (protocol number #18-02-365, approved 20 April 2020). The results of the trial will be presented at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04815876.

Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery.

PURPOSE: Although robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery has been aggressively marketed and rapidly adopted, there are few comparative effectiveness studies that support its purported advantages compared to open and laparoscopic surgery. We used a population based approach to assess use, costs and outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery vs laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for common robotic assisted urological procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample we identified the most common urological robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery procedures during the last quarter of 2008 as radical prostatectomy, nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy and pyeloplasty. Robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery and open surgery use, costs and inpatient outcomes were compared using propensity score methods. RESULTS: Robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery was performed for 52.7% of radical prostatectomies, 27.3% of pyeloplasties, 11.5% of partial nephrectomies and 2.3% of nephrectomies. For radical prostatectomy robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery was more prevalent than open surgery among white patients in high volume, urban hospitals (all p≤0.015). Geographic variations were found in the use of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery. Robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery and laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery were associated with shorter length of stay for all procedures, with robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery being the shortest for radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy (all p<0.001). For most procedures robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery and laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery resulted in fewer deaths, complications, transfusions and more routine discharges. However, robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery was more costly than laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for most procedures. CONCLUSIONS: While robotic assisted and laparoscopic surgery are associated with fewer deaths, complications, transfusions and shorter length of hospital stay compared to open surgery, robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery is more costly than laparoscopic and open surgery. Additional studies are needed to better delineate the comparative and cost-effectiveness of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery relative to laparoscopic surgery and open surgery.

Hospital volume, utilization, costs and outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Although robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has been aggressively marketed and rapidly adopted, there is a paucity of population based utilization, outcome and cost data. High vs low volume hospitals have better outcomes for open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (robotic or laparoscopic) but to our knowledge volume outcomes effects for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy alone have not been studied. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We characterized robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcome by hospital volume using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample during the last quarter of 2008. Propensity scoring methods were used to assess outcomes and costs. RESULTS: At high volume hospitals robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was more likely to be done on men who were white with an income in the highest quartile and age less than 50 years than at low volume hospitals (each p <0.01). Hospitals at above the 50th volume percentile were less likely to show miscellaneous medical and overall complications (p = 0.01). Low vs high volume hospitals had longer mean length of stay (1.9 vs 1.6 days) and incurred higher median costs ($12,754 vs $8,623, each p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Demographic differences exist in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy patient populations between high and low volume hospitals. Higher volume hospitals showed fewer complications and lower costs than low volume hospitals on a national basis. These findings support referral to high volume centers for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy to decrease complications and costs.

Influence of surgeon and hospital volume on radical prostatectomy costs.

PURPOSE: While higher radical prostatectomy hospital and surgeon volume are associated with better outcomes, the effect of provider volume on health care costs remains unclear. We performed a population based study to characterize the effect of surgeon and hospital volume on radical prostatectomy costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare linked data to identify 11,048 men who underwent radical prostatectomy from 2003 to 2009. We categorized hospital and surgeon radical prostatectomy volume into tertiles (low, intermediate, high) and assessed costs from radical prostatectomy until 90 days postoperatively using propensity adjusted analyses. RESULTS: Higher surgeon volume at intermediate volume hospitals (surgeon volume low $9,915; intermediate $10,068; high $9,451; p = 0.021) and high volume hospitals (surgeon volume low $11,271; intermediate $10,638; high $9,529; p = 0.002) was associated with lower radical prostatectomy costs. Extrapolating nationally, selective referral to high volume radical prostatectomy surgeons at high and intermediate volume hospitals netted more than $28.7 million in cost savings. Conversely, higher hospital volume was associated with greater radical prostatectomy costs for low volume surgeons (hospital volume low $9,685; intermediate $9,915; high $11,271; p = 0.010) and intermediate volume surgeons (hospital volume low $9,605; intermediate $10,068; high $10,638; p = 0.029). High volume radical prostatectomy surgeon costs were not affected by varying hospital volume, and among low volume hospitals radical prostatectomy costs did not differ by surgeon volume. CONCLUSIONS: Selective referral to high volume radical prostatectomy surgeons operating at intermediate and high volume hospitals nets significant cost savings. However, higher radical prostatectomy hospital volume was associated with greater costs for low and intermediate volume radical prostatectomy surgeons.