Robot-assisted vs ultrasonography-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block vs local anaesthesia in urology: results of the UROTAP randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively analyse robotically administered transperitoneal transversus abdominis plane (robot-assisted transversus abdominis plane [RTAP]) compared with both ultrasonography-guided transversus abdominis plane (UTAP) and local anaesthesia (LA) with regard to pain control and narcotic use in patients undergoing robot-assisted prostatectomy (RARP) or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing RARP or RAPN were randomized in a single-blind 2:2:1 fashion to RTAP:UTAP:LA, with the study powered to evaluate superiority of UTAP to LA and non-inferiority of RTAP to UTAP. We compared time to deliver the block, operating room time, postoperative pain scores using the visual analogue scale, and intra-operative and postoperative analgesia consumption. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients were randomized and received treatment. There was no significant difference in patient baseline characteristics. UTAP did not demonstrate superiority to LA in terms of pain control. RTAP and LA were faster to administer than UTAP (time to perform block 2.5 vs 2.5 vs 6.25 min; P < 0.001). There was no difference in postoperative narcotic, acetaminophen, ketorolac or ondansetron requirements among the three groups (P > 0.05). The study was terminated early due to the unexpected efficacy of LA. CONCLUSION: This study showed that UTAP and RTAP do not provide superior pain control to LA. The efficiency, effectiveness, and ease of administration of LA make it an excellent option for first-line therapy for postoperative analgesia.

Performance of prostate multiparametric MRI for prediction of prostate cancer extra-prostatic extension according to NCCN risk categories: implication for surgical planning.

BACKGROUND: Prediction of extra-prostatic extension (EPE) in men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) is of utmost importance. Great variability in the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been reported for prediction of EPE. The present study aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of mpMRI for predicting EPE in different National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk categories. METHODS: Overall 664 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy with a staging mpMRI were enrolled in this single-center, retrospective study. Patients with mpMRI report non-compliant with PI-RADSv2.0, were excluded. Patients were stratified according to NCCN criteria: very low/low (VLR-LR) to High Risk (HR) in order to assess final pathology EPE rates (focal and established). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of staging mpMRI were computed in each group. Univariable and multivariable analysis were used to evaluate predictors of positive surgical margins. RESULTS: Pathological evaluation demonstrated established and focal EPE in 60 (9%) and 106 (16%) patients, respectively, while mpMRI suspicion for EPE was present in 180 (27%) patients. Age, preoperative PSA, PSA density, number of positive cores, NCCN groups, prostate volume, mpMRI suspicion for EPE, PIRADSv2.0 and lesion size differed significantly between the patients with any EPE and without EPE (all P≤0.05). The sensitivity of mpMRI in detecting any EPE varied from 12% (95% CI: 0.6-53%) in VLR-LR to 83% (66-93%) in HR while the corresponding values for the specificity were 92% (85-96%) and 63% (45-78%), respectively. Patients with false-negative mpMRI EPE prediction were more likely to have positive surgical margins in univariable (OR: 2.14; CI: 1.18, 3.87) as well as multivariable analysis adjusting for NCCN risk categories (OR: 1.97; CI: 1.08, 3.60). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of mpMRI for prediction of EPE varies greatly between different NCCN risk categories with a low positive predicting value in patients at low to favorable intermediate risk and a low negative predictive value in patients at Unfavorable intermediate to high risk PCa. Given that mpMRI EPE misdiagnosis could have a negative impact on oncological and functional outcomes, NCCN risk categories should be considered when interpreting mpMRI findings in PCa patients.

Development and Validation of a Novel Integrated Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Purpose It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. Results With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. Conclusion A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.

A Multidimensional Analysis of Prostate Surgery Costs in the United States: Robotic-Assisted versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The economic value of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in the United States is still not well understood because of limited view analyses. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the costs and benefits of RALP versus retropubic radical prostatectomy from an expanded view, including hospital, payer, and societal perspectives. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost comparison using clinical outcomes obtained from a systematic review of the published literature. Equipment costs were obtained from the manufacturer of the robotic system; other economic model parameters were obtained from government agencies, online resources, commercially available databases, an advisory expert panel, and the literature. Clinical point estimates and care pathways based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were used to model costs out to 3 years. Hospital costs and costs incurred for the patients' postdischarge complications, adjuvant and salvage radiation treatment, incontinence and potency treatment, and lost wages during recovery were considered. Robotic system costs were modeled in two ways: as hospital overhead (hospital overhead calculation: RALP-H) and as a function of robotic case volume (robotic amortization calculation: RALP-R). All costs were adjusted to year 2014 US dollars. RESULTS: Because of more favorable clinical outcomes over 3 years, RALP provided hospital ($1094 savings with RALP-H, $341 deficit with RALP-R), payer ($1451), and societal ($1202) economic benefits relative to retropubic radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Monte-Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 38% to 99% probability that RALP provides cost savings (depending on the perspective). Higher surgical consumable costs are offset by a decreased hospital stay, lower complication rate, and faster return to work.

Changes in pathologic outcomes and operative trends with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: We hypothesized that there is a reverse stage migration, or a shift toward operating on higher-risk prostate cancer, in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). We therefore evaluated the stage of disease at the time of surgery for patients with prostate cancer at a large tertiary academic medical center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After institutional review board approval, we reviewed all patients that had undergone robotic prostatectomy. These patients were separated into three categories: An early era of 2005-2008, intermediate era of 2009-2010, and a current era of 2011-2012. RESULTS: A total of 3451 patients underwent robotic prostatectomy from 2005 to 2012. The proportion men with clinical T1 tumors declined from 88.3% in the early era to 72.2% in the current era (P < 0.0001). Men with preoperative biopsy Gleason 6 disease decreased from the early to the current era (P < 0.0001), while men with preoperative biopsy Gleason ≥ 8 showed the opposite trend, increasing from the early to the current era (P = 0.0002). From the early to the current era, the proportion of patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low risk prostate cancer decreased, while those with NCCN intermediate and high-risk disease increased. The proportion of pathologic T3 disease increased from 15.5% in the early to 30.6% in the current era (P < 0.0001). On the other hand, the proportion of pathologic T2/+ SMS (surgical margin status) decreased from 6.6% in the early era to 3.1% in the current era (P = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated a reverse stage migration in men undergoing robotic prostatectomy. Despite the increasing proportion of men with extra-capsular disease undergoing RALP, the surgical margin status has remained similar. This could reflect both the changing dynamics of the population opting for surgery as well as the learning curve of the surgeons.

Primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis.

UNLABELLED: WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Multiple treatment alternatives exist for localised prostate cancer, with few high-quality studies directly comparing their comparative effectiveness and costs. The present study is the most comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis to date for localised prostate cancer, conducted with a lifetime horizon and accounting for survival, health-related quality-of-life, and cost impact of secondary treatments and other downstream events, as well as primary treatment choices. The analysis found minor differences, generally slightly favouring surgical methods, in quality-adjusted life years across treatment options. However, radiation therapy (RT) was consistently more expensive than surgery, and some alternatives, e.g. intensity-modulated RT for low-risk disease, were dominated - that is, both more expensive and less effective than competing alternatives. OBJECTIVE: To characterise the costs and outcomes associated with radical prostatectomy (open, laparoscopic, or robot-assisted) and radiation therapy (RT: dose-escalated three-dimensional conformal RT, intensity-modulated RT, brachytherapy, or combination), using a comprehensive, lifetime decision analytical model. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to follow hypothetical men with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer over their lifetimes after primary treatment; probabilities of outcomes were based on an exhaustive literature search yielding 232 unique publications. In each Markov cycle, patients could have remission, recurrence, salvage treatment, metastasis, death from prostate cancer, and death from other causes. Utilities for each health state were determined, and disutilities were applied for complications and toxicities of treatment. Costs were determined from the USA payer perspective, with incorporation of patient costs in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Differences across treatments in quality-adjusted life years across methods were modest, ranging from 10.3 to 11.3 for low-risk patients, 9.6-10.5 for intermediate-risk patients and 7.8-9.3 for high-risk patients. There were no statistically significant differences among surgical methods, which tended to be more effective than RT methods, with the exception of combined external beam + brachytherapy for high-risk disease. RT methods were consistently more expensive than surgical methods; costs ranged from $19 901 (robot-assisted prostatectomy for low-risk disease) to $50 276 (combined RT for high-risk disease). These findings were robust to an extensive set of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis found small differences in outcomes and substantial differences in payer and patient costs across treatment alternatives. These findings may inform future policy discussions about strategies to improve efficiency of treatment selection for localised prostate cancer.

Cirugía robótica y tecnología láser: una oportunidad por descubrir / Robotic surgery and laser technology: an opportunity for discovery

El uso de la tecnología láser en el campo de la cirugía urológica ha vivido grandes avances en los últimos 20 años. Desde los comienzos de este siglo la tecnología robótica ha desembarcado de una manera decidida en nuestra especialidad y día tras día van siendo más y más las indicaciones en las cuáles está teniendo una implantación definitiva. Las actuales combinaciones del láser quirúrgico y los dispositivos robóticos, se pueden centrar en dos áreas claramente diferenciadas, pero posiblemente complementarias; la utilización del láser para guiar el procedimiento quirúrgico, lo que podríamos llamar «reconocimiento de estructuras» o «posicionamiento» y el uso de láser por su capacidad ablativa minimizando la pérdida sanguínea y aumentando la precisión de la resección. En este trabajo se revisan los artículos y aportaciones más recientes en la combinación de estas dos tecnologías (AU)

The use of laser technology in the field of urologic surgery has experienced great advances over the past 20 years. Since the beginning of this century robotic technology has landed in a determined manner in our specialty and every day will be more and more indications on what is going to have a final deployment. The current combination of laser and surgical robots, can be focused on two distinct areas, but possibly complementary, the use of lasers to guide the surgical procedure, what we might call «landmarks and structures recognition» or «positioning» and laser use because of its ablative ability minimizing blood loss and increasing the resection accuracy. This paper reviews most recent articles and contributions on the combination of these two technologies (AU)