Five-year progression-free survival in 577 patients operated on with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) was introduced in the Department of Urology, Oslo University Hospital, in 2002. The aim of this study was to report mid-term oncology results and survival data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From February 2002 to November 2007, 582 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer underwent LRP. Data were collected prospectively into a database. RESULTS: Mean and median follow-up after LRP was 30.3 months (± 15.5) and 36.0 months (range 3-72). Five patients (1%) were lost during follow-up. Two patients died of prostate cancer during the study period and 10 patients died of other causes. The overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was 29% and decreased to 13% for the last 100 patients. The overall PSA progression-free survival (PFS) was 85% at 3 years and 73% at 5 years. Gleason score in the tumour specimen, pT stage and surgical margins were statistical significant independent predictors of biochemical PFS. CONCLUSION: These oncology results and 5-year PFS data after LRP are in line with other reports.

Predictive Performance of Prospectively Applied ISUP and Fuhrman Grade in Nonmetastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND/AIM: In 2012, the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recommended replacing Fuhrman with ISUP for grading renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Our aim was to report recurrence-free survival (RFS) and assess prognostic value of ISUP and Fuhrman for predicting recurrence using original pathology assessment and routine follow-up data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-institution retrospective cohort study, 686 patients underwent a single session total or partial nephrectomy due to nonmetastatic RCC (nmRCC). Of those, 564 had tumors prospectively graded according to either ISUP or Fuhrman, which defined the cohorts. RFS was defined as the interval from surgery to local recurrence and/or metastasis. Differences in RFS were calculated with log rank test. Cox models adjusted for risk factors were used for predicting recurrence. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 36 months in the ISUP group (n=152), 11% developed recurrent disease. RFS was significantly lower for grade 4 compared to 1-3 (p<0.001), but non-significant between 1-3. Grade was the only significant predictor in multivariate analyses. During a median follow-up time of 50 months in the Fuhrman group (n=412), 16% developed recurrent disease. There was a significant difference in RFS between grades 2 and 3 (p=0.003) and between 3 and 4 (p<0.001), but non-significant between 1 and 2 (p=0.063). Grade, positive surgical margin, tumor size ≥4 cm, and pT were significant predictors of recurrence in multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: ISUP grading alone is an accurate tool for predicting recurrence in patients with nmRCC.

Switching from laparoscopic radical prostatectomy to robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: comparing oncological outcomes and complications.

OBJECTIVES: To compare oncological outcomes and complication rates based on the Clavien classification between laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RALP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a prospective quality registry clinical data were consecutively entered for 544 LRP and 1081 RALP patients operated from 2003 to the end of 2012. Complications within 90 days postoperatively were assessed according to the Clavien classification and compared between LRP and RALP patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses of logistic regression were used to fit oncological outcomes and complication data. RESULTS: The mean operation time was 213 and 135 minutes in LRP and RALP patients, respectively. Pathological T3a stage (pT3a) in the RALP group was more frequent than in the LRP group, 32.4% versus 17.8%, respectively. For pT2 tumours, positive surgical margins (PSM) rate for LRP and RALP, was 20.3% vs 10.6%, respectively (p < .001). In the LRP group 74 patients (13.6%) reported 104 and in the RALP group 141 patients (13.0%) reported 177 complications (p = .75). Seventeen (3.1%) LRP patients and 15 (1.4%) RALP patients had Clavien grade IIIb complications (p = .017). Surgical reintervention was necessary in 14 patients (2.6%) and 17 patients (1.6%) in the LRP and RALP group, respectively (p = .04). CONCLUSION: Switching from LRP to RALP resulted in a much shorter operation time without compromising oncological outcome. There was no statistically significant difference in overall complication-rates between LRP and RALP. However, LRP patients had more serious complications and increased need for surgical reintervention compared to RALP patients.

Does preoperative magnetic resonance imaging reduce the rate of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in a randomised clinical trial?

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to help the surgeon tailor radical prostatectomy (RP) more accurately according to the location and extent of the tumour and thereby reduce the rate of positive surgical margins (PSMs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of performing MRI prior to RP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This single-institution randomised trial included 438 patients between December 2009 and June 2012 who were scheduled for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. The study was registered (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01347320). INTERVENTION: Patients were preoperatively randomly assigned to non-MRI or MRI groups. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary end point was the difference in the PSM rates between the two groups. Secondary end points were the rates of PSMs in clinical subgroups. Summary statistics were extracted from descriptive analyses, chi-square, or Fisher exact test, and logistic regression was used to analyse the data according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 216 patients were randomised to non-MRI; 222 were randomised to MRI. There were 49 cases (23%) of PSMs in the non-MRI group and 43 cases (19%) in the MRI group (p=0.4). The relative and absolute risk reduction was 15% and 4%, respectively. Patients with cT1 constituted 55% of the cohort, in which the rate of PSMs was 27% in the non-MRI group and 16% in the MRI group (p=0.035). The relative and absolute risk reduction was 41% and 11%, respectively. A limitation was suboptimal communication between the radiologist and urologist. CONCLUSIONS: MRI prior to RP did not reduce the overall risk for PSMs in this patient cohort. However, at subgroup analysis we observed a possible benefit of MRI in patients with cT1. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study could not demonstrate a definite benefit of performing magnetic resonance imaging before surgery for all patients. However, there was a possible improved result in patients in which physical examination could not detect the cancer.