Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Morbidity and Functional Outcomes from a Large Multicenter Series of Open versus Robotic Approaches
Abstract
Purpose:
Salvage radical prostatectomy has historically yielded a poor functional outcome and a high complication rate. However, recent reports of robotic salvage radical prostatectomy have demonstrated improved results. In this study we assessed salvage radical prostatectomy functional outcomes and complications when comparing robotic and open approaches.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively collected data on salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after local nonsurgical treatment at 18 tertiary referral centers from 2000 to 2016. The Clavien-Dindo classification was applied to classify complications. Complications and functional outcomes were evaluated by univariable and multivariable analysis.
Results:
We included 395 salvage radical prostatectomies, of which 186 were open and 209 were robotic. Robotic salvage radical prostatectomy yielded lower blood loss and a shorter hospital stay (each p <0.0001). No significant difference emerged in the incidence of major and overall complications (10.1%, p=0.16, and 34.9%, p=0.67), including an overall low risk of rectal injury and fistula (1.58% and 2.02%, respectively). However, anastomotic stricture was more frequent for open salvage radical prostatectomy (16.57% vs 7.66%, p <0.01). Overall 24.6% of patients had had severe incontinence, defined as 3 or more pads per day, for 12 or 6 months. On multivariable analysis robotic salvage radical prostatectomy was an independent predictor of continence preservation (OR 0.411, 95% CI 0.232–0.727, p=0.022). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of a standardized surgical technique.
Conclusions:
In this contemporary series to our knowledge salvage radical prostatectomy showed a low risk of major complications and better functional outcomes than previously reported. Robotic salvage radical prostatectomy may reduce anastomotic stricture, blood loss and hospital stay, and improve continence outcomes.
References
- 1. : Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1117. Google Scholar
- 2. : External irradiation with or without long-term androgen suppression for prostate cancer with high metastatic risk: 10-year results of an EORTC randomised study. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 1066. Google Scholar
- 3. : Post-treatment prostate biopsies in the era of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy: what can they teach us?Eur Urol 2009; 55: 902. Google Scholar
- 4. : Radiorecurrent prostate cancer: an emerging and largely mismanaged epidemic. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 411. Google Scholar
- 5. : Getting the balance right-the benefits and uncertainties of focal therapy for significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2018; 74: 430. Google Scholar
- 6. : Focal therapy in primary localised prostate cancer: the European Association of Urology position in 2018. Eur Urol 2018; 74: 84. Google Scholar
- 7. : Focal therapy in localised prostate cancer: real-world urological perspective explored in a cross-sectional European survey. Urol Oncol 2018; 36: 529.e11. Google Scholar
- 8. : New and established technology in focal ablation of the prostate: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 17. Google Scholar
- 9. : Increasing prostate-specific antigen profile following definitive radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: clinical observations. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 230. Google Scholar
- 10. : High dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy with conformal radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2005; 47: 441. Google Scholar
- 11. : Complications, oncological and functional outcomes of salvage treatment options following focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and a comprehensive narrative review. World J Urol 2019. Google Scholar
- 12. : Comparisons of oncological and functional outcomes between primary whole-gland cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23: 328. Google Scholar
- 13. : Cancer control and complications of salvage local therapy after failure of radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Semin Radiat Oncol 2013; 23: 222. Google Scholar
- 14. : Cancer control and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 961. Google Scholar
- 15. : Salvage robotic prostatectomy for radio recurrent prostate cancer: technical challenges and outcome analysis. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2017; 69: 26. Google Scholar
- 16. : Nerve-sparing in salvage robot-assisted prostatectomy: surgical technique, oncological and functional outcomes at a single high-volume institution. BJU Int 2018; 122: 837. Google Scholar
- 17. : Salvage robot assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity matched study of perioperative, oncological and functional outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol 2015; 41: 1540. Google Scholar
- 18. : Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a contemporary analysis of an all-payer discharge database. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 837. Google Scholar
- 19. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Guidelines—Prostate Cancer. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/conditions-and-diseases/cancer/prostate-cancer. Accessed January 9, 2018. Google Scholar
- 20. : Long-term oncologic results of salvage radical prostatectomy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 62: 448. Google Scholar
- 21. : Robotic assisted laparoscopic salvage prostatectomy for radiation resistant prostate cancer. J Urol 2010; 183: 133. Link, Google Scholar
- 22. : Complications and outcomes of salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single-institution experience. BJU Int 2014; 113: 769. Google Scholar
- 23. : Salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer: verification of European Association of Urology guideline criteria. BJU Int 2016; 117: 55. Google Scholar
- 24. : Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1037. Google Scholar
- 25. : Comparative oncologic and toxicity outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy versus nonsurgical therapies for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a meta-regression analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2016; 2: 158. Google Scholar
- 26. : All you need to know about urethrovesical anastomotic urinary leakage following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2012; 188: 369. Link, Google Scholar
- 27. : Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 2016; 388: 1057. Google Scholar
- 28. : Long-term side effects of androgen deprivation therapy in men with non-metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic literature review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2006; 60: 201. Google Scholar
- 29. : Locally recurrent prostate cancer after initial radiation therapy: early salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound improves oncologic outcomes. Radiother Oncol 2012; 105: 198. Google Scholar
- 30. : Salvage prostate cryoablation: initial results from the cryo on-line data registry. J Urol 2008; 180: 559. Link, Google Scholar
