Download PDF
Aktuelle Urol 2015; 46(01): 45-51
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1395562
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Propensity Score Vergleich der verschiedenen radikalen Operationstechniken beim high risk Prostatakarzinom

Propensity Score Comparison of the Various Radical Surgical Techniques for High-risk Prostate Cancer
J. Busch
1   Klinik für Urologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin
,
M. Gonzalgo
3   Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA
,
N. Leva
2   Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
,
M. Ferrari
2   Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
,
F. Friedersdorff
1   Klinik für Urologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin
,
S. Hinz
1   Klinik für Urologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin
,
C. Kempkensteffen
1   Klinik für Urologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin
,
K. Miller
1   Klinik für Urologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin
,
A. Magheli
1   Klinik für Urologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
19 December 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung: Die Behandlung von Patienten mit einem high risk Prostatakarzinom (PCa) bleibt hinsichtlich der Wahl des geeigneten operative Verfahrens der radikalen Prostatektomie (RP) kontrovers: offene retropubisch RP (RRP), laparoskopisch RP (LRP) oder Roboter-assistiert (RARP). Ziel dieser Arbeit war es, den Einfluss der unterschiedlichen Techniken auf das histopathologische Ergebnis sowie auf die biochemischen Rezidivraten zu untersuchen.

Patienten und Methoden: Insgesamt wurden 805 Patienten mit einem high risk PCa (PSA >20 ng/mL, Gleason Score ≥8, oder klinisches Stadium ≥cT2c) identifiziert. Der Vergleich von 407 RRP Patienten mit 398 Fällen, die minimal invasiv operiert wurden (LRP+RARP) ergab deutliche Störgrößen. Dementsprechend wurden alle 110 RARP Fälle mit dem Propensity Score (PS) 1:1 gegen LRP und RRP Fälle gematched. Der PS beinhaltete Alter, klinisches Tumorstadium, präoperativer PSA, Gleason Score der Biopsie, die Erfahrung des Operateurs sowie die Anwendung einer nerverhaltenden Operationstechnik. Die Patientencharakteristika wurden mit geeigneten Testverfahren verglichen. Vergleich von Gesamtüberleben (OS) und Rezidiv-freiem Überleben (RFS) mit dem log rank Test. Die RFS Prädiktoranalyse erfolgte mithilfe von Cox Regressionsmodellen.

Ergebnisse: Innerhalb der post-matching Kohorte von 330 Patienten lag der Anteil an Patienten mit einem pathologischen Gleason Score < 7, = 7 und > 7 bei 1,8, 55,5 und 42,7% für RARP, 8,2, 36,4, 55,5% für LRP sowie 0, 60,9 und 39,1% für RRP (p=0,004 für RARP vs. LRP und p=0,398 für RARP vs. RRP). Unterschiede bei den histopathologischen Stadien waren statistisch nicht signifikant. Die Gesamtrate an positiven Schnitträndern (PSM) sowie die PSM Rate für ≥pT3 waren nicht unterschiedlich. PSM bei pT2 betrug 15,7, 14,0 und 20,0% für RARP, LRP und RRP (statistisch nicht signifikant). Das mittlere 3-Jahres RFS lag bei jeweils 41,4, 77,9, 54,1% (p<0,0001 für RARP vs. LRP und p=0,686 für RARP vs. RRP). Das mittlere 3-Jahres OS wurde jeweils mit 95,4, 98,1 und 100% berechnet (statistisch nicht unterschiedlich).

Schlussfolgerung: RARP kann bei high risk PCa Patienten mit der LRP und RRP vergleichbaren pathologischen sowie onkologischen Ergebnissen angewendet werden.

Abstract

Introduction: The optimal surgical treatment of patients with a high risk prostate cancer (PCa) in terms of radical prostatectomy (RP) is still controversial: open retropubic RP (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), or robot-assisted (RARP). We aimed to investigate the influence of the different surgical techniques on pathologic outcome and biochemical recurrence.

Patients and Methods: A total of 805 patients with a high risk PCa (PSA >20 ng/mL, Gleason Score ≥8, or clinical stage ≥cT2c) were included. A comparison of 407 RRP patients with 398 minimally invasive cases (LRP+RARP) revealed significant confounders. Therefore all 110 RARP cases were propensity score (PS) matched 1:1 with LRP and RRP patients. PS included age, clinical stage, preoperative PSA, biopsy Gleason score, surgeon’s experience and application of a nerve sparing technique. Comparison of overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) was done with the log rank test. Predictors of RFS were analyzed by means of Cox regression models.

Results: Within the post-matching cohort of 330 patients a pathologic Gleason score < 7, = 7 and > 7 was found in 1.8, 55.5 and 42.7% for RARP, in 8.2, 36.4, 55.5% for LRP and in 0, 60.9 and 39.1% for RRP (p=0.004 for RARP vs. LRP and p=0.398 for RARP vs. RRP). Differences in histopathologic stages were not statistically significant. The overall positive surgical margin rate (PSM) as well as PSM for ≥ pT3 were not different. PSM among patients with pT2 was found in 15.7, 14.0 and 20.0% for RARP, LRP and RRP (statistically not significant). The respective mean 3-year RFS rates were 41.4, 77.9, 54.1% (p<0.0001 for RARP vs. LRP and p=0.686 for RARP vs. RRP). The mean 3-year OS was calculated as 95.4, 98.1 and 100% respectively (statistically not significant).

Conclusion: RARP for patients with a high risk PCa reveals similar pathologic and oncologic outcomes compared with LRP and RRP.

Schlüsselwörter

Prostatakarzinom - Prostatektomie - Laparoskopie - Roboterchirugie - onkologisches Outcome - Propensity Score Matching - High Risk

Key words

prostate cancer - prostatectomy - laparoscopy - robotic surgery - oncologic outcome - propensity score matching - high risk
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Cooperberg MR, Cowan J, Broering JM et al. High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990–2007. World J Urol 2008; 26: 211-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer 2002; 95: 281-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Steiner MS. Current results and patient selection for nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Semin Urol Oncol 1995; 13: 204-214
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Walsh PC. Nerve sparing radical prostatectomy for early stage prostate cancer. Semin Oncol 1988; 15: 351-358
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lein M, Stibane I, Mansour R et al. Complications, urinary continence, and oncologic outcome of 1000 laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomies – experience at the Charite Hospital Berlin, Campus Mitte. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 1278-1282 discussion 1283–1284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pierorazio PM, Mullins JK, Eifler JB et al. Contemporaneous comparison of open vs. minimally-invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2013;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Magheli A, Gonzalgo ML, Su LM et al. Impact of surgical technique (open vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching. BJU Int 2011; 107: 1956-1962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA et al. Da Vinci robot error and failure rates: single institution experience on a single three-arm robot unit of more than 700 consecutive robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. J Endourol 2007; 21: 1341-1344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Luz MA, Kotb AF, Aldousari S et al. Retroperitoneal lymph node dis­section for residual masses after chemotherapy in nonseminomatous germ cell testicular tumor. World J Surg Oncol 2010; 8: 97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Berryhill Jr R, Jhaveri J, Yadav R et al. Robotic prostatectomy: a review of outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology 2008; 72: 15-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ramanathan R, Salamanca A, Mandhani A et al. Does 3-Dimensional (3-D) visualization improve the quality of assistance during robotic radical prostatectomy?. World J Urol 2009; 27: 95-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Berglund RK, Jones JS, Ulchaker JC et al. Radical prostatectomy as primary treatment modality for locally advanced prostate cancer: a pros­pective analysis. Urology 2006; 67: 1253-1256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pierorazio PM, Guzzo TJ, Han M et al. Long-term survival after radical prostatectomy for men with high Gleason sum in pathologic specimen. Urology 2010; 76: 715-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Van Poppel H, Joniau S. An analysis of radical prostatectomy in advanced stage and high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 253-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kupelian PA, Buchsbaum JC, Elshaikh M et al. Factors affecting recurrence rates after prostatectomy or radiotherapy in localized prostate carcinoma patients with biopsy Gleason score 8 or above. Cancer 2002; 95: 2302-2307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zelefsky MJ, Eastham JA, Cronin AM et al. Metastasis after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a comparison of clinical cohorts adjusted for case mix. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1508-1513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ischia J, Gleave M. Radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2013; 20: 290-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cooperberg MR, Vickers AJ, Broering JM et al. Comparative risk-adjusted mortality outcomes after primary surgery, radiotherapy, or androgen-deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2010; 116: 5226-5234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Yuh B, Artibani W, Heidenreich A et al. The Role of Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in the Management of High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol 2013;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mullins JK, Feng Z, Trock BJ et al. The impact of anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy on cancer control: the 30-year anniversary. J Urol 2012; 188: 2219-2224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M et al. Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatec­tomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 679-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 382-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Engel JD, Kao WW, Williams SB et al. Oncologic outcome of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in the high-risk setting. J Endourol 2010; 24: 1963-1966
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lavery HJ, Nabizada-Pace F, Carlucci JR et al. Nerve-sparing robotic prostatectomy in preoperatively high-risk patients is safe and efficacious. Urol Oncol 2012; 30: 26-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Punnen S, Meng MV, Cooperberg MR et al. How does robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compare with open surgery in men with high-risk prostate cancer?. BJU Int 2013;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Jayram G, Decastro GJ, Large MC et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk disease: a review of short-term outcomes from a high-volume center. J Endourol 2011; 25: 455-457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar