Premium
Robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy in the K orean population: A 5‐year propensity‐score matched comparative analysis versus open radical prostatectomy
Author(s) -
Koo Kyo Chul,
Tuliao Patrick,
Yoon Young Eun,
Chung Byung Ha,
Hong Sung Joon,
Yang Seung Choul,
Rha Koon Ho
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
international journal of urology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.172
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1442-2042
pISSN - 0919-8172
DOI - 10.1111/iju.12447
Subject(s) - prostatectomy , medicine , laparoscopic radical prostatectomy , prostate cancer , urology , biochemical recurrence , surgical margin , surgery , cancer
Objectives To compare the oncological outcomes of robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with those of open radical prostatectomy in contemporary K orean prostate cancer patients. Methods From a group of 1172 patients consisting of 592 (50.5%) robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and 580 (49.5%) open radical prostatectomy cases carried out between 1992 and 2008, 175 robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy cases were matched with an equal number of open radical prostatectomy cases by propensity scoring based on patient age, preoperative prostate‐specific antigen, biopsy G leason score and clinical tumor stage. Competing‐risks survival analyses were used to evaluate oncological outcomes, including rates of positive surgical margin, biochemical‐recurrence, adjuvant therapy, cancer‐specific survival, overall survival and metastasis‐free survival during the mean follow up of 58.4 months. Results Positive surgical margin rates were comparable between robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy cohorts (19.4% vs 21.8%), with comparable rates for all pathological stages and risk subgroups. Positive surgical margin rates according to location were comparable, with the apical margin being the most common location. Robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy recovered higher lymph node yields compared with open radical prostatectomy (12.5 vs 3.8; P < 0.001). The robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and the open radical prostatectomy groups showed equal oncological outcomes regarding 5‐year biochemical recurrence‐free survival (log‐rank P = 0.651), metastasis‐free survival (log‐rank P = 0.876), cancer‐specific survival (log‐rank P = 0.076) and overall survival (log‐rank P = 0.648), respectively. Between groups, there was no difference in the rate of adjuvant therapy, time to first adjuvant therapy failure or in the rate of subsequent secondary treatment. Conclusions Robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy represents an effective surgical approach for the treatment of prostate cancer in the K orean population, as it provides equivalent oncological outcomes to open radical prostatectomy.