Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Original articleClinical—prostateNerve-sparing robotic prostatectomy in preoperatively high-risk patients is safe and efficacious
Introduction
Oncologic control is of paramount importance in all patients with prostate cancer, and especially in those with high risk disease. However, the 10-year biochemical-free progression rate is 40% in such patients [1], and the 15-year prostate-cancer specific mortality is 19% [2]. As such, even high-risk patients have a long life expectancy to live with the functional complications of prostatectomy. Given the associations between preservation of the neurovascular bundles and the recovery of erectile function [3] and urinary continence [4], nerve-sparing can significantly improve a man's quality of life following prostatectomy.
Questions have arisen regarding the safety of nerve-sparing in high risk patients, partly due to the lack of haptic feedback on the robotic console. However, there is no standardized approach to select patients for nerve-sparing. Some urologists will widely resect the neurovascular bundles of all high-risk patients in an attempt to reduce the risk of positive surgical margins. Others have developed various criteria to determine preoperatively which patients should undergo nerve-sparing, including preoperative potency, PSA, imaging, location and number of positive biopsy cores, and digital rectal exam findings. These have led to the development of side-specific nerve-preservation nomograms and partial nerve-sparing techniques [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].
In our experience, there are visual clues, enhanced by the improved lighting and magnification of the robotic system, which may be used in selecting patients robotically for nerve-sparing, as these may allow determination of the presence of extraprostatic extension. Poorly defined or sticky dissection planes, bulging of the prostatic capsule, or the appearance of prostate tissue on the preserved neurovascular bundle are all worrisome for the presence of a locally-advanced tumor. Intraoperative frozen section (IFS) can be used in such circumstances to complement the visual inspection. With some exceptions, we have not routinely sacrificed nerves based on preoperative characteristics alone. We have performed bilateral nerve-sparing on most patients, including many high risk patients.
To evaluate the oncologic safety of this approach, as well as to answer the broader question of whether the robot can be used safely to treat high-risk patients, we analyzed our RALP database to evaluate the short-term oncologic and functional outcomes of patients who were preoperatively considered high-risk according to the D'Amico risk group stratification [12]. We then stratified such patients by nerve-sparing status and compared their oncologic and functional outcomes.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
An internal institutional review board approved database was created for all patients undergoing RALP by a single surgeon (DBS). The database was queried for patients undergoing RALP with high-risk features according to the D'Amico risk group stratification until September 2009. All patients with either PSA > 20 ng/ml, biopsy Gleason scores of 8 to 10, or clinical stage T2c or higher were evaluated [12]. Patients with incomplete pathologic data or follow-up of less than 6 weeks after surgery
Results
A total of 1,503 RALPs were performed in the selected time period, 146 (9.7%) of which were in high-risk patients as per the D'Amico risk group stratification. Of these, 23 patients were excluded due to incomplete data or inadequate follow-up, leaving a cohort of 123 patients who constituted the studied population. Of the 123 men, 21 had PSA > 20, 99 had biopsy Gleason sums of 8 or higher, and 12 were clinical stage T2c or higher. Twelve patients had more than 1 high risk factor. Institutional
Discussion
By definition, patients with high preoperative risk prostate cancer by the D'Amico classification are more likely to have non-organ-confined disease [12]. Patients with extraprostatic extension or seminal vesicle invasion are more likely to have tumor at the inked resection margin and are more likely to experience recurrence. As such, high risk patients are often treated more cautiously during prostatectomy than patients with lower risk disease. Various nomograms have been created to predict
Conclusions
Nerve-sparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy can be safely performed in patients with preoperatively high risk prostate cancer. Histopathologic and short-term oncologic outcomes are comparable to open surgical series from similar cohorts. The use of visual clues by an experienced robotic surgeon to determine the need for nerve-sparing is a safe and efficacious procedure.
References (28)
- et al.
Sexual function following radical prostatectomy: Influence of preservation of neurovascular bundles
J Urol
(1991) - et al.
Risk factors for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy
J Urol
(1996) - et al.
Preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for side-specific positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer
Eur Urol
(2007) - et al.
A validated strategy for side specific prediction of organ confined prostate cancer: A tool to select for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy
J Urol
(2001) - et al.
Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy
J Urol
(2006) - et al.
Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: A nomogram for staging prostate cancer
J Urol
(2004) - et al.
Prediction of extraprostatic extension in the neurovascular bundle based on prostate needle biopsy pathology, serum prostate specific antigen, and digital rectal examination
J Urol
(2005) - et al.
Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence
J Urol
(2009) - et al.
Poorly differentiated prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: Long-term outcome and incidence of pathological downgrading
J Urol
(2006) - et al.
Natural history of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy based on length of a positive margin
Urology
(2008)
Secondary therapy, metastatic progression, and cancer-specific mortality in men with clinically high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy
Eur Urol
Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies
Eur Urol
Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathologic T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: Long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial
J Urol
Clinical and pathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer patients with a preoperative Gleason sum of 8 to 10
Cancer
Cited by (50)
Evaluation of Oncological Outcomes and Data Quality in Studies Assessing Nerve-sparing Versus Non–Nerve-sparing Radical Prostatectomy in Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review
2022, European Urology FocusCitation Excerpt :The overall RoB and confounding were high across most domains, with high RoB for selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting bias owing to the lack of RCTs. Only a few studies had low to moderate confounding bias for cT stage, bGS, and initial PSA [11,14–17,20,22,27], whereas others did not report or corrected for these variables [12,13,18,19,21,24–26,45,46] (Fig. 3). Since all studies were NRSs, treatment allocation was biased, which had an important impact on the final study results.
Degree of Preservation of Neurovascular Bundles in Radical Prostatectomy and Recurrence of Prostate Cancer
2021, European Urology Open ScienceThe Risks and Benefits of Cavernous Neurovascular Bundle Sparing during Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
2017, Journal of UrologyCitation Excerpt :Mean decrease in penile length was 2.51 cm for nonnerve sparing vs 1.47 cm for nerve sparing cases. Eleven studies reported biochemical recurrence outcomes between nerve sparing and nonnerve sparing groups.6,8,12,15,24–26,36,116–118 Definitions of biochemical recurrence were serum PSA concentration of 0.1 to 0.4 ng/ml,15 or postoperative pelvic radiation or androgen deprivation due to a detectable PSA.25
Erectile Function Recovery after Radical Prostatectomy in Men with High Risk Features
2016, Journal of UrologyCitation Excerpt :Bilateral NVB resection was performed in 74% and PSMs were present in 56%, while the surgeon reported potency rate in preoperatively potent patients was 25%.11 In another series of 123 high risk patients who underwent robotic RP Lavery et al reported that bilateral NVB resection was performed in 27% and PSMs were present in 31%.12 Potency (defined as a Sexual Health Inventory for Men score greater than 16) was reported by 58% of patients.