A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons
Jonathan L. Silberstein*, Daniel Su*, Leonard Glickman*, Matthew Kent†, Gal Keren-Paz*, Andrew J. Vickers†, Jonathan A. Coleman*‡, James A. Eastham*‡, Peter T. Scardino*‡ and Vincent P. Laudone*‡
*Department of Surgery, Urology Service, and †Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and ‡Department of Urology,Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
• To compare early oncological outcomes of robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) performed by high volume surgeons in a contemporary cohort.
• We reviewed patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer by high volume surgeons performing RALP or ORP.
• Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as PSA 0.1 ng/mL or PSA 0.05 ng/mL with receipt of additional therapy.
• A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and BCR using a predictive model (nomogram) based on preoperative stage, grade, volume of disease and PSA.
• To explore the impact of differences between surgeons, multivariable analyses were repeated using surgeon in place of approach.
• Of 1454 patients included, 961 (66%) underwent ORP and 493 (34%) RALP and there were no important differences in cancer characteristics by group.
• Overall, 68% of patients met National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for intermediate or high risk disease and 9% had lymph node involvement. Positive margin rates were 15% for both open and robotic groups.
• In a multivariate model adjusting for preoperative risk there was no significant difference in BCR rates for RALP compared with ORP (hazard ratio 0.88; 95% CI 0.56–1.39; P = 0.6). The interaction term between © 2013 The Authors 206 BJU International © 2013 BJU International | 111, 206–212 | doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11638.x Urological Oncology nomogram risk and procedure type was not statistically significant.
• Using NCCN risk group as the covariate in a Cox model gave similar results (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.47–1.17; P = 0.2). The interaction term between NCCN risk and procedure type was also non-significant.
• Differences in BCR rates between techniques (4.1% vs 3.3% adjusted risk at 2 years) were smaller than those between surgeons (2.5% to 4.8% adjusted risk at 2 years).
• In this relatively high risk cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy we found no evidence to suggest that ORP resulted in better early oncological outcomes then RALP.
• Oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy may be driven more by surgeon factors than surgical approach.