A Contemporary Series on Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy and an Analysis of Factors Influencing Biochemical Recurrence-Free Survival

Abstract

This study investigates outcomes and identifies factors influencing biochemical recurrence and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) rates in patients undergoing retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) at a tertiary university hospital over 10 years. Data of patients who underwent RRP between 2012 and 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Variables included demographic information, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, prostate volume, PSA density, operative details, histopathological findings, and postoperative follow-up data. Patients without at least three years of regular follow-up were excluded from the study. The Cox regression analyses were performed to determine the independent risk factors for BRFS. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier and the log‐rank test. The final analysis included 115 patients. The median follow-up duration was 77.2 months (range: 36.3–153.6), and the median BRFS was 47.3 months (range: 0–153.6). The 3-year BRFS rate was 61.8%. Positive surgical margins were identified as a significant predictor of BRFS (HR: 2.388, p=0.004), while higher PSA density and the ISUP grade groups also showed associations with recurrence risk (p= 0.033 and 0.048, respectively). Survival analyses confirmed shorter BRFS in patients with positive surgical margins (p=0.000). This study highlights the effectiveness of RRP in the surgical management of localized PCA. Surgical margin status emerged as the primary predictor of BRFS. PSA density may be a promising parameter in predicting biochemical recurrence, but further studies are needed.

Keywords

• Retropubic radical prostatectomy
• prostate cancer
• biochemical recurrence-free survival

Retropubik Radikal Prostatektomi Üzerine Çağdaş Bir Seri ve Biyokimyasal Nükssüz Sağkalımı Etkileyen Faktörlerin Analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı üçüncü basamak sağlık hizmeti veren bir üniversite hastanesinde son 10 yılda yapılan retropubik radikal prostatektomi (RRP) ameliyatlarının sonuçlarını değerlendirmek ve cerrahi tedavi alan hastalarda biyokimyasal nüksüz sağkalımı (BNS) etkileyen faktörleri belirlemektir. Bu çalışma için kliniğimizde 2012-2022 yılları arasında RRP geçiren hastaların verilerini retrospektif olarak analiz edildi. İncelenen veriler arasında; hastaların demografik bilgileri, preoperatif prostat spesifik antijen (PSA) düzeyi, prostat hacmi, PSA dansitesi, operatif veriler, histopatolojik sonuçlar ve postoperatif takip bilgileri mevcuttu. En az üç yıllık düzenli takibi olmayan hastalar çalışma dışı bırakıldı. BNS üzerine etki eden faktörleri belirlemek için Cox regresyon analizi uygulandı. Sağkalım analizi log-rank testi uygulanarak Kaplan-Meier grafi ile verildi. Analize 115 hasta dahil edildi. Medyan takip süresi 77,2 ay (36,3–153,6) ve medyan BNS 47,3 aydı (0–153,6). 3 yıllık BNS oranı 61.8%’ olarak bulundu. Cerrahi sınır pozitifliği BNS etkileyen önemli bir faktör olarak tespit edildi (HR: 2.388, p=0.004). Ayrıca yüksek PSA dansitesi ve yüksek ISUP derece grup varlığı biyokimyasal rekürrens ile ilişkili bulunmuştur (p sırasıyla = 0,033 ve 0,048). Sağkalım analizi cerrahi sınırı pozitif olan hastaların daha kısa BNS süresine sahip olduklarını göstermiştir. (p=0.000). Bu çalışa RRP’ nin lokalize prostat kanseri tedavisindeki yerini vurgulamıştır. Cerrahi sınır durumu BNS’ yi öngörmede anlamlı bir parametredir. PSA dansitesi biyokimyasal rekürrensi öngörmede umut vaat eden bir parametredir; ancak bu konuda daha ileri çalışmalara gereksinim vardır.

Keywords

• Retropubik radikal prostatektomi
• prostat kanseri
• biyokimyasal rekürrenssiz sağkalım

References

1. 1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024 May;74(3):229–63.
2. 2. P. Cornford (Chair), D. Tilki (Vice-chair), R.C.N. van den Bergh et al.EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2024. April 2024
3. 3. Young HH. Conservative Perineal Prostatectomy: The Results of Two Years' Experience and Report of Seventy-Five Cases. Ann Surg. 1905 Apr;41(4):549-57.
4. 4. MILLIN T. Retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 1948 Mar 1;59(3):267–74.
5. 5. Walsh PC. Radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostatic carcinoma. Urologic Clinics of North America. 1980 Dec 1;7:583–91.
6. 6. Walsh P.C. DDJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982 Sep 3;128:492–9.
7. 7. Costello AJ. Considering the role of radical prostatectomy in 21st century prostate cancer care. Vol. 17, Nature Reviews Urology. Nature Research; 2020. p. 177–88.
8. 8. Dell'Oglio P, Mottrie A, Mazzone E. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs. open radical prostatectomy: latest evidences on perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes. Curr Opin Urol. 2020 Jan 30;1:73–8.

9. 9. Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M. Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Vol. 2017, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2017.
10. 10. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Vol. 240, Annals of Surgery. 2004. p. 205–13.
11. 11. Würnschimmel C, Wenzel M, Wang N et al. Radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: 20-year oncological outcomes from a German high-volume center. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2021 Dec 1;39(12):830.e17-830.e26.
12. 12. Offermann A, Hupe MC, Sailer V, Merseburger AS, Perner S. The new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 prostate cancer grade group system: first résumé 5 years after introduction and systemic review of the literature. Vol. 38, World Journal of Urology. Springer; 2020. p. 657–62.
13. 13. Ho MD, Ross AE, Eggener SE. . Risk Stratification of Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Individualizing Care in the Era of Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2023 Jul;210(1):38–45.
14. 14. Sasaki T, Matsumoto R, Higashi S et al. Impact of family history on clinicopathological variables and disease progression in Japanese prostate cancer patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. International Journal of Urology. 2022 Nov;29(11):1339–46.
15. 15. Greco C, Pares O, Pimentel N et al. Early PSA density kinetics predicts biochemical and local failure following extreme hypofractionated radiotherapy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2022 Apr 1;169:35–42.
16. 16. Eastham JA, Auffenberg GB, Barocas DA et al. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management. J Urol. 2022 Jul;208(1):10-18.
17. 17. Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Vol. 16, Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(41):1-313.
18. 18.Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubicprostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlledphase 3 study. The Lancet. 2016 Sep 10;388(10049):1057–66.
19. 19.Moretti TBC, Reis LO. The “Natural History” of Evidence onRadical Prostatectomy: What Have 20 Years of Robots GivenUs? Vol. 8, Eur Urol Focus. 2022 Nov;8(6):1859-1860.
20. 20.Moretti TBC, Magna LA, Reis LO. Radical ProstatectomyTechnique Dispute: Analyzing Over 1.35 Million Surgeries in20 Years of History. Vol. 21, Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2023Aug;21(4):e271-e278.e42.
21. 21.Wang J, Hu K, Wang Y et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis ofprospective studies. Vol. 17, J Robot Surg. 2023Dec;17(6):2617-2631.
22. 22.Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Wallerstedt A, Wilderäng U,Thorsteinsdottir T, et al. Urinary Incontinence and Erectile Dysfunction after Robotic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy:A Prospective, Controlled, Nonrandomised Trial. Eur Urol.2015 Aug 1;68(2):216–25.
23. 23.Du Y, Long Q, Guan B, et al. Robot-assisted radicalprostatectomy is more beneficial for prostate cancer patients: Asystem review and meta-analysis. Medical Science Monitor.2018 Jan 14;24:272–87.
24. 24.Akduman B, Crawford ED. Treatment of localized prostatecancer. Rev Urol. 2006;8 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S15-21.
25. 25.Haese A, Knipper S, Isbarn H, et al. A comparative study ofrobot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in 10 790 mentreated by highly trained surgeons for both procedures. BJU Int. 2019 Jun 123(6):1031–40.
26. 26.Prudhomme T, Roumiguié M, Péricart S, et al. Assessment ofoncological and functional outcomes of retropubic radicalprostatectomy: An academic center experience. Prog Urol.2021 Dec;31(16):1123-1132.
27. 27.Grabbert M, Buchner A, Butler-Ransohoff C, Kretschmer A,Stief CG, Bauer RM. Long-term functional outcome analysis ina large cohort of patients after radical prostatectomy. NeurourolUrodyn. 2018 Sep 37(7):2263–70.
28. 28.Kordan Y, Salem S, Chang SS, et al. Impact of positive apicalsurgical margins on likelihood of biochemical recurrence afterradical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009 Dec;182(6):2695-701.
29. 29.Fesseha T, Sakr W, Grignon D, Banerjee M, Wood DP Jr,Pontes JE. Prognostic implications of a positive apical marginin radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 1997Dec;158(6):2176-9.
30. 30.Pettus JA, Weight CJ, Thompson CJ, Middleton RG,Stephenson RA. Biochemical failure in men following radicalretropubic prostatectomy: impact of surgical margin status andlocation. J Urol. 2004 Jul;172(1):129-32.