Midterm oncological outcomes of laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy (RP)

Gregory J. Wirth, Sarah P. Psutka, Brian F. Chapin, Shulin Wu, Chin Lee Wu, Douglas M. Dahl*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective To compare the midterm risks of biochemical recurrence (BCR) and salvage radiation therapy (SRT) after laparoscopic (LRP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). Strong evidence that these techniques are comparable to the 'gold standard' of open RRP is lacking, as most comparative studies are limited by short follow-up or rely on historical controls. Patients and Methods We studied 1000 consecutive patients concurrently treated by either LRP or RRP between 2001 and 2005. LRPs were performed by a single surgeon and RRP by four surgeons. Primary outcomes were BCR and SRT. Survival analysis included relevant clinical and pathological variables. Results Of 844 included patients, 244 underwent LRP and 600 RRP. Clinical and pathological characteristics were similar in both groups. Most patients had Gleason 6 tumours (68%) and pT2 disease (86%). The median follow-up was 6.1 years and median time to recurrence 3.4 years. Overall, BCR occurred in 14% of patients: 13.1% after LRP and 14.7% after RRP. SRT was performed in 10.7% of patients both after LRP and RRP. In uni- and multivariate Cox regression models, surgical technique was not a significant predictor of BCR or SRT. Conclusion Our results suggest that in high-volume centres, LRP provides equivalent oncological control to RRP.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)190-197
Number of pages8
JournalBJU International
Volume112
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2013

Keywords

  • prostate-specific antigen
  • prostatectomy
  • prostatic neoplasms
  • recurrence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Midterm oncological outcomes of laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy (RP)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this