Indian Journal of Urology Users online:1061  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 30  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 378-382
 

Changes in pathologic outcomes and operative trends with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy


Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, NY, USA

Date of Web Publication1-Oct-2014

Correspondence Address:
Ranjith Ramasamy
One Baylor Plaza, N 730, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.142054

Rights and Permissions

 
   Abstract 

Introduction: We hypothesized that there is a reverse stage migration, or a shift toward operating on higher-risk prostate cancer, in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). We therefore evaluated the stage of disease at the time of surgery for patients with prostate cancer at a large tertiary academic medical center.
Materials and Methods: After institutional review board approval, we reviewed all patients that had undergone robotic prostatectomy. These patients were separated into three categories: An early era of 2005-2008, intermediate era of
2009-2010, and a current era of 2011-2012.
Results: A total of 3451 patients underwent robotic prostatectomy from 2005 to 2012. The proportion men with clinical T1 tumors declined from 88.3% in the early era to 72.2% in the current era (P < 0.0001). Men with preoperative biopsy Gleason 6 disease decreased from the early to the current era (P < 0.0001), while men with preoperative biopsy Gleason ≥ 8 showed the opposite trend, increasing from the early to the current era (P = 0.0002). From the early to the current era, the proportion of patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low risk prostate cancer decreased, while those with NCCN intermediate and high-risk disease increased. The proportion of pathologic T3 disease increased from 15.5% in the early to 30.6% in the current era (P < 0.0001). On the other hand, the proportion of pathologic T2/+ SMS (surgical margin status) decreased from 6.6% in the early era to 3.1% in the current era (P = 0.0002).
Conclusions: We have demonstrated a reverse stage migration in men undergoing robotic prostatectomy. Despite the increasing proportion of men with extra-capsular disease undergoing RALP, the surgical margin status has remained similar. This could reflect both the changing dynamics of the population opting for surgery as well as the learning curve of the surgeons.


Keywords: Prostate cancer, robotics, stage migration


How to cite this article:
Bernie A, Ramasamy R, Ali A, Tewari AK. Changes in pathologic outcomes and operative trends with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy . Indian J Urol 2014;30:378-82

How to cite this URL:
Bernie A, Ramasamy R, Ali A, Tewari AK. Changes in pathologic outcomes and operative trends with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy . Indian J Urol [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Oct 16];30:378-82. Available from: http://www.indianjurol.com/text.asp?2014/30/4/378/142054



   Introduction Top


Although Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer screening has lowered death rates due to prostate cancer, [1] there is growing concern that clinically insignificant prostate cancer would be detected in many men in the population, and also at an earlier age, leading to therapies that otherwise would have not changed the course of the disease. [2],[3]

Studies have demonstrated a general trend of downward stage and grade migration after institution of PSA testing. [4],[5],[6] The overtreatment of low-grade disease in prostate cancer in the population is largely due to stage migration, [7],[8] and approximately 80% of American men had organ-confined disease after radical prostatectomy in 2001. [9]

To sum up, PSA screening has played a major role in the over-diagnosis and over-treatment of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. [10],[11] The objective of our analysis was to evaluate our series for a shift in the operative volume on low and high-risk prostate cancer as well as the pathologic changes seen over time in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP).


   Materials and methods Top


We performed an institutional review board-approved, retrospective review of 3451 consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted prostatectomy by a single surgeon from 2005 to 2012 for localized prostate cancer. Patients who had received preoperative radiation therapy or androgen-deprivation therapy were excluded from the analysis. Patient data were collected and entered into a prospective prostate cancer database. The seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-lymph node (LN)-metastasis classification was used to define clinical stage, and histopathologic grading was done according to the Gleason system. Biopsies performed at referring facilities were reviewed by dedicated genitourinary pathologists at our institution. All patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic LN dissection in this series.

Patients were stratified according to year of operation based on surgeon experience, 2005-2008, 2009-2010, 2011-2012 (early, intermediate, and current groups for robot-assisted prostatectomy). These categories were determined on volume and surgeon learning curve. Patients also were stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines into the following risk categories: Low risk (PSA ≤10 ng/mL, ≤T2a, and Gleason score ≤6), intermediate risk (PSA 10-20 ng/mL, or T2b-T2c, or Gleason score 7), or high risk (PSA >20 ng/mL, or ≥T3a, or Gleason score ≥8). [12]

Postoperative pathologic reports were identified for all patients, and high-risk characteristics of extracapsular extension (ECE), positive nodal status (N1), and positive surgical margins (PSM) (+SMS) were determined and sorted by the above year stratification system.

Microsoft Excel 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Seattle WA) and GraphPad Prism 5 (Graph-Pad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA) software were used to perform all statistical calculations with P < 0.05 considered as statistically significant. Two analyses were used to compare factors between the different eras.


   Results Top


RALP for prostate cancer was performed on a total of 3451 patients all of whom met the inclusion criteria and had preoperative characteristics available from 2005 to 2012. Baseline characteristics are listed in [Table 1].
Table 1: Baseline characteristics of the sample categorized by era

Click here to view


Preoperative markers

PSA levels did not demonstrate any significant changes over time in either the total cohort or the individual era in which RALP was performed. The proportion of clinical T1 tumors in the operative cohorts declined from the early to current eras (88.3% of patients were clinical T1 in the early group, 72.2% were T1 in the current group; P < 0.0001).

Similarly, the percentage of patients in each era that represented Gleason 6 disease at biopsy was statistically decreased from the early to the current group (63.5% of cases in the early group, 38.7% of cases in the current group; P < 0.0001). Preoperative biopsy Gleason 7 disease showed the opposite trend to that of Gleason 6 disease, and the proportion of Gleason 7 disease was also statistically significantly higher from the early (30.1%) to the current group (50.5%) (P < 0.0001). Preoperative biopsy Gleason 8 disease showed a similar trend to that of Gleason 7, and there was a statistically significant difference between the early (6.4%) and current group (10.8%) (P = 0.0002).

Stratification by National Comprehensive Cancer Network Category

[Figure 1] and [Figure 2] demonstrate the trends seen from the early, intermediate and current groups with respect to NCCN classification. A downward trend is seen in the proportion of NCCN low risk patients undergoing RALP from the early (55.9%) to current groups (32.0%) (P < 0.0001) [Figure 1]. An upward trend is seen in both the NCCN intermediate risk patients from the early (36.6%) to high-risk patients (55.1%) (P < 0.0001) and high-risk patients from early (7.5%) to current groups (12.9%) (P < 0.0001) [Figure 2].
Figure 1: Percentage of sample categorized as National Comprehensive Cancer Network low risk categorized by era

Click here to view
Figure 2: Percentage of sample categorized as National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk categorized by era

Click here to view


Pathologic markers

Pathologic characteristics from men in this cohort are shown in [Table 2] and [Table 3]. Pathologic T3 disease increased from the early to current groups (from 15.5% in 2005-2008 to 30.6% in 2011-2012; P < 0.0001) [Figure 3]. Pathologic surgical margin status remained similar from the early to current groups (from 10.6% in 2005-2008 to 8.8% in 2011-2012; P = 176). On the other hand, the proportion of T2/+SMS findings on pathologic specimens decreased from the early to current groups (from 6.6% in 2005-2008-3.1% in 2011-2012; P = 0.0002) [Figure 4].
Table 2: Pathologic characteristics of the sample categorized by era

Click here to view
Table 3: Breakdown of pathologic Gleason scores by era

Click here to view
Figure 3: Percentage of sample with pathologic T3 disease categorized by era

Click here to view
Figure 4: Percentage of sample with pathologic T2/positive surgical margin disease categorized by era

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


In this study, we examined the preoperative baseline characteristics and stages of risk as well as the postoperative pathologic rates of ECE as well as LN and SMS positive rates in RALP patients over an 8-year period in men with localized prostate cancer. From the early to current groups of RALP, we found an increase in the proportion of preoperative high-risk patients undergoing surgery, as well as an increase in the high-risk pathologic characteristics. These trends suggest a shift with operative emphasis on higher risk disease as well as the learning skills gained as RALP became an established practice. The increasing trend toward operating on higher risk patients could also be explained by increasing use of active surveillance as a treatment option for low risk prostate cancer. Active surveillance could lead to patients being upstaged as a result of repeat biopsies performed.

The advent of PSA-based screening has led to a significant shift in the presentation and treatment of prostate cancer. PSA screening has led to patients presenting with prostate cancer at a significantly earlier age [13] and with lower-risk disease. [14] In line with this, the pathological makeup of prostate cancer specimens from early RALP showed a trend of lower-stage disease. This is largely due to the high increase in surgical intervention for lower-risk prostate cancers with the intent to cure all prostate cancer disease, [15] despite the fact that many of these patients with low risk cancer are unlikely to benefit from surgical intervention.

It has been previously demonstrated that ECE serves as an excellent marker for the likelihood of tumor progression because of its lack of variation with surgeon experience or skill, [16] and that rates of ECE significantly declined after the advent of PSA testing, in line with the increase in operative pathology suggesting more low risk disease after radical prostatectomy. [17],[18] The fact that ECE declined so dramatically in these studies between the pre and current PSA testing era widely suggested that there was in fact a stage migration toward operating on more low-risk and potentially clinically insignificant prostate cancer.

Using this same concept, we were able to demonstrate an increase in the rate of high-risk preoperative and pathologic factors from groups of early to current RALP. The use of AS, alternative therapies for low risk prostate cancer and the learning curve with skills gained after the initial experience of RALP would explain a shift, or reverse stage migration, from the surgical treatment of low risk and potentially clinically insignificant prostate cancer to the treatment of only high-risk prostate disease. This shift suggests that PSA and prostate cancer screening are used diligently at our center, with operative intervention only on those cancers that impose a potentially significant health risk to the patient.

Furthermore, we used two more pathologic markers as well as high-risk preoperative factors to demonstrate our point. The rate of N1 disease, another clinical marker for potential tumor progression, [16] demonstrated similar trending to that of ECE, rising at a statistically significant rate from the early to current RALP era. The rate of PSM status initially rose from the early to intermediate era and then again fell in the current era, which would be expected as surgeons performing the procedure have become more skilled with RALP and are achieving similar SMS rates to that seen with initial RALP despite the fact that they are now operating on a higher grade disease. Similarly, there was a trend seen with NCCN guideline criteria of operating on higher risk disease from the early to the current era.

We are limited in our analysis by several variables. As this study was performed at a tertiary care center and many of these patients return to their local urologists for follow-up, the biochemical recurrence rate of these patients cannot be assessed. Furthermore, several genitourinary pathologists were involved in interpretation of the specimens and staging and could have potentially contributed to the variation identified. Similarly, this could have led to a skewing of the groups of patients presenting, in that those with low risk disease are much less likely to come for consultation at our institution as they have already been educated about low risk disease in a community setting.


   Conclusions Top


We have demonstrated an increase in favorable pathologic outcomes with a decrease in operative intervention on low risk prostate cancer in men who opted to undergo robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Despite the increasing proportion of men with extra-capsular disease undergoing RALP, the surgical margin status has remained similar. This could reflect both the changing dynamics of the population opting for surgery as well as the learning curve of the surgeons.

 
   References Top

1.Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Szabo A, Falcon S, Wegelin J, et al. Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Cancer Causes Control 2008;19:175-81.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Farkas A, Schneider D, Perrotti M, Cummings KB, Ward WS. National trends in the epidemiology of prostate cancer, 1973 to 1994: Evidence for the effectiveness of prostate-specific antigen screening. Urology 1998;52:444-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Mettlin CJ, Murphy GP. Why is the prostate cancer death rate declining in the United States? Cancer 1998;82:249-51.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.Galper SL, Chen MH, Catalona WJ, Roehl KA, Richie JP, D'Amico AV. Evidence to support a continued stage migration and decrease in prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol 2006;175:907-12.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Moore AL, Dimitropoulou P, Lane A, Powell PH, Greenberg DC, Brown CH, et al. Population-based prostate-specific antigen testing in the UK leads to a stage migration of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009;104:1592-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Berger AP, Spranger R, Kofler K, Steiner H, Bartsch G, Horninger W. Early detection of prostate cancer with low PSA cut-off values leads to significant stage migration in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 2003;57:93-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Silberstein JL, Vickers AJ, Power NE, Fine SW, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al. Reverse stage shift at a tertiary care center: Escalating risk in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2011;117:4855-60.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Budäus L, Spethmann J, Isbarn H, Schmitges J, Beesch L, Haese A, et al. Inverse stage migration in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Results of 8916 European patients treated within the last decade. BJU Int 2011;108:1256-61.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Gallina A, Chun FK, Suardi N, Eastham JA, Perrotte P, Graefen M, et al. Comparison of stage migration patterns between Europe and the USA: An analysis of 11 350 men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008;101:1513-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.McGregor M, Hanley JA, Boivin JF, McLean RG. Screening for prostate cancer: Estimating the magnitude of overdetection. CMAJ 1998;159:1368-72.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, van der Cruijsen IW, Damhuis RA, Schröder FH, et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: Estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:868-78.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B, Busby JE, D'Amico A, Eastham JA, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010;8:162-200.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.Derweesh IH, Kupelian PA, Zippe C, Levin HS, Brainard J, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. Continuing trends in pathological stage migration in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol 2004;22:300-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Mettlin C, Murphy GP, Babaian RJ, Chesley A, Kane RA, Littrup PJ, et al. The results of a five-year early prostate cancer detection intervention. Investigators of the American Cancer Society National Prostate Cancer Detection Project. Cancer 1996;77:150-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Barbash GI, Glied SA. New technology and health care costs: The case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 2010;363:701-4.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC. Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:286-92.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Stamey TA, Donaldson AN, Yemoto CE, McNeal JE, Sözen S, Gill H. Histological and clinical findings in 896 consecutive prostates treated only with radical retropubic prostatectomy: Epidemiologic significance of annual changes. J Urol 1998;160:2412-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Jhaveri FM, Klein EA, Kupelian PA, Zippe C, Levin HS. Declining rates of extracapsular extension after radical prostatectomy: Evidence for continued stage migration. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:3167-72.  Back to cited text no. 18
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]

This article has been cited by
1 Changing Trends in Surgical Management of Prostate Cancer: The End of Overtreatment?
Hartwig Huland,Markus Graefen
European Urology. 2015;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

 
   Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (601 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusions
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1606    
    Printed39    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded46    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal

HEALTHWARE INDIA