Dataset Information

Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update.

ABSTRACT:

Context

The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP) is debated. Recently, a number of large-scale and high-quality studies have been conducted.

Objective

To obtain a more valid assessment, we update the meta-analysis of RARP compared with RRP to assessed its safety and feasibility in treatment of prostate cancer.

Methods

A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify studies that compared RARP with RRP. Outcomes of interest included perioperative, pathologic variables and complications.

Results

78 studies assessing RARP vs. RRP were included for meta-analysis. Although patients underwent RRP have shorter operative time than RARP (WMD: 39.85 minutes; P < 0.001), patients underwent RARP have less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -507.67ml; P < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rates (OR = 0.13; P < 0.001), shorter time to remove catheter (WMD = -3.04day; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.62day; P < 0.001), lower PSM rates (OR:0.88; P = 0.04), fewer positive lymph nodes (OR:0.45;P < 0.001), fewer overall complications (OR:0.43; P < 0.001), higher 3- and 12-mo potent recovery rate (OR:3.19;P = 0.02; OR:2.37; P = 0.005, respectively), and lower readmission rate (OR:0.70, P = 0.03). The biochemical recurrence free survival of RARP is better than RRP (OR:1.33, P = 0.04). All the other calculated results are similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that RARP appears to be safe and effective to its counterpart RRP in selected patients.

SUBMITTER: Tang K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5458281 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update.

Tang Kun K Jiang Kehua K Chen Hongbo H Chen Zhiqiang Z Xu Hua H Ye Zhangqun Z

Oncotarget 20170501 19

<h4>Context</h4>The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP) is debated. Recently, a number of large-scale and high-quality studies have been conducted.<h4>Objective</h4>To obtain a more valid assessment, we update the meta-analysis of RARP compared with RRP to assessed its safety and feasibility in treatment of prostate cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Librar ...[more]

PMID: 27852051

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesReview and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).DesignSystematic review.SettingPubMed, Embase, Scopus, International HTA database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and various HTA websites were searched (January 2005 to March 2021) to identify the eligible cost-effectiveness studies.ParticipantsCost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review.InterventionsDifferent surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP.Primary and secondary outcome measuresA structured narrative synthesis was developed to summarize results of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness results (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Extended checklist. Application of medical device features were evaluated.ResultsTwelve studies met inclusion criteria, 11 of which were cost-utility analyses. Higher quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs were observed with RARP compared with ORP or LRP in 11 studies (91%). Among four studies comparing RARP with LRP, three reported RARP was dominant or cost-effective. Among ten studies comparing RARP with ORP, RARP was more cost-effective in five, not cost-effective in two, and inconclusive in three studies. Studies with longer time horizons tended to report favorable cost-effectiveness results for RARP. Nine studies (75%) were rated of moderate or good quality. Recommended medical device features were addressed to varying degrees within the literature as follows: capital investment included in most studies, dynamic pricing considered in about half, and learning curve and incremental innovation were poorly addressed.ConclusionsDespite study heterogeneity, RARP was more costly and effective compared with ORP and LRP in most studies and likely to be more cost-effective, particularly over a multiple year or lifetime time horizon. Further cost-effectiveness analyses for RARP that more thoroughly consider medical device features and use an appropriate time horizon are needed.Prospero registration numberCRD42021246811.

Project description:BackgroundRobotic-assisted radical prostatectomy(RARP) is widely used to surgically treat of localized prostate cancer. Among RARP, retzius-sparing techniques(RS-RARP) are implemented through douglas pouch, not the existing conventional approach(C-RARP). We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including recent published papers.Materials & methodsSystematic review was performed following the PRISMA guideline. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched up to August 2021. We conducted meta-analysis as follows; Participants, patients with biopsy-proven PCa; Interventions, Patients underwent C-RARP or RS-RALP; Outcomes, comparison of continence recovery rate, positive surgical margins(PSM), complication, operation time and estimated blood loss(EBL) included for analysis.ResultsThirteen studies with a total of 2917 patients were included for meta-analysis. Among them, three were randomized controlled trials (RCT) studies and the rest were non-RCT studies. Incontinence was analyzed with zero pad and safety pad, respectively. There showed a statistically significant advantage for RS-RARP in terms of continence recovery at 1 month(0 pad; OR 0.28, (0.16-0.47), safety-pad; OR 0.12 (0.07-0.22), p<0.001), as well as at 3 months(0 pad; OR 0.31 (0.18-0.53), safety-pad; OR 0.23 (0.14-0.40) p<0.001), 6 months(0 pad; OR 0.29 (0.17-0.51), safety-pad; OR 0.13 (0.06-0.27), p<0.001). And after 12 months, RS-RARP showed better results only in the safety-pad(0 pad; OR 0.64 (0.35-1.18), p = 0.15, safety-pad; OR 0.12 (0.04-0.36), p<0.001). In PSM, there was no statistical difference between two group at overall stage, but RS-RARP was observed to be higher than C-RARP in pT3 subgroup analysis(OR 0.74 (0.55-0.99), p = 0.047) (Fig 1). Whereas, there was no significant difference between the two groups in complication, operation time, and EBL.ConclusionsOur analysis showed that RS-RARP is superior about early continence recovery than C-RARP. However, RS-RARP showed relatively high PSM in locally advanced PCa of pT3 or above. Therefore, although RS-RARP has few advantages about functional outcomes, we think that caution should be exercised when approaching patients with high-risk local diseases.

Project description:The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence regarding the oncological and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) for recurrent prostate cancer. A systematic review was conducted throughout September 2022 using the PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Embase databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. A total of 55 studies (3836 patients) met our eligibility criteria. The vast majority of men included had radiation therapy (including brachytherapy) as their first-line treatment (n = 3240, 84%). Other first-line treatments included HIFU (n = 338, 9%), electroporation (n = 59, 2%), proton beam therapy (n = 54, 1.5%), cryotherapy (n = 34, 1%), focal vascular targeted photodynamic therapy (n = 22, 0.6%), and transurethral ultrasound ablation (n = 19, 0.5%). Median preoperative PSA, at the time of recurrence, ranged from 1.5 to 14.4 ng/mL. The surgical approach was open in 2300 (60%) cases, robotic in 1465 (38%) cases, and laparoscopic in 71 (2%) cases. Since 2019, there has been a clear increase in robotic versus conventional surgery (1245 versus 525 cases, respectively). The median operative time and blood loss ranged from 80 to 297 min and 75 to 914 mL, respectively. Concomitant lymph node dissection was performed in 2587 cases (79%). The overall complication rate was 34%, with a majority of Clavien grade I or II complications. Clavien ≥ 3 complications ranged from 0 to 64%. Positive surgical margins were noted in 792 cases (32%). The median follow-up ranged from 4.6 to 94 months. Biochemical recurrence after sRP ranged from 8% to 51.5% at 12 months, from 0% to 66% at 22 months, and from 48% to 59% at 60 months. The specific and overall survival rates ranged from 13.4 to 98% and 62 to 100% at 5 years, respectively. Urinary continence was maintained in 52.1% of cases. sRP demonstrated acceptable oncological outcomes. These results, after sRP, are influenced by several factors, and above all by pre-treatment assessment, including imaging, with the development of mpMRI and metabolic imaging. Our results demonstrated that SRP can be considered a suitable treatment option for selected patients, but the level of evidence remains low.

Dataset Information

Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update.

Context

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets