Dataset Information

Reassessment of Prostate Biopsy Specimens for Patients Referred for Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Rarely Influences Surgical Planning.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The minimum volume standard is 100 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) procedures per hospital in the Netherlands, so patients have to be referred to high-volume surgical centers for RARP. During preoperative work-up, prostate biopsies taken elsewhere are reassessed, with upgrading or downgrading of the initial Gleason grade group a possible consequence.

Objective

To determine if prostate biopsy reassessment leads to adjustment of the surgical plan regarding a nerve-sparing approach and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) during RARP.

Design setting and participants

For 125 men who were referred to the Prosper prostate center at Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital (CWH) in the Netherlands between 2013 and 2016, results for the initial assessment of prostate biopsy by a local uropathologist were compared to results for biopsy reassessment by dedicated uropathologists at CWH.

Results and limitations

The pathologists reached agreement in 80% of the cases. In cases for which there was disagreement (n = 25), biopsy revision involved upgrading of the initial grade group in 68% and downgrading in 32%. Biopsy reassessment led to a change in surgical plan in ten cases (8%). As a result of upgrading, ePLND was performed in three patients (2%). ePLND was omitted in one patient (1%) because of downgrading. For three patients (2%) a non-nerve-sparing procedure was planned after upgrading of the initial grade group. For four patients (3%), a unilateral nerve-sparing procedure was performed after downgrading.

Conclusions

This study shows that there is large interobserver agreement between uropathologists in the assessment of Gleason grade group in prostate biopsy specimens. Reassessment rarely leads to a change in surgical plan regarding the indication for a nerve-sparing approach and ePLND. Therefore, reassessment of prostate biopsy before radical prostatectomy can be omitted when the initial pathological assessment was performed by a dedicated uropathologist.

Patient summary

Reassessment of the initial prostate biopsy specimen for patients referred to a specialist center for robot-assisted removal of the prostate rarely influences surgical planning and can be omitted.

SUBMITTER: Hoekstra RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8317876 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe in detail the techniques for transvesical robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using the da Vinci Si/Xi system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and to evaluate functional and oncological outcomes in 35 patients with prostate cancer.Patients and methodsThirty-five patients with localized prostate cancer were enrolled for transvesical RARP. The patients' preoperative data (mean ± sd age 63.4 ± 8.1 years, body mass index 28.6 ± 5.3 kg/m2 , total prostate-specific antigen 10.8 ± 4.9 ng/mL and prostate volume 30.6 ± 14.4 mL, and median [interquartile range {IQR}] biopsy Gleason score 6 [6-7], and International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF]-5 score 18 [16-20]) were collected. Preoperative assessment revealed 28 cases of cT2a and seven cases of cT2b disease. All patients were continent preoperatively (defined as no pad required or one dry pad per day as a precaution). Surgical results and peri-operative complications were assessed. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months postoperatively.ResultsThe mean operating time was 150 ± 35 min. Estimated blood loss was 100 ± 45 mL. Urinary infection was noted in one patient and managed with levofloxacin. Another patient complained of nocturia on postoperative day 14, which was relieved with solifenacin succinate. Urethral catheters were removed on postoperative day 7. Thirty-two patients achieved immediate urinary continence, with three patients returning to full continence on postoperative day 14. Postoperative pathology confirmed 24 pT2a cases, nine pT2b cases and two pT2c cases (median [IQR] Gleason score 6 [6-7]). Positive surgical margins were found in four patients (11.4%). No urethral stricture or urinary leakage was noted on urethrocystography taken 3 months after surgery. Urodynamic studies were performed preoperatively and 6 months after surgery: median (IQR) maximum urinary flow 12.2 (10.2-14.9) vs 13.7 (10.1-15.0) mL/s; bladder capacity 385.3 (351.3-410.2) vs 370.2 (330.1-395.4) mL; and voiding phase detrusor contractility 38.5 (27.8-42.3) vs 35.6 (28.3-41.3) mmH2 O, respectively. During a minimum of 12 months of follow-up, no biochemical recurrence was noted in any patient. The median (IQR) IIEF-5 score was 17 (16-19).ConclusionsThe transvesical approach is a valid alternative to RARP in selected patients, providing promising postoperative urinary continence. Long-term functional and oncological results require further investigation.

Project description:BackgroundIt is not clear whether the routine placement of a pelvic drain after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is a necessity. The aim of this study was to investigate this through a meta-analysis of RCTs and non-randomized studies.MethodsA search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science, up to 9 March 2023, for clinical trials comparing no drain with pelvic drain placement for patients with prostate cancer after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. A random-effect model was assumed for all analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs and, for non-randomized studies, the ROBINS-I tool was used (where ROBINS-I stands for Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions). This meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42023406429).ResultsA total of six studies with 1480 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both the meta-analysis of RCTs and the meta-analysis of non-randomized studies showed that patients without drains had a similar estimated blood loss (mean difference 40.49 ml, 95% c.i. -59.75 to 140.74 ml, P = 0.430, and mean difference -14.20 ml, 95% c.i. -32.26 to 3.87 ml, P = 0.120 respectively), overall complication rate (OR 0.60, 95% c.i. 0.35 to 1.04, P = 0.070, and OR 0.90, 95% c.i. 0.59 to 1.39, P = 0.640 respectively), Clavien-Dindo grade I-II complication rate (OR 0.62, 95% c.i. 0.34 to 1.13, P = 0.120, and OR 0.83, 95% c.i. 0.28 to 2.51, P = 0.750 respectively), Clavien-Dindo grade III-V complication rate (OR 0.60, 95% c.i. 0.10 to 3.69, P = 0.590, and OR 0.92, 95% c.i. 0.25 to 3.39, P = 0.900 respectively), and duration of hospital stay (mean difference -0.08 days, 95% c.i. -0.45 to 0.29 days, P = 0.670, and mean difference -0.64 days, 95% c.i. -2.67 to 1.39 days, P = 0.540 respectively) compared with routinely drained patients. Meta-analysis of non-randomized studies revealed that the duration of operation for patients without drains was shorter than that for patients with drains (mean difference -34.88 min, 95% c.i. -43.58 to -26.18 min, P < 0.001), but the meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups (mean difference -7.64 min, 95% c.i. -15.61 to 0.32 min, P = 0.060).ConclusionThe intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of patients without drains were not inferior to those of patients with drains. In selected patients, pelvic drains can be omitted after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.