Comparative analysis of 10-year oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and radical retropubic prostatectomy. Experience of the Urology Clinic of the A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

Background. Prostate cancer (PCa) is the 2nd most common oncological disease among men in the world. The first structured program of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) was started in the year 2000. In the medical literature, a limited number of studies on long-term oncological treatment outcomes for patients with PCa after RARP is presented. In Russia, the Da Vinci robot was first installed in 2007. In the Urology Clinic of the A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, the program of robot-assisted surgery was started in November of 2008.

Aim. To perform first in Russia evaluation of 10-year oncological treatment outcomes for patients with localized PCa after RARP. To perform comparative analysis with the outcomes of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP).

Materials and methods. Retrospective analysis of medical histories of 211 patients was performed. Among them, 62 patients did not satisfy the inclusion criteria. The remaining 149 patients were divided into 2 groups: 1^st - RARP (n = 82), 2^nd - RRP (n = 67). All RARP were performed by the same surgeon, RRP by 2 experienced surgeons.

Results. Median follow-up was 110.35 ± 24.58 and 115.19 ± 15.37 months in the 1^st and 2^nd group, respectively; median follow-up was 120 months in both groups (p >0.05). Survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meyer approach. Ten-year biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival was 79.3 and 82.1 %, clinical recurrence-free survival was 96.3 and 97.1 %, metastasis-free survival was 92.7 and 94.0 %, cancer-specific survival was 93.9 and 95.6 % and overall survival was 85.4 and 86.6 % in the 1^st and 2^nd group, respectively. Mean time to BCR was 17.00 ± 20.67 and 22.83 ± 26.51 months, respectively ( p >0.05). Calculation of BCR predictors was performed using correlation analysis based on contingency test and Cramer's V-test. In the 1^st group, body mass index ≥30 kg/m² (p = 0.01), prostate-specific antigen level >10 ng/mL (p = 0.04), high progression risk per the D'Amico classification (p = 0.01) were independent preoperative predictors of BCR. Gleason score 7 (4 + 3) (p = 0.04) and ≥8 (p <0.0001) per pathomorphological examination, pT3 stage, extraprostatic extension, invasion into the seminal vesicles and positive surgical margin (all p <0.0001) were independent postoperative predictors of BCR.

Conclusion. RARP demonstrates long-term (10-year) oncological effectiveness comparable to oncological effectiveness of RRP in patients with localized PCa.

1. Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L. et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71(3):209-49. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660

2. Bhat K.R.S., Moschovas M.C., Sandri M. et al. Stratification of potency outcomes following robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy based on age, preoperative potency, and nerve sparing. J Endourol 2021;35:1631-8. DOI: 10.1089/end.2021.0141

3. Pushkar D.Yu., Kolontarev K.B. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Functional result. Part I. Khirurgiya. Zurnal im. N.I. Pirogova = Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery 2019;(3):111-20. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/hirurgia2019031111

4. Mottet N., van den Bergh R.C.N., Briers E. et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2021;79(2):243-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042

5. Bill-Axelson A., Holmberg L., Garmo H. et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014;370(10):932-42. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311593

6. Briganti A., Bianchi M., Sun M. et al. Impact of the introduction of a robotic training programme on prostate cancer stage migration at a single tertiary referral centre. BJU Int 2013;111(8):1222-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11464.x

7. Menon M., Shrivastava A., Tewari A. et al. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 2002;168(3):945-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64548-X

8. Menon M., Tewari A., Peabody J. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol 2003;169(6):2289-92. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000067464.53313.dd

9. Mosoyan M.S., Al-Shukri S.Kh., Ilyin D.M. Five year experience in prostate cancer surgery on “Da Vinci” robot. Nefrologiya = Nephrology 2016;20(4):103-6. (In Russ.).

10. Ramazanov K.K., Kolontarev K.B., Gens G.P. et al. Long-term oncological and functional results of robotassisted radical prostatectomy. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2021;17(3):121-8. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2021-17-3-121-128

11. Wang L., Wang B., Ai Q. et al. Long-term cancer control outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment: a meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 2017;49(6):995-1005. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-017-1552-8

12. Pushkar D.Yu., Govorov A.V., Kolontarev K.B. Robot-assisted surgery. Vestnik Rossiyskoy akademii nauk = Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 2019;89(5):466-9. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/S0869-5873895466-469

13. Report of the official Intuitive Surgical, Inc., representative in Russia to M.P.A. Medical Partners. Available at: https://robot-davinci.ru/materialy (accessed on 30.09.2022). (In Russ.).

14. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment. NICE Guidelines (CG58). 2008. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg58.

15. D'Amico A.V., Whittington R., Malkowicz S.B. et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280(11):969-74. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969

16. Partin A.W., Yoo J., Carter H.B. et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1993;150(1):110-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35410-1

17. Partin A.W., Kattan M.W., Subong E.N. et al. Combination of prostatespecific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multiinstitutional update. JAMA 1997;277(18):1445-51.

18. Rosen M.A., Goldstone L., Lapin S. et al. Frequency and location of extracapsular extension and positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1992;148(2 Pt 1):331-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36587-4

19. Cookson M.S., Aus G., Burnett A.L. et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol 2007;177(2):540-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.097

20. Nyberg M., Akre O., Bock D. et al. Risk of recurrent disease 6 years after open or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in the prospective controlled trial LAPPRO. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;20:54-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2020.06.005

21. Abdollah F., Dalela D., Sood A. Intermediate-term cancer control outcomes in prostate cancer patients treated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional analysis. World J Urol 2016;34(10):1357-66. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-016-1781-y