Prostate cancer (PCa) is stratified into different risk categories based on the patient's prognosis. High-risk disease was formerly characterized by an increased risk of metastasis and lethality, requiring complex treatments. Surgery was recently highlighted to have a pivotal role for the treatment of such cases, even as monotherapy. In the past, open radical prostatectomy was performed for most patients with high-risk PCa; however, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) emerged as a reasonable option because it provided optimal outcomes for low- and intermediate-risk PCa. Robust studies are lacking to properly assess the role of RARP for high-risk PCa. We summarize this knowledge and present a literature review on the perioperative recovery and functional and oncologic outcomes of RARP for the treatment of patients with high-risk PCa.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoorjianSA, KarnesRJ, RangelLJ, BergstralhEJ, BluteML. Mayo Clinic validation of the D'amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol, 2008; 179:1354–1360.
2.
BadaniKK, KaulS, MenonM. Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: Assessment after 2766 procedures. Cancer, 2007; 110:1951–1958.
3.
WalzJ, JoniauS, ChunFK, et al.Pathological results and rates of treatment failure in high-risk prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int, 2011; 107:765–770.
4.
CooperbergMR, VickersAJ, BroeringJM, CarrollPR. Comparative risk-adjusted mortality outcomes after primary surgery, radiotherapy, or androgen-deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer, 2010; 116:5226–5234.
5.
PetrelliF, VavassoriI, CoinuA, BorgonovoK, SartiE, BarniS. Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer, 2014; 12:215–224.
6.
YaxleyJW, CoughlinGD, ChambersSK, et al.Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: Early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet, 2016; 388:1057–1066.
7.
HaglindE, CarlssonS, StranneJ, et al.Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: A prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol, 2015; 68:216–225.
8.
D'AmicoAV, WhittingtonR, MalkowiczSB, et al.Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA, 1998; 280:969–974.
9.
SurcelCI, SooriakumaranP, BrigantiA, et al.Preferences in the management of high-risk prostate cancer among urologists in Europe: Results of a web-based survey. BJU Int, 2015; 115:571–579.
10.
ConnollySS, CathcartPJ, GilmoreP, KergerM, CroweH, PetersJS, MurphyDG, CostelloAJ. Robotic radical prostatectomy as the initial step in multimodal therapy for men with high-risk localised prostate cancer: Initial experience of 160 men. BJU Int, 2012; 109:752–759.
11.
CaseyJT, MeeksJJ, GrecoKA, WuSD, NadlerRB. Outcomes of locally advanced (T3 or greater) prostate cancer in men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol, 2009; 23:1519–1522.
12.
LaveryHJ, Nabizada-PaceF, CarlucciJR, BrajtbordJS, SamadiDB. Nerve-sparing robotic prostatectomy in preoperatively high-risk patients is safe and efficacious. Urol Oncol, 2012; 30:26–32.
13.
SooriakumaranP, NybergT, AkreO, et al.Comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in prostate cancer: Observational study of mortality outcomes. BMJ, 2014; 348:g1502.
14.
BoorjianSA, KarnesRJ, ViterboR, RangelLJ, BergstralhEJ, HorwitzEM, BluteML, BuyyounouskiMK. Long-term survival after radical prostatectomy versus external-beam radiotherapy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Cancer, 2011; 117:2883–2891.
15.
KohutekZA, WegES, PeiX, ShiW, ZhangZ, KollmeierMA, ZelefskyMJ. Long-term impact of androgen-deprivation therapy on cardiovascular morbidity after radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology, 2016; 87:146–152.
16.
ChadeDC, EasthamJ, GraefenM, et al.Cancer control and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol, 2012; 61:961–971.
17.
YuhB, ArtibaniW, HeidenreichA, et al.The role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of high-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol, 2014; 65:918–927.
18.
BrigantiA, ChunFK, SaloniaA, et al.Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol, 2006; 50:1006–1013.
19.
YuhBE, RuelNH, MejiaR, WilsonCM, WilsonTG. Robotic extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol, 2012; 61:1004–1010.
20.
BrigantiA, ChunFK, SaloniaA, et al.Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node inva- sion based on the extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int, 2006; 98:788–793.
21.
LestingiJFP, PontesJJr, BorgesLL, RavaniniJ, GuglielmettiGB, CordeiroMD, CoelhoRF, NahasWC. Extended vs limited pelvic lymphadenectomy during radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: A prospective randomized trial. Eur Urol Suppl, 2015; 14:e904.
22.
BaderP, BurkhardFC, MarkwalderR, StuderUE. Disease progression and survival of patients with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance of cure?. J Urol, 2003; 169:849–854.
23.
PloussardG, BrigantiA, de la TailleA, et al.Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Efficacy, limitations, and complications-a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol, 2014; 65:7–16.
24.
NovaraG, FicarraV, RosenRC, et al.Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2012; 62:431–452.
25.
TewariA, SooriakumaranP, BlochDA, Seshadri-KreadenU, HebertAE, WiklundP. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2012; 62:1–15.
26.
HamWS, ParkSY, RhaKH, KimWT, ChoiYD. Robotic radical prostatectomy for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer is feasible: Results of a single-institution study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2009; 19:329–332.
TyritzisSI, WallerstedtA, SteineckG, et al.Thromboembolic complications in 3,544 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with or without lymph node dissection. J Urol, 2015; 193:117–125.
29.
JayramG, DecastroGJ, LargeMC, et al.Robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk disease: A review of short-term outcomes from a High-Volume Center. J Endourol, 2011; 25:455–457.
30.
BrennhovdB, AxcronaK, FossåSD, GierckskyKE, VlatkovicL, DahlAA. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy of clinical high-risk patients with prostate cancer: A controlled study of operative and short-term postoperative events. Scand J Urol, 2013; 47:449–455.
31.
OuYC, YangCK, WangJ, HungSW, ChengCL, TewariAK, PatelVR. The trifecta outcome in 300 consecutive cases of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy according to D'Amico risk criteria. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2013; 39:107–113.
32.
GandagliaG, AbdollahF, HuJ, et al.Is robot-assisted radical prostatectomy safe in men with high-risk prostate cancer? Assessment of perioperative outcomes, positive surgical margins, and use of additional cancer treatments. J Endourol, 2014; 28:784–791.
33.
KooKC, JungDC, LeeSH, ChoiYD, ChungBH, HongSJ, RhaKH. Feasibility of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for very-high risk prostate cancer: Surgical and oncological outcomes in men aged ≥70 years. Prostate Int, 2014; 2:127–132.
34.
NovaraG, FicarraV, MocellinS, et al.Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2012; 62:382–404.
35.
YeeDS, NarulaN, AminMB, SkareckyDW, AhleringTE. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Current evaluation of surgical margins in clinically low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer. J Endourol, 2009; 23:1461–1465.
36.
UberoiJ, BrisonD, PatelN, SawczukIS, MunverR. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer with high-risk features: Predictors of favorable pathologic outcome. J Endourol, 2010; 24:403–407.
37.
EngelJD, KaoWW, WilliamsSB, HongYM. Oncologic outcome of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in the high-risk setting. J Endourol, 2010; 24:1963–1966.
38.
ShikanovSA, ThongA, GofritON, ZagajaGP, SteinbergGD, ShalhavAL, ZornKC. Robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for biopsy Gleason 8 to 10: Prediction of favorable pathologic outcome with preoperative parameters. J Endourol, 2008; 22:1477–1481.
39.
WambiCO, SiddiquiSA, KraneLS, AgarwalPK, StrickerHJ, PeabodyJO. Early oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for high-grade prostate cancer. BJU Int, 2010; 106:1739–1745.
40.
HartyNJ, KozinnSI, CanesD, SorciniA, MoinzadehA. Comparison of positive surgical margin rates in high risk prostate cancer: Open versus minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol, 2013; 39:639–646.
41.
PierorazioPM, MullinsJK, EiflerJB, et al.Contemporaneous comparison of open vs minimally-invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int, 2013; 112:751–757.
42.
SilbersteinJL, SuD, GlickmanL, et al.A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons. BJU Int, 2013; 111:206–212.
43.
ZugorV, WittJH, HeidenreichA, PorresD, LabanarisAP. Surgical and oncological outcomes in patients with preoperative PSA >20 ng/ml undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Anticancer Res, 2012; 32:2091–2095.
44.
BuschJ, MagheliA, LevaN, et al.Matched comparison of outcomes following open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk patients. World J Urol, 2014; 32:1411–1416.
45.
AbdollahF, SoodA, SammonJD, et al.Long-term cancer control outcomes in patients with clinically high-risk prostate cancer treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Results from a multi-institutional study of 1100 patients. Eur Urol, 2015; 68:497–505.
46.
Østby-DeglumM, BrennhovdB, AxcronaK, FossåSD, DahlAA. A comparative study of erectile function and use of erectile aids in high-risk prostate cancer patients after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Scand J Urol, 2015; 26:1–7.
47.
KangSG, SchatloffO, HaidarAM, SamavediS, PalmerKJ, CheonJ, PatelVR. Overall rate, location, and predictive factors for positive surgical margins after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Asian J Androl, 2016; 18:123–128.
48.
PunnenS, MengMV, CooperbergMR, GreeneKL, CowanJE, CarrollPR. How does robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compare with open surgery in men with high-risk prostate cancer?. BJU Int, 2013; 112:314–320.
49.
LeeD, ChoiSK, ParkJ, ShimM, KimA, LeeS, SongC, AhnH. Comparative analysis of oncologic outcomes for open vs. robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer. Korean J Urol, 2015; 56:572–579.
50.
LoebS, SchaefferEM, TrockBJ, EpsteinJI, HumphreysEB, WalshPC. What are the outcomes of radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer?. Urology, 2010; 76:710–714.
51.
WalzJ, JoniauS, ChunFK, et al.Pathological results and rates of treatment failure in high-risk prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int, 2011; 107:765–770.
52.
SuardiN, Dell'OglioP, GallinaA, et al.Evaluation of positive surgical margins in patients undergoing robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy according to preoperative risk groups. Urol Oncol, 2016; 34:57.e1–e7.
53.
MenonM, MuhletalerF, CamposM, PeabodyJO. Assessment of early continence after reconstruction of the periprostatic tissues in patients undergoing computer assisted (robotic) prostatectomy: Results of a 2 group parallel randomized controlled trial. J Urol, 2008; 180:1018–1023.
54.
TakenakaA, TewariAK, LeungRA, BigelowK, El-TabeyN, MurakamiG, FujisawaM. Preservation of the puboprostatic collar and puboperineoplasty for early recovery of urinary continence after robotic prostatectomy: Anatomic basis and preliminary outcomes. Eur Urol, 2007; 51:433–440.
55.
TewariAK, BigelowK, RaoS, TakenakaA, El-TabiN, TeA, VaughanED. Anatomic restoration technique of continence mechanism and preservation of puboprostatic collar: A novel modification to achieve early urinary continence in men undergoing robotic prostatectomy. Urology, 2007:60:726–731.
56.
JungJH, SeoJW, LimMS, LeeJW, ChungBH, HongSJ, SongJM, RhaKH. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection including internal iliac packet should be performed during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2012; 22:785–790.
