Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy: functional outcomes 18 months after diagnosis from a national cohort study in England.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been rapidly adopted without robust evidence comparing its functional outcomes against laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) or open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP) approaches. This study compared patient-reported functional outcomes following RARP, LRP or ORP. METHODS: All men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England during April - October 2014 who underwent radical prostatectomy were identified from the National Prostate Cancer Audit and mailed a questionnaire 18 months after diagnosis. Group differences in patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel and hormonal function (EPIC-26 domain scores) and generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL; EQ-5D-5L scores), with adjustment for patient and tumour characteristics, were estimated using linear regression. RESULTS: In all, 2219 men (77.0%) responded; 1310 (59.0%) had RARP, 487 (21.9%) LRP and 422 (19.0%) ORP. RARP was associated with slightly higher adjusted mean EPIC-26 sexual function scores compared with LRP (3·5 point difference; 95% CI: 1.1-5.9, P=0.004) or ORP (4.0 point difference; 95% CI: 1.5-6.5, P=0.002), which did not meet the threshold for a minimal clinically important difference (10-12 points). There were no significant differences in other EPIC-26 domain scores or HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that the rapid adoption of RARP in the English NHS has produced substantial improvements in functional outcomes for patients

A prospective study of psychological distress after prostate cancer surgery

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Background: Men treated for prostate cancer experience heightened psychological distress and have an increased risk of suicide. Management of this distress and risk is crucial for quality urological care. Objective: To identify risk indicators for poorer trajectories of psychological adjustment and health-related quality of life (QoL) after surgery for localised prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients were newly diagnosed with localised prostate cancer scheduled for surgical treatment. Patients were assessed at baseline (pre-surgery) and 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months post–surgery. Measurements: Assessment measures included sociodemographics, domain-specific and health-related QoL, and psychological distress. Mixed effects regression models were used to analyse the data. Results and Limitations: A total of 233 patients provided data for this analysis (Mage = 60 years, standard deviation [SD] = 4.02; MPSA = 7.37 ng/mL). At baseline, the prevalence of high psychological distress was 28% reducing to 21% at 24 months. Before treatment, younger age, more comorbidities, and worse bowel function were related to greater psychological distress; and younger age and better urinary, sexual, and bowel function were related to better health-related QoL. By contrast, for changes over time, only bowel function was important with better bowel function predicting decreasing psychological distress for men. Conclusions: Regular distress screening is indicated over the 24 months after surgery for localised prostate cancer. Care pathways for men with prostate cancer need also to respond to age-specific concerns and health problems associated with comorbidities in aging men. Focussed symptom control for bowel bother should be a priority

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study

© 2018 Elsevier Ltd Background: Previous trials have found similar early outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy. We report functional and oncological postoperative outcomes up to 24 months after surgery for these two surgical techniques. Methods: In this randomised controlled phase 3 study, men who had newly diagnosed clinically localised prostate cancer and who had chosen surgery as their treatment approach, and were aged between 35 years and 70 years were eligible and recruited from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (Brisbane, QLD, Australia). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to have either robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy or open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Randomisation was computer generated and occurred in blocks of ten. This was an open trial; however, study investigators involved in data analysis were masked to each patient's surgical treatment. Primary outcomes were urinary function (urinary domain of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]) and sexual function (sexual domain of EPIC and International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire [IIEF]) at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months and oncological outcome (biochemical recurrence and imaging evidence of progression). The trial was powered to assess health-related and domain-specific quality-of-life outcomes over 24 months. All analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000661976. Findings: Between Aug 23, 2010, and Nov 25, 2014, 326 men were enrolled, of whom 163 were randomly assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and 163 to open radical retropubic prostatectomy. 18 withdrew (12 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and six assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy); thus, 151 in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and 157 in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group proceeded to surgery. At the 24-month follow-up time point, 150 men remained in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group and 146 remained in the open radical retropubic prostatectomy group. Urinary function scores did not differ significantly between robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy at 6 months post-surgery (88·68 [95% CI 86·79–90·58] vs 88·45 [86·54–90·36]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), 12 months post-surgery (90·76 [88·89–92·62] vs 91·53 [90·07–92·98]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), or 24 months post-surgery (91·33 [89·64–93·03] vs 90·86 [89·01–92·70]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001). Sexual function scores were not significantly different between robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy at 6 months post-surgery (EPIC: 37·40 [33·60–41·19] vs 38·63 [34·76–42·49], p1=0·0001, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 29·75 [26·66–32·84] vs 29·78 [26·41–33·16], p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), 12 months post-surgery (EPIC: 42·28 [38·05–46·51] vs 42·51 [38·29–46·72], p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 33·10 [29·59–36·61] vs 33·50 [29·87–37·13], p1=0·0002, p2<0·0001), or 24 months post-surgery (EPIC: 45·70 [41·17–50·23] vs 46·90 [42·20–51·60], p1=0·0003, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 33·95 [30·11–37·78] vs 33·89 [29·82–37·96], p1=0·0003, p2=0·0004). Equivalence testing on the difference between the proportion of biochemical recurrences between the two groups (13 [9%] in the open radical retropubic prostatectomy group vs four [3%] in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group) showed that equality between the two techniques could not be established based on a 90% CI with a prespecified margin of 10%. However, a superiority test showed that the two proportions were significantly different (p=0·0199). Equivalence testing on the proportion of patients who had imaging evidence of progression revealed that the two groups were not significantly different (p=0·2956). Interpretation: Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy yielded similar functional outcomes at 24 months. We advise caution in interpreting the oncological outcomes of our study because of the absence of standardisation in postoperative management between the two trial groups and the use of additional cancer treatments. Clinicians and patients should view the benefits of a robotic approach as being largely related to its minimally invasive nature. Funding: Cancer Council Queensland

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The absence of trial data comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy is a crucial knowledge gap in uro-oncology. We aimed to compare these two approaches in terms of functional and oncological outcomes and report the early postoperative outcomes at 12 weeks. METHOD: In this randomised controlled phase 3 study, men who had newly diagnosed clinically localised prostate cancer and who had chosen surgery as their treatment approach, were able to read and speak English, had no previous history of head injury, dementia, or psychiatric illness or no other concurrent cancer, had an estimated life expectancy of 10 years or more, and were aged between 35 years and 70 years were eligible and recruited from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (Brisbane, QLD). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy or radical retropubic prostatectomy. Randomisation was computer generated and occurred in blocks of ten. This was an open trial; however, study investigators involved in data analysis were masked to each patient's condition. Further, a masked central pathologist reviewed the biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Primary outcomes were urinary function (urinary domain of EPIC) and sexual function (sexual domain of EPIC and IIEF) at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 months and oncological outcome (positive surgical margin status and biochemical and imaging evidence of progression at 24 months). The trial was powered to assess health-related and domain-specific quality of life outcomes over 24 months. We report here the early outcomes at 6 weeks and 12 weeks. The per-protocol populations were included in the primary and safety analyses. This trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), number ACTRN12611000661976. FINDINGS: Between Aug 23, 2010, and Nov 25, 2014, 326 men were enrolled, of whom 163 were randomly assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and 163 to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. 18 withdrew (12 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and six assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy); thus, 151 in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group proceeded to surgery and 157 in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group. 121 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy completed the 12 week questionnaire versus 131 assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urinary function scores did not differ significantly between the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group at 6 weeks post-surgery (74·50 vs 71·10; p=0·09) or 12 weeks post-surgery (83·80 vs 82·50; p=0·48). Sexual function scores did not differ significantly between the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group at 6 weeks post-surgery (30·70 vs 32·70; p=0·45) or 12 weeks post-surgery (35·00 vs 38·90; p=0·18). Equivalence testing on the difference between the proportion of positive surgical margins between the two groups (15 [10%] in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group vs 23 [15%] in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group) showed that equality between the two techniques could not be established based on a 90% CI with a Δ of 10%. However, a superiority test showed that the two proportions were not significantly different (p=0·21). 14 patients (9%) in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group versus six (4%) in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group had postoperative complications (p=0·052). 12 (8%) men receiving radical retropubic prostatectomy and three (2%) men receiving robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy experienced intraoperative adverse events. INTERPRETATION: These two techniques yield similar functional outcomes at 12 weeks. Longer term follow-up is needed. In the interim, we encourage patients to choose an experienced surgeon they trust and with whom they have rapport, rather than a specific surgical approach. FUNDING: Cancer Council Queensland

Can atorvastatin with metformin change the natural history of prostate cancer as characterized by molecular, metabolomic, imaging and pathological variables? A randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Atorvastatin and metformin are known energy restricting mimetic agents that act synergistically to produce molecular and metabolic changes in advanced prostate cancer (PCa). This trial seeks to determine whether these drugs favourably alter selected parameters in men with clinically-localized, aggressive PCa. METHODS/DESIGN: This prospective phase II randomized, controlled window trial is recruiting men with clinically significant PCa, confirmed by biopsy following multiparametric MRI and intending to undergo radical prostatectomy. Ethical approval was granted by the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Human and The University of Queensland Medical Research Ethics Committees. Participants are being randomized into four groups: metformin with placebo; atorvastatin with placebo; metformin with atorvastatin; or placebo alone. Capsules are consumed for 8weeks, a duration selected as the most appropriate period in which histological and biochemical changes may be observed while allowing prompt treatment with curative intent of clinically significant PCa. At recruitment and prior to RP, participants provide blood, urine and seminal fluid. A subset of participants will undergo 7Tesla magnetic resonance spectroscopy to compare metabolites in-vivo with those in seminal fluid and biopsied tissue. The primary end point is biochemical evolution, defined using biomarkers (serum prostate specific antigen; PCA3 and citrate in seminal fluid and prostatic tissue). Standard pathological assessment will be undertaken. DISCUSSION: This study is designed to assess the potential synergistic action of metformin and atorvastatin on PCa tumour biology. The results may determine simple methods of tumour modulation to reduce disease progression