Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: The “Balancing Act” of Achieving Cancer Control and Minimizing Collateral Damage

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Urinary Continence and Sexual Function After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

Abstract

Oncologic outcomes after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) are surrogated by biochemical recurrence (BCR), itself influenced to some extent by positive surgical margin (PSM) rates. In this chapter, we will review the oncologic outcomes after RARP, focusing on margin rates which are the outcome most immediately accessible and the one directly under the surgeon’s control. We will report our own multi-institutional series examining PSM and BCR in RARP cohorts. The balancing act all RARP surgeons must perform is to maintain oncologic outcomes while minimizing collateral damage and its consequent impact on urinary continence and erectile function. Lowering PSM rates almost always comes at the expense of increasing collateral damage, and hence it is crucial to interrogate the impact PSM have on well-established oncologic parameters like BCR. Finally, not all PSM are the same and the length and location of any PSM appear to be important, with significant differences between RARP and open RP. We conclude that for low-risk patients nerve sparing to optimize functional outcomes may take priority over reducing PSM; surgeons might accept small PSMs and those in the posterolateral region. However, for high-risk cases it might be more important to get a negative surgical margin (or at least a short PSM or a nonapical PSM) than minimize collateral damage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Orr DP, Fineberg NS, Gray DL. Glycemic control and transfer of health care among adolescents with insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. J Adolesc Health. 1996;18(1):44–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):467–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M, Serio AM, Gorbonos A, Maru N, et al. Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 2007;70(5):965–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Eisenberger M, Dorey FJ, Walsh PC, et al. Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2005;294(4):433–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Antonarakis ES, Chen Y, Elsamanoudi SI, Brassell SA, Da Rocha MV, Eisenberger MA, et al. Long-term overall survival and metastasis-free survival for men with prostate-specific antigen-recurrent prostate cancer after prostatectomy: analysis of the Center for Prostate Disease Research National Database. BJU Int. 2011;108(3):378–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL, Carlson RE, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, et al. The impact of positive surgical margins on mortality following radical prostatectomy during the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol. 2010;183(3):1003–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chalfin HJ, Dinizo M, Trock BJ, Feng Z, Partin AW, Walsh PC, et al. Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality. BJU Int. 2012;110(11):1684–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mauermann J, Fradet V, Lacombe L, Dujardin T, Tiguert R, Tetu B, et al. The impact of solitary and multiple positive surgical margins on hard clinical end points in 1712 adjuvant treatment-naive pT2-4 N0 radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol. 2013;64(1):19–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pfitzenmaier J, Pahernik S, Tremmel T, Haferkamp A, Buse S, Hohenfellner M. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression? BJU Int. 2008;102(10):1413–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, Ellis WJ, Stanford JL, Lange PH, et al. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol. 2010;183(6):2213–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Alkhateeb S, Alibhai S, Fleshner N, Finelli A, Jewett M, Zlotta A, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy differs by disease risk group. J Urol. 2010;183(1):145–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Shah SK, Fleet TM, Williams V, Smith AY, Skipper B, Wiggins C. SEER coding standards result in underestimation of positive surgical margin incidence at radical prostatectomy: results of a systematic audit. J Urol. 2011;186(3):855–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stephenson AJ, Eggener SE, Hernandez AV, Klein EA, Kattan MW, Wood Jr DP, et al. Do margins matter? The influence of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer-specific mortality. Eur Urol. 2014;65(4):675–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, Han M, Partin AW, Trock BJ, et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011;185(3):869–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, Epstein J, Graefen M, Montironi R, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):303–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR, Bianchi M, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol. 2012;61(4):679–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P. 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):1–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sooriakumaran P, John M, Wiklund P, Lee D, Nilsson A, Tewari AK. Learning curve for robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study of 3794 patients. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2011;63(3):191–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sofer M, Hamilton-Nelson KL, Civantos F, Soloway MS. Positive surgical margins after radical retropubic prostatectomy: the influence of site and number on progression. J Urol. 2002;167(6):2453–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Swanson GP, Lerner SP. Positive margins after radical prostatectomy: implications for failure and role of adjuvant treatment. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(5):531–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kausik SJ, Blute ML, Sebo TJ, Leibovich BC, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak J, et al. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in patients with extraprostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2002;95(6):1215–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, Miller DP, Yu J, Flanders SC, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and the use of secondary cancer treatment: data from the CaPSURE database. J Urol. 2000;163(4):1171–7. quiz 295.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pettus JA, Weight CJ, Thompson CJ, Middleton RG, Stephenson RA. Biochemical failure in men following radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact of surgical margin status and location. J Urol. 2004;172(1):129–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fontenot PA, Mansour AM. Reporting positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: time for standardization. BJU Int. 2013;111(8):E290–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stephenson AJ, Wood DP, Kattan MW, Klein EA, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al. Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182(4):1357–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Resnick MJ, Canter DJ, Guzzo TJ, Magerfleisch L, Tomaszewski JE, Brucker BM, et al. Defining pathological variables to predict biochemical failure in patients with positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy: implications for adjuvant radiotherapy. BJU Int. 2010;105(10):1377–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kordan Y, Salem S, Chang SS, Clark PE, Cookson MS, Davis R, et al. Impact of positive apical surgical margins on likelihood of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182(6):2695–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Shikanov S, Song J, Royce C, Al-Ahmadie H, Zorn K, Steinberg G, et al. Length of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy as a predictor of biochemical recurrence. J Urol. 2009;182(1):139–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. May M, Brookman-May S, Weissbach L, Herbst H, Gilfrich C, Papadopoulos T, et al. Solitary and small (</=3 mm) apical positive surgical margins are related to biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2011;18(4):282–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Budaus L, Isbarn H, Eichelberg C, Lughezzani G, Sun M, Perrotte P, et al. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: multiplicative interaction between surgical margin status and pathological stage. J Urol. 2010;184(4):1341–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cao D, Humphrey PA, Gao F, Tao Y, Kibel AS. Ability of linear length of positive margin in radical prostatectomy specimens to predict biochemical recurrence. Urology. 2011;77(6):1409–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hsu M, Chang SL, Ferrari M, Nolley R, Presti Jr JC, Brooks JD. Length of site-specific positive surgical margins as a risk factor for biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2011;18(4):272–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brimo F, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis. Urology. 2010;76(5):1206–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Savdie R, Horvath LG, Benito RP, Rasiah KK, Haynes AM, Chatfield M, et al. High Gleason grade carcinoma at a positive surgical margin predicts biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and may guide adjuvant radiotherapy. BJU Int. 2012;109(12):1794–800.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Psutka SP, Feldman AS, Rodin D, Olumi AF, Wu CL, McDougal WS. Men with organ-confined prostate cancer and positive surgical margins develop biochemical failure at a similar rate to men with extracapsular extension. Urology. 2011;78(1):121–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Marks RA, Koch MO, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Juliar BE, Cheng L. The relationship between the extent of surgical margin positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol. 2007;38(8):1207–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sooriakumaran P, Ploumidis A, Nyberg T, Olsson M, Akre O, Haendler L, et al. The impact of length and location of positive margins in predicting biochemical recurrence after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with a minimum follow-up time of five years. BJU Int. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Steinberg GD, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. The Will Rogers phenomenon in urological oncology. J Urol. 2008;179(1):28–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Meeks JJ, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: positive surgical margins matter. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(7):974–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ohori M, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Lerner SP. Pathological features and prognostic significance of prostate cancer in the apical section determined by whole mount histology. J Urol. 1999;161(2):500–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Saether T, Sorlien LT, Viset T, Lydersen S, Angelsen A. Are positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens an independent prognostic marker? Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2008;42(6):514–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Anastasiou I, Tyritzis SI, Adamakis I, Mitropoulos D, Stravodimos KG, Katafigiotis I, et al. Prognostic factors identifying biochemical recurrence in patients with positive margins after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2011;43(3):715–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Godoy G, Tareen BU, Lepor H. Site of positive surgical margins influences biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2009;104(11):1610–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bastide C, Savage C, Cronin A, Zelefsky MJ, Eastham JA, Touijer K, et al. Location and number of positive surgical margins as prognostic factors of biochemical recurrence after salvage radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106(10):1454–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Salomon L, Anastasiadis AG, Levrel O, Katz R, Saint F, de la Taille A, et al. Location of positive surgical margins after retropubic, perineal, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology. 2003;61(2):386–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Guillonneau B, el-Fettouh H, Baumert H, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Fromont G, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases a Montsouris Institute. J Urol. 2003;169(4):1261–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Smith Jr JA, Chan RC, Chang SS, Herrell SD, Clark PE, Baumgartner R, et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2385–9. discussion 9-90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Patel VR, Coelho RF, Rocco B, Orvieto M, Sivaraman A, Palmer KJ, et al. Positive surgical margins after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. J Urol. 2011;186(2):511–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Dev HS, Wiklund P, Patel V, Parashar D, Palmer K, Nyberg T, et al. Surgical margin length and location affect recurrence rates after robotic prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(3):109.e7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kasraeian A, Barret E, Chan J, Sanchez-Salas R, Validire P, Cathelineau X, et al. Comparison of the rate, location and size of positive surgical margins after laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108(7):1174–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Fleshner NE, Evans A, Chadwick K, Lawrentschuk N, Zlotta A. Clinical significance of the positive surgical margin based upon location, grade, and stage. Urol Oncol. 2010;28(2):197–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):382–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sooriakumaran P, Haendler L, Nyberg T, Gronberg H, Nilsson A, Carlsson S, et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol. 2012;62(5):768–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Srivastava A, Chopra S, Pham A, Sooriakumaran P, Durand M, Chughtai B, et al. Effect of a risk-stratified grade of nerve-sparing technique on early return of continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):438–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Gonen M, Cronin AM, Eastham JA, Schrag D, et al. Effects of pathologic stage on the learning curve for radical prostatectomy: evidence that recurrence in organ-confined cancer is largely related to inadequate surgical technique. Eur Urol. 2008;53(5):960–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Mudaliar K, Tan GY, Grover S, El Douaihy Y, et al. Anatomical retro-apical technique of synchronous (posterior and anterior) urethral transection: a novel approach for ameliorating apical margin positivity during robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106(9):1364–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sooriakumaran P, Srivastava A, Shariat SF, Stricker PD, Ahlering T, Eden CG, et al. A multinational, multi-institutional study comparing positive surgical margin rates among 22393 open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  58. van den Ouden D, Bentvelsen FM, Boeve ER, Schroder FH. Positive margins after radical prostatectomy: correlation with local recurrence and distant progression. Br J Urol. 1993;72(4):489–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Fesseha T, Sakr W, Grignon D, Banerjee M, Wood Jr DP, Pontes JE. Prognostic implications of a positive apical margin in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 1997;158(6):2176–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Patel VR, Thaly R, Shah K. Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases. BJU Int. 2007;99(5):1109–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. Urology. 2004;63(5):819–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast TH, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):48–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. von Bodman C, Brock M, Roghmann F, Byers A, Loppenberg B, Braun K, et al. Intraoperative frozen section of the prostate decreases positive margin rate while ensuring nerve sparing procedure during radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2013;190(2):515–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX3 7DQ, UK

    P. Sooriakumaran MRCS, FRCSUrol

  2. Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

    P. Sooriakumaran MRCS, FRCSUrol & P. Wiklund M.D., Ph.D.

  3. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    H. S. Dev

  4. Department of Urology, Irvine Medical Center, University of California, Irvine, 333 The City Drive West, Suite 2100, RT 81, Orange, CA 92868, USA

    D. Skarecky & Thomas E. Ahlering

Authors
  1. P. Sooriakumaran MRCS, FRCSUrol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. S. Dev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Skarecky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas E. Ahlering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Wiklund M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Sooriakumaran MRCS, FRCSUrol .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Robotic Prostatectomy Institute, Urology Center of Excellence at Jackson South Hospital, Miami, Florida, USA

    Sanjay Razdan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sooriakumaran, P., Dev, H.S., Skarecky, D., Ahlering, T.E., Wiklund, P. (2016). Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: The “Balancing Act” of Achieving Cancer Control and Minimizing Collateral Damage. In: Razdan, S. (eds) Urinary Continence and Sexual Function After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39448-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39448-0_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-39446-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-39448-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation