Abstract
The practice of radical prostatectomy for treating prostate cancer has evolved remarkably since its general introduction around 1900. Initially described using a perineal approach, the procedure was later popularized using a retropubic one, after it was first described as such in 1948. The open surgical method has now largely been abandoned in favour of the minimally invasive robot-assisted method, which was first described in 2000. Until 1980, the procedure was hazardous, often accompanied by massive blood loss and poor outcomes. For patients in whom surgery is indicated, prostatectomy is increasingly being used as the first step in a multitherapeutic approach in advanced local, and even early metastatic, disease. However, contemporary molecular insights have enabled many men to safely avoid surgical intervention when the disease is phenotypically indolent and use of active surveillance programmes continues to expand worldwide. In 2020, surgery is not recommended in those men with low-grade, low-volume Gleason 6 prostate cancer; previously these men — a large cohort of ~40% of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer — were offered surgery in large numbers, with little clinical benefit and considerable adverse effects. Radical prostatectomy is appropriate for men with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease (Gleason score 7–9 or Grade Groups 2–5) in whom radical prostatectomy prevents further metastatic seeding of potentially lethal clones of prostate cancer cells. Small series have suggested that it might be appropriate to offer radical prostatectomy to men presenting with small metastatic burden (nodal and or bone) as part of a multimodal therapeutic approach. Furthermore, surgical treatment of prostate cancer has been reported in cohorts of octogenarian men in good health with minimal comorbidities, when 20 years ago such men were rarely treated surgically even when diagnosed with localized high-risk disease. As medical therapies for prostate cancer continue to increase, the use of surgery might seem to be less relevant; however, the changing demographics of prostate cancer means that radical prostatectomy remains an important and useful option in many men, with a changing indication.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Young, H. H. VIII. conservative perineal prostatectomy: the results of two years’ experience and report of seventy-five cases. Ann. Surg. 41, 549–557 (1905).
Sathianathen, N. J. et al. Landmarks in prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 15, 627–642 (2018).
Millin, T. Retropubic prostatectomy. J. Urol. 59, 267–280 (1948).
Bailey, H., Love, R. J. A Short Practice of Surgery. 4th ed. (H.K.Lewis & Co Ltd., 1938).
Young, H. H. The cure of cancer of the prostate by radical perineal prostatectomy (prostato-seminal vesiculectomy). J. Urol. 53, 188–253 (1945).
Walsh, P. C. Radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostatic carcinoma. Urol. Clin. North Am. 7, 583–591 (1980).
Reiner, W. G. & Walsh, P. C. An anatomical approach to the surgical management of the dorsal vein complex. J. Urol. 121, 198–200 (1979).
Lange, P. H. & Reddy, P. K. Technical nuances and surgical results of radical retropubic prostatectomy in 150 patients. J. Urol. 138, 348–352 (1987).
Johnson & Boileau. in Genito Urinary Tumours Ch 3 46–47 (Grune and Stratton Sullivan, 1982).
Walsh, P. C. & Donker, P. J. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J. Urol. 128, 492–497 (1982).
Breyer, B. N. & McAninch, J. W. Management of recalcitrant bladder neck contracture after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Endoscopic and open surgery. J. Urol. 185, 390–391 (2011).
Msezane, L. P. et al. Bladder neck contracture after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: evaluation of incidence and risk factors and impact on urinary function. J. Endourol. 22, 97–104 (2008).
Harding Rains, A. J., Capper, M. Bailey & Love’s Short Practice of Surgery. (H.K.Lewis & Co Ltd., 1968).
Bumpus, H. C. Carcinoma of the prostate radium and surgical treatment. Surg. Gynaecol. Obstet. 35, 177 (1922).
Cabot, H. Factors influencing the mortality of suprapubic prostatectomy. Surg. Gynaecol. Obstet. 17, 689 (1913).
Blandy, J. P. Operative Urology (Blackwell, (1978).
Tornblom, M. et al. Lead time associated with screening for prostate cancer. Int. J. Cancer 108, 122–129 (2004).
Chang, S. L., Kibel, A. S., Brooks, J. D. & Chung, B. I. The impact of robotic surgery on the surgical management of prostate cancer in the USA. BJU Int. 115, 929–936 (2015).
Nuhn, P. et al. Update on systemic prostate cancer therapies: management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the Era of precision oncology. Eur. Urol. 75, 88–99 (2019).
Harding Rains, A. J. & Capper, M. Bailey & Love’s Short Practice of Surgery. 14th ed. (H.K.Lewis & Co Ltd, 1998).
Hudson, M. A., Bahnson, R. R. & Catalona, W. J. Clinical use of prostate specific antigen in patients with prostate cancer. J. Urol. 142, 1011–1017 (1989).
Catalona, W. J. et al. Detection of organ confined prostate cancer is increased through PSA based screening. JAMA 270, 948–954 (1993).
Ellis, W. J. et al. Early detection of prostate cancer with an ultrasensitive chemoluminescent PSA assay. Urology 50, 573–579 (1997).
Ragde, H. H., Aldape, H. C. & Bagley, C. M. Ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Biopsy gun superior to aspiration. Urology 32, 503–506 (1988).
Stabile, A. et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions. Nat. Rev. Urol. 17, 41–61 (2020).
McNeal, J. E., Redwine, E. A., Freiha, F. S. & Stamey, T. A. Zonal distribution of prostate cancer. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 12, 897–906 (1988).
Cohen, M. R. Laparoscopy, Culdography and Ginecography; Technique (Atlas Saunders, 1970).
Ferguson, C. M. Electrosurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am. Surg. 58, 96–99 (1992).
Ferzili, G. J., Trapasso, A., Raboy, A. & Albert, P. Extraperitoneal endoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection. J. Laparoendosc. Surg. 2, 39–44 (1992).
Abbou, C. C. et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. Urology 55, 630–633 (2000).
Steiner, M., Morton, R. A. & Walsh, P. C. Impact of anatomical radical prostatectomy on urinary continence. J. Urol. 145, 512–515 (1991).
Touijer, K. et al. Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis of outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005. J. Urol. 179, 1811–1817 (2008).
Ballantyne, G. H. & Moll, F. The daVinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surg. Clin. North Am. 83, 1293–1304 (2003).
Menon, M. et al. Vattikuti institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases. Urol. Clin. North Am. 31, 701–717 (2004).
Abbou, C. C. et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J. Urol. 165, 1964–1966 (2001).
Binder, J. & Kramer, W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 87, 408–410 (2001).
Goad, J. R. Scardino 1994 modifications of technique of radical prostatectomy to minimise blood loss. Atlas Urol. Clin. North Am. 2, 510–513 (1994).
Patel, V. R. et al. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 59, 702–707 (2011).
Nelson, J. B. The ongoing challenge of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 198, 1223–1225 (2017).
Kaye, D. R. et al. Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share? Nat. Rev. Urol. 12, 55–60 (2015).
Yaxley, J. W. et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 388, 1057–1066 (2016).
Secin, F. P., Joborn-Andres, T. & Bjartell, S. Multi-institutional study of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in prostate cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol 53, 134–145 (2008).
Cisek, L. J. & Walsh, P. C. Thromboembolic complications after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 42, 406–408 (1993).
Magera, J. S. et al. Increased optical magnification from 2.5× to 4.3× with technical modification lowers the positive margin rate in open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J. Urol. 179, 130–135 (2008).
Kaye, D. R., Mullins, J. K., Carter, H. B. & Bivalacqua, T. J. Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share? Nat. Rev. Urol. 12, 55–60 (2015).
Vaessen, C. Location of robotic surgical systems world-wide and in France. J. Visc. Surg. 148 (Suppl.), e9–e11 (2011).
Rassweiler, J. J. et al. Future of robotic surgery in urology. BJU Int. 120, 822–841 (2017).
Capogrosso, P. et al. Are we improving erectile function recovery after radical prostatectomy? Analysis of patients treated over the last decade. Eur. Urol. 75, 221–228 (2019).
Costello, A. J. Editorial comment. J. Urol. 198, 606 (2017).
Novara, G. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 62, 382–404 (2012).
Carlsson, S. et al. Oncological and functional outcomes 1 year after radical prostatectomy for very-low-risk prostate cancer: results from the prospective LAPPRO trial. BJU Int. 118, 205–212 (2016).
Trinh, Q. D. et al. A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 64, 786–798 (2013).
Thompson, R. H., Slezak, J. M., Webster, W. S. & Lieber, M. M. Radical prostatectomy for octogenarians: how old is too old? Urology 68, 1042–1045 (2006).
Costello, A. J. Beyond marketing: the real value of robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 96, 1–2 (2005).
Coughlin, G. D. et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol. 19, 1051–1060 (2018).
Vickers, A. J. Editorial comment on: impact of surgical volume on the rate of lymph node metastases in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection for clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 54, 802–803 (2008).
Begg, C. B. et al. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 1138–1144 (2002).
Vickers, A. J. 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. 53, 960–966 (2008).
Tharmalingam, H. et al. New approaches for effective and safe pelvic radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 16, 523–538 (2019).
Ku, S., Gleave, M. E. & Beltran, H. Towards precision oncology in advanced prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 16, 645–654 (2019).
Rescigno, P. & de Bono, J. S. Immunotherapy for lethal prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 16, 69–70 (2019).
Bruinsma, S. et al. Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer — results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure. Nat. Rev. Urol. 14, 312–322 (2017).
Student, V. Jr. et al. Advanced reconstruction of vesicourethral support (ARVUS) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: one-year functional outcomes in a two-group randomised controlled trial. Eur. Urol. 71, 822–830 (2017).
Rocco, B. et al. Posterior musculofascial reconstruction after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of the literature. Eur. Urol. 62, 779–790 (2012).
Coakley, F. V. et al. Urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy: relationship with membranous urethral length on preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. J. Urol. 168, 1032–1035 (2002).
Schlomm, T. et al. Full functional-length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 60, 320–329 (2011).
Menon, M. et al. Functional recovery, oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an evidence-based analysis comparing the retzius sparing and standard approaches. J. Urol. 199, 1210–1217 (2018).
John, H. & Hauri, D. Seminal vesicle-sparing radical prostatectomy: a novel concept to restore early urinary continence. Urology 55, 820–824 (2000).
Savera, A. T. et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy with the “Veil of Aphrodite” technique: histologic evidence of enhanced nerve sparing. Eur. Urol. 49, 1065–1073 (2006).
Haglind, E. et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur. Urol. 68, 216–225 (2015).
Pignot, G. et al. Systemic treatments for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 15, 498–510 (2018).
Klotz, L. et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 126–131 (2010).
Dall’Era, M. A. et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur. Urol. 62, 976–983 (2012).
Lengana, T. et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT replacing bone scan in the initial staging of skeletal metastasis in prostate cancer: a fait accompli? Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 16, 392–401 (2018).
Culp, S. H., Schellhammer, P. F. & Williams, M. B. Might men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer benefit from definitive treatment of the primary tumor? A SEER-based study. Eur. Urol. 65, 1058–1066 (2014).
Dundee, P. et al. Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand-positron-emission tomography: still just the tip of the iceberg. Urology 120, 187–191 (2018).
Finne, P. et al. Lead time in the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur. J. Can. 46, 3102–3108 (2010).
Assel, M. et al. Association between lead time and prostate cancer grade: evidence of grade progression from long-term follow-up of large population-based cohorts not subject to prostate-specific antigen screening. Eur. Urol. 73, 961–967 (2018).
Halsted, W. S. I. A clinical and histological study of certain adenocarcinomata of the breast: and a brief consideration of the supraclavicular operation and of the results of operations for cancer of the breast from 1889 to 1898 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Ann. Surg. 28, 557–576 (1898).
Babaian, R. et al. Metastases from transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Urology 16, 142–144 (1980).
Shah, R. B. et al. Androgen independant prostate cancer is a heterogenous group of diseases. Cancer Res. 64, 9209–9216 (2004).
Sharma, V. et al. Gene expression correlates of site-specific metastasis among men with lymph node positive prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: a case series. Urology 112, 29–32 (2018).
van Leeuwen, F. W. B. et al. Technologies for image-guided surgery for managing lymphatic metastases in prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 16, 159–171 (2019).
Perera et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 15, 686–692 (2018).
Mattei, A. et al. The template of theprimary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur. Urol. 53, 118–125 (2008).
Yaxley, J. W. et al. Reconsidering the role of pelvic lymph node dissection with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in an era of improving radiological staging techniques. World J. Urol. 36, 15–20 (2018).
Ploussard, G. et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications-a systematic review of the literature. Eur. Urol. 65, 7–16 (2014).
Donin, N. M. & Reiter, R. E. Why targeting PSMA is a game changer in the management of prostate cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 59, 177–182 (2018).
Jadvar, H. & Ballas, L. K. PSMA PET: transformational change in prostate cancer management? J. Nucl. Med. 59, 228–229 (2018).
Meredith, G. et al. The use of GaPSMA PET/CT in men with biochemical recurrence after definitive treatment of acinar prostate cancer. BJU Int. 118, 49–55 (2016).
Burkhard, F. C. & Studer, U. E. The role of lymphadenectomy in high risk prostate cancer. World J. Urol. 26, 231–236 (2008).
Aguirre-Ghiso, J. A. Models, mechanisms and clinical evidence for cancer dormancy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 7, 834–846 (2007).
Seiler, R., Studer, U. E., Tschan, K., Bader, P. & Burkhard, F. C. Removal of limited nodal disease in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: long-term results confirm a chance for cure. J. Urol. 191, 1280–1285 (2014).
Pierorazio, P. M. et al. Pathological and oncologic outcomes for men with positive lymph nodes at radical prostatectomy: the Johns Hopkins Hospital 30-year experience. Prostate 73, 1673–1680 (2013).
Ost, P. et al. Progression-free survival following stereotactic body radiotherapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer treatment-naive recurrence: a multi-institutional analysis. Eur. Urol. 69, 9–12 (2016).
Murphy, D. G. & Costello, A. J. How can the autonomic nervous system contribute to urinary continence following radical prostatectomy? a “boson-like” conundrum. Eur. Urol. 63, 445–447 (2013).
Reeves, F. et al. Preservation of the neurovascular bundles is associated with improved time to continence after radical prostatectomy but not long-term continence rates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 68, 692–704 (2015).
Takenaka, A. et al. Preservation of the puboprostatic collar and puboperineoplasty for early recovery of urinary continence after robotic prostatectomy: anatomic basis and preliminary outcomes. Eur. Urol. 51, 433–440 (2007).
Sohayda, C. et al. Extent of extracapsular extension in localized prostate cancer. Urology 55, 382–386 (2000).
Costello, A. J., Brooks, M. & Cole, O. J. Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int. 94, 1071–1076 (2004).
Weerakoon, M. et al. The current use of active surveillance in an Australian cohort of men: a pattern of care analysis from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry. BJU Int. 115, 50–56 (2015).
Parker, C. C. et al. Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 392, 2353–2366 (2018).
DiBlasio, C. J. et al. Patterns of sexual and erectile dysfunction and response to treatment in patients receiving androgen derivation therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 102, 39–43 (2008).
Jadvar, H. & Ballas, L. K. PSMA PET: transformational change in prostate cancer management. J. Nucl. Med. 59, 228–229 (2018).
Clark, C. E. et al. Adopting robotics training into a general surgery residency curriculum: where are we now? Curr. Surg. Rep. 7, 2 (2019).
Clarebrough, E. E. et al. Cadaveric analysis of periprostatic nerve distribution: an anatomical basis for high anterior release during radical prostatectomy? J. Urol. 185, 1519–1525 (2011).
Koraitim, M. M. The male urethral sphincter complex revisited: an anatomical concept and its physiological correlate. J. Urol. 179, 1683–1689 (2008).
Kim, P. H. et al. Trends in the use of incontinence procedures after radical prostatectomy: a population based analysis. J. Urol. 189, 602–608 (2013).
Ficarra, V. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 62, 418–430 (2012).
Gilbert, S. M. et al. Functional outcomes following nerve sparing prostatectomy augmented with seminal vesicle sparing compared to standard nerve sparing prostatectomy: results from a randomized controlled trial. J. Urol. 198, 600–607 (2017).
Lim, S. K. et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: combining the best of retropubic and perineal approaches. BJU Int. 114, 236–244 (2014).
Dalela, D. et al. A pragmatic randomized controlled trial examining the impact of Retzius-sparing approach on early urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 72, 677–685 (2017).
Brennen, W. N. & Isaacs, J. T. Mesenchymal stem cells and the embryonic reawakening theory of BPH. Nat. Rev. Urol. 15, 703–715 (2018).
Acknowledgements
The author thanks H. Crowe for her valuable contributions to the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Costello, A.J. Considering the role of radical prostatectomy in 21st century prostate cancer care. Nat Rev Urol 17, 177–188 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-020-0287-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-020-0287-y
This article is cited by
-
Index tumor location affected early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with negative surgical margin: a retrospective study
BMC Urology (2024)
-
Nanomedicine for Prostate Cancer Treatment
BioNanoScience (2024)
-
Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a multicenter experience with the Senhance Surgical System
World Journal of Urology (2024)
-
Quantified treatment effect at the individual level is more indicative for personalized radical prostatectomy recommendation: implications for prostate cancer treatment using deep learning
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology (2024)
-
Feasibility of same-day discharge of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection
World Journal of Urology (2024)