Oncological outcomes with wide resection in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy as primary treatment for very high-risk prostate cancer

• Published in: Journal of clinical oncology Vol. 41; no. 6_suppl; p. 357
• Main Authors: Miura, Noriyoshi, Hashine, Katsuyoshi, Watanabe, Ryuta, Noda, Terutaka, Nishimura, Kenichi, Fukumoto, Tetsuya, Miyauchi, Yuki, Kikugawa, Tadahiko, Tacho, Takatoshi, Yanagaki, Takahiro, Oka, Akihiro, Takeda, Hajime, Watanabe, Yuichi, Ninomiya, Iku, Shirato, Akitomi, Saika, Takashi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 20.02.2023
• ISSN: 0732-183X; 1527-7755
• DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.6_suppl.357

357 Background: Patients with very high-risk prostate cancer (VHRPCa) have earlier biochemical recurrences (BCRs) and higher mortality rates. It remains unclear whether extended robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (eRARP) with intended wide resection can improve the outcomes of VHRPCa patients. We aimed to compare the oncological outcomes of eRARP versus standard RALP (sRARP) for primary treatment of VHRPCa. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 168 patients classified by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) as very high-risk who were treated with RARP without neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy between September 2011 and December 2020. eRARP was performed using the extra-fascial approach as reported by Gandaglia G et al. (Eur Urol. 71:249-256, 2017). We performed 1:1 propensity score matching to account for potential differences between eRARP and sRARP. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression models were used to test the effect of eRARP on the biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). This observational study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Results: There were 93 patients in the eRARP group and 75 in the sRARP group. The eRARP group had a worse clinical stage than the sRARP group ( p< 0.001). Age, pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA), and pretreatment Gleason score were similar in the two groups. All patients in the eRARP group underwent pelvic lymph node dissection, compared with 89% in the sRARP group. The propensity-adjusted 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates was 31.4% in the sRARP group and 67.4% in the eRARP group(p=0.001), respectively. The adjusted Cox regression analysis showed that the eRARP group had a significantly longer bPFS than the sRARP group (hazard ratio 0.415, p=0.0047). Conclusions: In patients with VHRPCa, eRARP was associated with a reduce risk of biochemical recurrence. These results suggest that eRARP may improve oncological outcomes in VHRPCa.