Explore the vast range of titles available.

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. 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. 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. 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. Cancer Council Queensland.

We previously found no significant differences in mortality between men who underwent surgery for localized prostate cancer and those who were treated with observation only. Uncertainty persists regarding nonfatal health outcomes and long-term mortality. From November 1994 through January 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer to radical prostatectomy or observation. We extended follow-up through August 2014 for our primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and the main secondary outcome, prostate-cancer mortality. We describe disease progression, treatments received, and patient-reported outcomes through January 2010 (original follow-up). During 19.5 years of follow-up (median, 12.7 years), death occurred in 223 of 364 men (61.3%) assigned to surgery and in 245 of 367 (66.8%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 5.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 12.4; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.01; P=0.06). Death attributed to prostate cancer or treatment occurred in 27 men (7.4%) assigned to surgery and in 42 men (11.4%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.2 to 8.3; hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.02; P=0.06). Surgery may have been associated with lower all-cause mortality than observation among men with intermediate-risk disease (absolute difference, 14.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.8 to 25.6) but not among those with low-risk disease (absolute difference, 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -10.5 to 11.8) or high-risk disease (absolute difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.5 to 16.1) (P=0.08 for interaction). Treatment for disease progression was less frequent with surgery than with observation (absolute difference, 26.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 19.0 to 32.9); treatment was primarily for asymptomatic, local, or biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) progression. Urinary incontinence and erectile and sexual dysfunction were each greater with surgery than with observation through 10 years. Disease-related or treatment-related limitations in activities of daily living were greater with surgery than with observation through 2 years. After nearly 20 years of follow-up among men with localized prostate cancer, surgery was not associated with significantly lower all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality than observation. Surgery was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events than observation but a lower frequency of treatment for disease progression, mostly for asymptomatic, local, or biochemical progression. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and others; PIVOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007644 .).

BackgroundPost-prostatectomy urinary incontinence is an adverse event leading to significant distress. Our aim was to evaluate immediate urinary continence (UC) recovery in a single-surgeon prospective randomized comparative study between the traditional robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (TR-RALP) and the Retzius-sparing RALP (RS-RALP), for the treatment of the clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa).Methods102 consecutive PCa patients were prospectively randomized to TR-RALP (57) or RS-RALP (45). Postoperative continence was defined as patient-reported absence of leakage or use of 0 pads/day. The immediate continence rate and 95% confidence interval (CI 95%) were calculated for each treatment. Univariable and multivariate logistic regressions were used to assess predictors of immediate continence following RALP. Continence rates from 1 to 6 months were calculated by Kaplan–Meier curves; log-rank test was used for the curve comparison. Two analyses were performed, considering a per-protocol (PP) population regarding all randomized patients that received nerve-sparing RALP and an Intention-To-Treat (ITT) population regarding all randomized patients that received RALP.ResultsIn the PP analysis, the rates of immediate continence were 12/40 (30%) (CI 95% 17–47%) for the TR-RALP and 20/39 (51.3%) (CI 95% 35–68%) for the RS-RALP (p = 0.05). In the ITT analysis, the corresponding rates were 12/57 (21%) (CI 95% 11–34%) for the TR-RALP and 23/45 (51%) (CI 95% 36–66%) for the RS-RALP (p = 0.001). Median time to continence was 21 days for the TR-RALP and 1 day for RS-RALP, respectively (p = 0.02). The relative Kaplan–Meier curves regarding continence resulted statistically different when compared with the log rank test (p = 0.02). In the multivariate analysis, lower age and the Retzius-sparing approach were significantly associated to earlier continence recovery.ConclusionsThe Retzius-sparing approach significantly reduces time to continence following RALP. Further studies are required to confirm the reproducibility of our results and investigate the role of the RS-RALP as an additional “protective” factor for postoperative continence in the elderly population.

Targeted real-time imaging during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy provides information on the localisation and extent of prostate cancer. We assessed the safety and feasibility of the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted fluorescent tracer OTL78 in patients with prostate cancer. In this single-arm, phase 2a, feasibility trial with an adaptive design was carried out in The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Netherlands. Male patients aged 18 years or older, with PSMA PET-avid prostate cancer with an International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group of 2 or more, who were scheduled to undergo robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with or without extended pelvic lymph node dissection were eligible. All patients had a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using OTL78. Based on timing and dose, patients received a single intravenous infusion of OTL78 (0·06 mg/kg 1–2 h before surgery [dose cohort 1], 0·03 mg/kg 1–2 h before surgery [dose cohort 2], or 0·03 mg/kg 24 h before surgery [dose cohort 3]). The primary outcomes, assessed in all enrolled patients, were safety and pharmacokinetics of OTL78. This study is completed and is registered in the European Trial Database, 2019-002393-31, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, NL8552, and is completed. Between June 29, 2020, and April 1, 2021, 19 patients were screened for eligibility, 18 of whom were enrolled. The median age was 69 years (IQR 64–70) and median prostate-specific antigen concentration was 15 ng/mL (IQR 9·3–22·0). In 16 (89%) of 18 patients, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was accompanied by an extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Three serious adverse events occurred in one (6%) patient: an infected lymphocele, a urosepsis, and an intraperitoneal haemorrhage. These adverse events were considered unrelated to the administration of OTL78 or intraoperative fluorescence imaging. No patient died, required a dose reduction, or required discontinuation due to drug-related toxicity. The dose-normalised maximum serum concentration (Cmax/dose) in patients was 84·1 ng/mL/mg for the 0·03 mg/kg dose and 79·6 ng/mL/mg for the 0·06 mg/kg dose, the half-life was 5·1 h for the 0·03 mg/kg dose and 4·7 h for the 0·06 mg/kg dose, the volume of distribution was 22·9 L for the 0·03 mg/kg dose and 19·5 L for the 0·06 mg/kg dose, and the clearance was 3·1 L/h for the 0·03 mg/kg dose and 3·0 L/h for the 0·06 mg/kg dose. This first-in-patient study showed that OTL78 was well tolerated and had the potential to improve prostate cancer detection. Optimal dosing was 0·03 mg/kg, 24 h preoperatively. PSMA-directed fluorescence imaging allowed real-time identification of visually occult prostate cancer and might help to achieve complete oncological resections. On Target Laboratories.

Sparing the periprostatic neurovascular bundles during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) improves postoperative erectile function and early urinary continence recovery. The NeuroSAFE technique, a standardised frozen section analysis, enables accurate real-time detection of positive surgical margins during nerve-sparing, increasing the likelihood of successful nerve preservation. However, the impact of the technique on patient outcomes remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the effect of NeuroSAFE-guided RARP versus standard RARP on erectile function and urinary continence. NeuroSAFE PROOF was a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial done at five National Health Service hospitals in the UK. Key eligibility criteria were a diagnosis of non-metastatic prostate cancer deemed suitable to undergo RARP, good erectile function (defined as a score of ≥22 on the first 5 items of the International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF]) without medical erectile function assistance, and no previous prostate cancer treatment. No age limits were applied. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to standard RARP or NeuroSAFE-guided RARP using block randomisation, stratified by site. Masking of participants to allocation was maintained throughout, but patients were informed of their nerve-sparing status after the operation. Due to the nature of the intervention, operating teams were aware of treatment group. Nerve-sparing was guided by a preoperative plan in the standard RARP group and by intraoperative NeuroSAFE assessment in the NeuroSAFE group. The primary outcome was erectile function at 12 months, assessed using the IIEF-5 score, in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned participants who had surgery. Secondary endpoints were urinary continence scores at 3 and 6 months, evaluated using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ), and the erectile function domain of the IIEF (IIEF-6) scores at 12 months. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03317990. Between Jan 6, 2019, and Dec 6, 2022, 407 patients were recruited, of whom 381 had surgery (190 participants in the NeuroSAFE group and 191 participants in the standard RARP group), and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Data for the primary outcome (IIEF-5 score at 12 months) were available for 344 participants (173 in the NeuroSAFE group and 171 participants in the standard RARP group). Median follow-up was 12·3 months (IQR 11·8–12·7). At 12 months, the mean IIEF-5 score was 12·7 (SD 8·0) in the NeuroSAFE group versus 9·7 (7·5) in the standard RARP group (adjusted mean difference 3·18 [95% CI 1·62 to 4·75]; p<0·0001). At 3 months, the ICIQ score was significantly lower in the NeuroSAFE group than the standard RARP group (adjusted mean difference –1·41 [95% CI –2·42 to –0·41]; p=0·006). At 6 months, no significant difference in ICIQ score was observed between groups (adjusted mean difference –0·37 [95% CI –1·35 to 0·62]; p=0·46). At 12 months, the mean IIEF-6 score was higher in the NeuroSAFE group than in the standard RARP group (15·3 [SD 9·7] vs 11·5 [SD 9·0]; adjusted mean difference 3·92 [95% CI 2·01 to 5·83]; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events occurred in six (3%) of 190 patients in the NeuroSAFE group, and and in five (3%) of 191 patients in the standard RARP group. All adverse events were postoperative complications; no serious adverse events or deaths were attributed to the study intervention. The use of NeuroSAFE to guide nerve-sparing during RARP improves patient-reported IIEF-5 scores at 12 months and short-term urinary continence. The erectile function benefit is enhanced in patients who would not otherwise have undergone bilateral nerve-sparing by standard practice. National Institute of Healthcare Research, JP Moulton Charitable Foundation, UCLH Charity, St Peters Trust, and Rosetrees Trust.

Prostate cancer is often treated with radical prostatectomy, but surgery can leave patients with side effects. Patients who actively take part in their rehabilitation have been shown to achieve better clinical outcomes. eHealth support has the potential to increase patient activation, but has rarely been evaluated in long-term randomized controlled trials. Therefore, we evaluated the effects on patient activation of eHealth support (electronic Patient Activation in Treatment at Home, ePATH) based on motivational theory. The aim was to investigate the effects of eHealth support on patient activation at 6 and 12 months after radical prostatectomy, compared with standard care alone, and associations with baseline patient activation and depression. A multicentre randomized controlled trial with two study arms was conducted. Men planned for radical prostatectomy at three county hospitals in southern Sweden were included and randomized to the intervention or control group. The effects of ePATH on the secondary outcome, patient activation, were evaluated for one year after surgery using the patient activation measure and analysed using a linear mixed model. The study included 170 men during 2018-2019. In the intervention group, 64% (53/83) used ePATH. The linear mixed model showed no significant differences between groups in patient activation [β -2.32, P .39; CI -7.64-3.00]. Baseline patient activation [β 0.65, P < .001; CI 0.40-0.91] and depression [β -0.86, P .03; CI -1.64- -0.07] statistically impacted patient activation scores over one year. ePATH had no impact on patient activation during long-term prostate cancer rehabilitation. However, patient activation at baseline and depression scores significantly influenced patient activation, underlining the need to assess these aspects in prostate cancer surgery rehabilitation. ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN18055968, (07/06/2018); https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN18055968; International Registered Report Identifier: RR2-10.2196/11625.

For men with localised prostate cancer, surgery provides a survival benefit compared with watchful waiting. Treatments are associated with morbidity. Results for functional outcome and quality of life are rarely reported beyond 10 years and are lacking from randomised settings. We report results for quality of life for men in the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4) after a median follow-up of more than 12 years. All living Swedish and Finnish men (400 of 695) randomly assigned to radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in SPCG-4 from 1989 to 1999 were included in our analysis. An additional 281 men were included in a population-based control group matched for region and age. Physical symptoms, symptom-induced stress, and self-assessed quality of life were evaluated with a study-specific questionnaire. Longitudinal data were available for 166 Swedish men who had answered quality-of-life questionnaires at an earlier timepoint. 182 (88%) of 208 men in the radical prostatectomy group, 167 (87%) of 192 men in the watchful-waiting group, and 214 (76%) of 281 men in the population-based control group answered the questionnaire. Men in SPCG-4 had a median follow-up of 12·2 years (range 7–17) and a median age of 77·0 years (range 61–88). High self-assessed quality of life was reported by 62 (35%) of 179 men allocated radical prostatectomy, 55 (34%) of 160 men assigned to watchful waiting, and 93 (45%) of 208 men in the control group. Anxiety was higher in the SPCG-4 groups (77 [43%] of 178 and 69 [43%] of 161 men) than in the control group (68 [33%] of 208 men; relative risk 1·42, 95% CI 1·07–1·88). Prevalence of erectile dysfunction was 84% (146 of 173 men) in the radical prostatectomy group, 80% (122 of 153) in the watchful-waiting group, and 46% (95 of 208) in the control group and prevalence of urinary leakage was 41% (71 of 173), 11% (18 of 164), and 3% (six of 209), respectively. Distress caused by these symptoms was reported significantly more often by men allocated radical prostatectomy than by men assigned to watchful waiting. In a longitudinal analysis of men in SPCG-4 who provided information at two follow-up points 9 years apart, 38 (45%) of 85 men allocated radical prostatectomy and 48 (60%) of 80 men allocated watchful waiting reported an increase in number of physical symptoms; 50 (61%) of 82 and 47 (64%) of 74 men, respectively, reported a reduction in quality of life. For men in SPCG-4, negative side-effects were common and added more stress than was reported in the control population. In the radical prostatectomy group, erectile dysfunction and urinary leakage were often consequences of surgery. In the watchful-waiting group, side-effects can be caused by tumour progression. The number and severity of side-effects changes over time at a higher rate than is caused by normal ageing and a loss of sexual ability is a persistent psychological problem for both interventions. An understanding of the patterns of side-effects and time dimension of their occurrence for each treatment is important for full patient information. US National Institutes of Health; Swedish Cancer Society; Foundation in Memory of Johanna Hagstrand and Sigfrid Linnér.

Background Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) gains increasing popularity in the surgical management of prostate cancer (PCa) but is challenged by its prohibitive expense. A domestic robotic system has been developed to address this issue, but data comparing the self-developed robot with the widely used robot is lacking. We performed a randomized clinical trial to compare KD-SR-01 ® and DaVinci ® robots in terms of perioperative, short-term oncological and functional outcomes in RARP. Materials and methods We prospectively enrolled patients with clinically localized PCa. Patients were randomized to undergo either KD-SR-01 ® -RARP (K-RARP) or DaVinci ® -RARP (D-RARP) by the same surgical team. The baseline, perioperative, short-term oncologic and urinary functional data were collected and compared. Results We enrolled 39 patients, including 20 patients undergoing K-RARP and 19 undergoing D-RARP. Demographic and tumor characteristics were comparable between groups. All surgeries were performed successfully with no conversion to open. The operative time was similar ( P  = 0.095) and K-RARP offered less volume of intraoperative bleeding ( P  < 0.001). Four patients in the K-RARP group and three in the D-RARP group developed postoperative complications ( P  = 0.732). Patients undergoing K-RARP had less volume of drainage ( P  = 0.022). Positive surgical margins were observed in three patients undergoing K-RARP and five undergoing D-RARP ( P  = 0.451). During the follow up, one patient receiving K-RARP group and two receiving D-RARP group had measurable prostate specific antigen ( P  = 0.605). Urine leakage, urinary control and pad usage were comparable between groups at six weeks post-surgery. Conclusions The two surgical robots yielded similar results in feasibility, safety and short-term oncologic and functional efficacy for RARP. Trial registration The trial has been registered at www.chictr.org.cn with a registration number of ChiCTR2200057000 on 25th February 2022.

Prostate cancer, a common malignancy in older men, often requires laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, considered the gold standard treatment. However, postoperative complications can significantly impact quality of life and psychological well-being. The emergence of mobile internet health management offers a promising approach for accessible and effective post-discharge care. This study evaluates the effectiveness of mobile internet management in postoperative care for prostate cancer patients, focusing on disease knowledge, psychological well-being, self-care capabilities, and quality of life. From September 2020 to September 2021, prostate cancer patients who underwent radical surgery at our Department of Urology were divided into a control group receiving standard care and an intervention group receiving mobile internet-based care. Patients were followed over six months, with assessments conducted at both 3 and 6 months post-intervention. We evaluated changes in disease knowledge, psychological status (using SAS/SDS scales), self-care ability (via the ESCA scale), and quality of life (measured by SF-36). A total of 112 patients were divided into two groups of 56 each. Repeated measures ANOVA indicated significant improvements in disease knowledge over time, between groups, and in their interaction (P < 0.05). Mastery scores of disease knowledge increased at both 3 and 6 months post-intervention compared to baseline (P < 0.05). The intervention group showed significantly reduced scores on the self-rating depression scale (SDS) and self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) compared to the control group (P < 0.05). Self-care capabilities—including self-directed concept, nursing responsibility, skills, and health knowledge level—also improved, with more pronounced gains in the intervention group (P < 0.05). Quality of life scores in domains such as social function, mental health, vitality, role emotional, bodily pain, role physical, physical function, and general health were higher in the intervention group than in the control group post-intervention (P < 0.05). Mobile internet management significantly enhances postoperative care for prostate cancer patients by improving disease knowledge, psychological well-being, self-care capabilities, and quality of life. These findings support further research to validate long-term benefits and broader application potentials.

Objective To analyze postoperative ileus rates and postoperative complications between the different pneumoperitoneum settings. The secondary objective was to evaluate narcotic use and intraoperative blood loss between the different pneumoperitoneum settings. Methods A prospective, randomized, double blinded study was conducted at pneumoperitoneum pressures of either 12 mmHg or 15 mmHg for patients undergoing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection by a single high volume surgeon. Results The risk of ileus in the 12 mmHg group was 1.9% (2/105) compared to 3.2% (3/93) in the 15 mmHg group (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.1−3.6). There was no difference in the risk of any complication with a complication rate of 4.8% (5/105) in the 12 mmHg arm compared to 4.3% (4/93) in the 15 mmHg arm (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.3 – 4.3). Conclusion Pneumoperitoneum pressure setting of 12 mmHg has no significant difference to 15 mmHg in the rate of postoperative complications, narcotic use, and intraoperative bleeding. Additional research is warranted to understand the optimal.