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.

At 23 years of follow-up in the SPCG-4 trial, mortality among men who underwent radical prostatectomy was 11.7 percentage points lower than that among men whose condition was managed by watchful waiting. Radical prostatectomy was associated with a mean of nearly 3 years of extra life.

We report the long-term results of a trial of immediate postoperative irradiation versus a wait-and-see policy in patients with prostate cancer extending beyond the prostate, to confirm whether previously reported progression-free survival was sustained. This randomised, phase 3, controlled trial recruited patients aged 75 years or younger with untreated cT0–3 prostate cancer (WHO performance status 0 or 1) from 37 institutions across Europe. Eligible patients were randomly assigned centrally (1:1) to postoperative irradiation (60 Gy of conventional irradiation to the surgical bed for 6 weeks) or to a wait-and-see policy until biochemical progression (increase in prostate-specific antigen >0·2 μg/L confirmed twice at least 2 weeks apart). We analysed the primary endpoint, biochemical progression-free survival, by intention to treat (two-sided test for difference at α=0.05, adjusted for one interim analysis) and did exploratory analyses of heterogeneity of effect. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00002511. 1005 patients were randomly assigned to a wait-and-see policy (n=503) or postoperative irradiation (n=502) and were followed up for a median of 10·6 years (range 2 months to 16·6 years). Postoperative irradiation significantly improved biochemical progression-free survival compared with the wait-and-see policy (198 [39·4%] of 502 patients in postoperative irradiation group vs 311 [61·8%] of 503 patients in wait-and-see group had biochemical or clinical progression or died; HR 0·49 [95% CI 0·41–0·59]; p<0·0001). Late adverse effects (any type of any grade) were more frequent in the postoperative irradiation group than in the wait-and-see group (10 year cumulative incidence 70·8% [66·6–75·0] vs 59·7% [55·3–64·1]; p=0.001). Results at median follow-up of 10·6 years show that conventional postoperative irradiation significantly improves biochemical progression-free survival and local control compared with a wait-and-see policy, supporting results at 5 year follow-up; however, improvements in clinical progression-free survival were not maintained. Exploratory analyses suggest that postoperative irradiation might improve clinical progression-free survival in patients younger than 70 years and in those with positive surgical margins, but could have a detrimental effect in patients aged 70 years or older. Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer (Comité de l'Isère, Grenoble, France) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Charitable Trust.

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.

Prostate cancer is a major public health problem with considerable uncertainties about the effectiveness of population screening and treatment options. We report the study design, participant sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and the initial results of the testing and diagnostic phase of the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial, which aims to investigate the effectiveness of treatments for localised prostate cancer. In this randomised phase 3 trial, men aged 50–69 years registered at 337 primary care centres in nine UK cities were invited to attend a specialist nurse appointment for a serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Prostate biopsies were offered to men with a PSA concentration of 3·0 μg/L or higher. Consenting participants with clinically localised prostate cancer were randomly assigned to active monitoring (surveillance strategy), radical prostatectomy, or three-dimensional conformal external-beam radiotherapy by a computer-generated allocation system. Randomisation was stratified by site (minimised for differences in participant age, PSA results, and Gleason score). The primary endpoint is prostate cancer mortality at a median 10-year follow-up, ascertained by an independent committee, which will be analysed by intention to treat in 2016. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02044172, and as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN20141297. Between Oct 1, 2001, and Jan 20, 2009, 228 966 men were invited to attend an appointment with a specialist nurse. Of the invited men, 100 444 (44%) attended their initial appointment and 82 429 (82%) of attenders had a PSA test. PSA concentration was below the biopsy threshold in 73 538 (89%) men. Of the 8566 men with a PSA concentration of 3·0–19·9 μg/L, 7414 (87%) underwent biopsies. 2896 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer (4% of tested men and 39% of those who had a biopsy), of whom 2417 (83%) had clinically localised disease (mostly T1c, Gleason score 6). With the addition of 247 pilot study participants recruited between 1999 and 2001, 2664 men were eligible for the treatment trial and 1643 (62%) agreed to be randomly assigned (545 to active monitoring, 545 to radiotherapy, and 553 to radical prostatectomy). Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of randomly assigned participants were balanced across treatment groups. The ProtecT trial randomly assigned 1643 men with localised prostate cancer to active monitoring, radiotherapy, or surgery. Participant clinicopathological features are more consistent with contemporary patient characteristics than in previous prostate cancer treatment trials. UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

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.

The randomized Swedish trial of prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in disease detected mainly clinically (not by PSA screening) continues to show a benefit for early prostatectomy. The number of men younger than 65 needed to treat to prevent one death is now four. The Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4), a randomized trial of radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in men with localized prostate cancer diagnosed before the era of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, showed a survival benefit of radical prostatectomy as compared with observation at 15 years of follow-up. 1 By contrast, the Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT), initiated in the early era of PSA testing, showed that radical prostatectomy did not significantly reduce prostate cancer–specific or overall mortality after 12 years. 2 PSA screening profoundly changes the clinical domain of study. Among other considerations, the substantial additional lead time . . .

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.

After about 13 years of follow-up, men <65 years of age with prostate cancer diagnosed on the basis of obstructive urinary symptoms (rather than elevated prostate-specific antigen levels) and assigned to radical prostatectomy, as compared with watchful waiting, have improved survival. The randomized Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4) showed that radical prostatectomy decreased the risk of metastases, the rate of death from prostate cancer, and the rate of death from any cause. 1 – 3 Although the participants in SPCG-4 were predominantly men whose cancers were detected on the basis of symptoms, rather than by elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, prostate-cancer events have also accumulated during an extended follow-up period in a subgroup of men with low-risk disease. Determining whether there is a survival benefit for men with low-risk disease is relevant in light of the risk of overdiagnosis resulting . . .

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.