• Hye Won Lee, Hwang Gyun Jeon, Byong Chang Jeong, Seong Il Seo, Seong Soo Jeon, Hyun Moo Lee, and Han Yong Choi.
• Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ; Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
• J. Korean Med. Sci. 2015 Nov 1; 30 (11): 163116371631-7.

AbstractThe aim of this study was to investigate a single-institution experience with radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP), radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) with respect to onco-surgical outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk (IR; PSA 10-20 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score bGS 7 or cT2b-2c) and high-risk (HR; PSA > 20 ng/mL, bGS ≥ 8, or ≥ cT3) prostate cancer (PCa). We retrospectively reviewed data from 2,581 men who underwent radical prostatectomy for IR and HR PCa (RPP, n = 689; RRP, n = 402; MIRP, n = 1,490 [laparoscopic, n = 206; robot-assisted laparoscopic, n = 1,284]). The proportion of HR PCa was 40.3%, 46.8%, and 49.5% in RPP, RRP, and MIRP (P < 0.001), respectively. The positive surgical margin rate was 23.8%, 26.1%, and 18.7% (P = 0.002) overall, 17.5%, 17.8%, and 8.8% (P < 0.001) for pT2 disease and 41.9%, 44.4%, and 40.0% (P = 0.55) for pT3 disease in men undergoing RPP, RRP, and MIRP, respectively. Biochemical recurrence-free survival rates among RPP, RRP, and MIRP were 73.0%, 70.1%, and 76.8%, respectively, at 5 yr (RPP vs. RPP, P = 0.02; RPP vs. MIRP, P = 0.23). Furthermore, comparable 5-yr metastases-free survival rates were demonstrated for specific surgical approaches (RPP vs. RPP, P = 0.26; RPP vs. MIRP, P = 0.06). RPP achieved acceptable oncological control for IR and HR PCa.

28 keywords...

hide…