|
KMID : 0191120150300111631
|
|
Journal of Korean Medical Science
2015 Volume.30 No. 11 p.1631 ~ p.1637
|
|
|
Is Radical Perineal Prostatectomy a Viable Therapeutic Option for Intermediate- and High-risk Prostate Cancer?
|
|
Lee Hye-Won
Jeon Ha-Lim
Jeong Byong-Chang
Seo Seong-Il
Jeon Seong-Soo
Lee Hyun-Moo
Choi Han-Yong
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
The 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.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Prostatic Neoplasms, Radical Prostatectomy, Risk Assessment, Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures, Treatment Outcome
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
    
|
|