A randomised trial of robotic and open prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer

Background
Prostate cancer is the most common male cancer in the Western world however there is ongoing debate about the optimal treatment strategy for localised disease. While surgery remains the most commonly received treatment for localised disease in Australia more recently a robotic approach has emerged as an alternative to open and laparoscopic surgery. However, high level data is not yet available to support this as a superior approach or to guide treatment decision making between the alternatives. This paper presents the design of a randomised trial of Robotic and Open Prostatectomy for men newly diagnosed with localised prostate cancer that seeks to answer this question.

Methods
200 men per treatment arm (400 men in total) are being recruited after diagnosis and before treatment through a major public hospital outpatient clinic and randomised to 1) Robotic Prostatectomy or 2) Open Prostatectomy. All robotic prostatectomies are being performed by one surgeon and all open prostatectomies are being performed by one other surgeon. Outcomes are being measured pre-operatively and at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post-surgery. Oncological outcomes are being related to positive surgical margins, biochemical recurrence +/ the need for further treatment. Non-oncological outcome measures include: pain, physical and mental functioning, fatigue, summary (preference-based utility scores) and domain-specific QoL (urinary incontinence, bowel function and erectile function), cancer specific distress, psychological distress, decision-related distress and time to return to usual activities. Cost modelling of each approach, as well as full economic appraisal, is also being undertaken.

Discussion
The study will provide recommendations about the relative benefits of Robotic and Open Prostatectomy to support informed patient decision making about treatment for localised prostate cancer; and to assist in treatment services planning for this patient group. Trial Registration ACTRN12611000661976

A progress report on a prospective randomised trial of open and robotic prostatectomy

A randomised trial of robotic and open prostatectomy commenced in October 2010 and is progressing well. Clinical and quality of life outcomes together with economic costs to individuals and the health service are being examined critically to compare outcomes.

The ProCaSP study: quality of life outcomes of prostate cancer patients after radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy in a cohort study urological oncology

Background: This study describes and compares health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of prostate cancer patients who received either radical prostatectomy (nerve-sparing, nsRP, or non-nerve-sparing, nnsRP) or radiotherapy (external RT, brachytherapy, or both combined) for treatment of localised prostate cancer. Methods: The prospective, multicenter cohort study included 529 patients. Questionnaires included the IIEF, QLQ-C30, and PORPUS-P. Data were collected before (baseline), three, six, twelve, and twenty-four months after treatment. Differences between groups' baseline characteristics were assessed; changes over time were analysed with generalised estimating equations (GEE). Missing values were treated with multiple imputation. Further, scores at baseline and end of follow-up were compared to German reference data. Results: The typical time trend was a decrease of average HRQOL three months after treatment followed by (partial) recovery. RP patients experienced considerable impairment in sexual functioning. The covariate-adjusted GEE identified a significant - but not clinically relevant - treatment effect for diarrhoea (b∈=∈7.0 for RT, p∈=∈0.006) and PORPUS-P (b∈=∈2.3 for nsRP, b∈=∈2.2 for RT, p∈=∈0.045) compared to the reference nnsRP. Most of the HRQOL scores were comparable to German norm values. Conclusions: Findings from previous research were reproduced in a specific setting of a patient cohort in the German health care system. According to the principle of evidence-based medicine, this strengthens the messages regarding treatment in prostate cancer and its impacts on patients' health-related quality of life. After adjustment for baseline HRQOL and other covariates, RT patients reported increased symptoms of diarrhoea, and nnsRP patients decreased prostate-specific HRQOL. RP patients experienced considerable impairment in sexual functioning. These differences should be taken into account by physicians when choosing the best therapy for a patient.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study

BACKGROUND: 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. METHOD: 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. FINDINGS: 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. INTERPRETATION: 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. FUNDING: Cancer Council Queensland.

Patient outcomes in the acute revovery phase following robotic-assisted prostate surgery : a prospective study

Background: Robotic-assisted minimally invasive urologic surgery was developed to minimise surgical trauma resulting in quicker recovery. It has many potential benefits for patients with localised prostate cancer over traditional surgical techniques without taking a risk with the oncological result.

Objectives: To report the specific surgical outcomes for the first Australian cohort of patients with localised prostate cancer that had undergone robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) surgery. The outcomes represent the acute (in-hospital) recovery phase and include pain, length of stay (LOS), urinary catheter management and wound management.

Methods: Prospective descriptive survey of 214 consecutive patients admitted to a large metropolitan private hospital in Melbourne, Australia between December 2003 and June 2005. Patients had undergone RARP surgery for localised prostate cancer. Data were collected from the medical records and through interview at the time of discharge. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the frequency and proportion of outcomes. Patient characteristics were tabulated using cross tabulation frequency distribution and measures of central tendency.

Results: The findings from this study are highly encouraging when compared to outcomes associated with traditional surgical techniques. Transurethral catheter duration (median 7 days (IQ range 2)) and LOS (median 3 days (IQ range 2)) were considerably reduced. While operation time (median 3.30 h (IQ range 1.07)) was marginally reduced we would expect a further reduction as the surgical team becomes more skilled.

Conclusion: The findings from this study contribute to building a comprehensive picture of patient outcomes in the acute (in-hospital) recovery phase for a cohort of Australian patients who have undergone RARP surgery for localised prostate cancer. As such, these findings will provide valuable information with which to plan care for patients’ who undergo robotic-assisted surgery.

Psychosocial interventions to support partners of men with prostate cancer: a systematic and critical review of the literature

Prostate cancer poses many challenges for both the man and his partner. Partners have reported a range of issues that impact their own mental health following their partner's diagnosis of prostate cancer. The aim of this review is to summarise and critically evaluate the current literature reporting psychosocial intervention studies for partners of prostate cancer patients.

Copper as a target for prostate cancer therapeutics: copper-ionophore pharmacology and altering systemic copper distribution

Copper-ionophores that elevate intracellular bioavailable copper display significant therapeutic utility against prostate cancer cells in vitro and in TRAMP (Transgenic Adenocarcinoma of Mouse Prostate) mice. However, the pharmacological basis for their anticancer activity remains unclear, despite impending clinical trails. Herein we show that intracellular copper levels in prostate cancer, evaluated in vitro and across disease progression in TRAMP mice, were not correlative with copper-ionophore activity and mirrored the normal levels observed in patient prostatectomy tissues (Gleason Score 7 & 9). TRAMP adenocarcinoma cells harbored markedly elevated oxidative stress and diminished glutathione (GSH)-mediated antioxidant capacity, which together conferred selective sensitivity to prooxidant ionophoric copper. Copper-ionophore treatments [CuII(gtsm), disulfiram & clioquinol] generated toxic levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in TRAMP adenocarcinoma cells, but not in normal mouse prostate epithelial cells (PrECs). Our results provide a basis for the pharmacological activity of copper-ionophores and suggest they are amendable for treatment of patients with prostate cancer. Additionally, recent in vitro and mouse xenograft studies have suggested an increased copper requirement by prostate cancer cells. We demonstrated that prostate adenocarcinoma development in TRAMP mice requires a functional supply of copper and is significantly impeded by altered systemic copper distribution. The presence of a mutant copper-transporting Atp7b protein (tx mutation: A4066G/Met1356Val) in TRAMP mice changed copper-integration into serum and caused a remarkable reduction in prostate cancer burden (64% reduction) and disease severity (grade), abrogating adenocarcinoma development. Implications for current clinical trials are discussed.