Radical Perineal Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer
No Results
No Results
processing….
Radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) was described in 1905 by Young. [1] It was the first method used to remove the prostate as part of cancer therapy.
In 1947, Millin first described radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). [2] He suggested the procedure as an alternative to RPP, on the grounds that patients often had pelvic lymph node metastases at diagnosis. As expertise in performing RRP improved, the importance of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) for staging became evident. Over time, RRP became the most common method of radical prostatectomy. However, Keller et al have experimented with a perineal approach for PLND and have published encouraging results. [3]
Advantages of RPP over RRP include the following:
A small, hidden incision for better cosmesis
Avoidance of major muscle groups
Less pain and patient convalescence
Faster return to work and strenuous activities
Fewer adverse cardiovascular effects because fluid shifts are reduced
Less blood loss
Shorter operating time and duration of hospitalization
Excellent posterior exposure to limit positive margins posteriorly, laterally, and apically
Precise watertight anastomosis performed under direct vision
Easier for patients who are obese
Avoidance of scar tissue from previous abdominal surgery
Better visualization of the prostatic apex – The improved visualization of the apex facilitates avoidance of positive apical margins, sparing of neurovascular bundles, and visualization of the membranous urethra
Although most urologists believe that radical prostatectomy is the most effective means of curing clinically localized prostate cancer, the associated surgical morbidity has compromised patients’ overall quality of life and hindered their acceptance of the procedure. Accordingly, efforts have been made to reduce surgical morbidity and improve postoperative quality of life by developing different surgical options for prostatectomy. [4]
In the United States, prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed nonskin cancer in men and is the second leading cause of cancer-caused death among males. The American Cancer Society estimated that in 2016, there would be 180,890 new cases of prostate cancer in the United States and that 26,120 prostate cancer deaths would occur. [5]
With the widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination (DRE) for the early detection of prostate cancer, most new cases of the disease are now being diagnosed at early, potentially curable stages. This change is reflected in the decrease in prostate cancer deaths in the United States and Canada between 1990 and 2000, as compared with the period between 1973 and 1990. With increased PSA screening, stage migration has moved toward more organ-confined disease. [6]
Partin et al found a decrease in seminal vesicle or lymph node involvement in prostate cancer from 21% between 1987 and 1992 to 10% between 1993 and 1996. [7] Furthermore, they proposed a nomogram whereby patients at risk of lymph node metastasis could be selected by means of PSA screening, clinical staging based on DRE findings, and Gleason scoring after diagnostic biopsy.
Of the more than 4000 patients in the study who underwent radical prostatectomy for clinically organ-confined disease, only 5% had positive screening results for lymph node metastasis. [7] Only 3% of patients with a PSA level lower than 10 ng/mL, clinical stage T2a disease, and a Gleason score of 6 or less had positive screening results for lymph node metastasis. (The Partin tables are the best nomogram for predicting prostate cancer spread and prognosis.)
Hence, some authorities have advocated the omission of PLND if these parameters suggest an exceptionally low risk of lymph node metastasis.
Today, many men diagnosed with prostate cancer have early-stage disease for which PLND is not mandatory. Consequently, interest in RPP has seen a resurgence. Compared with RRP, RPP can offer reductions in blood loss, operating time, duration of hospitalization, and duration of convalescence. [8]
In 1982, Walsh defined the periprostatic, vascular, and erectile neural anatomy and developed the nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. This nerve-sparing technique has enhanced erectile function after surgery while limiting the incidence of positive margins. In addition, preservation of urethral length at the prostatic apex has been advocated to improve postoperative urinary continence.
These 2 major advances, along with better delineation of the pelvic and periprostatic anatomy, have significantly decreased the hospital stay and the morbidity associated with both RRP and RPP.
Fuel partially by competition amongst hospitals, robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), has rapidly become a popularly utilized technique [9] . In general, however, patients with pulmonary disease or congestive heart failure may not tolerate the abdominal insufflation that laparoscopic surgery requires. Patients who have previously undergone multiple peritoneal operations and those with very large prostates may be better served by an open approach than by laparoscopy.
The prostate gland is located posterior to the pubic symphysis, superior to the perineal membrane, inferior to the bladder, and anterior to the rectum. The base of the prostate is in continuity with the bladder and the prostate ends at the apex before becoming the striated external urethral sphincter. The sphincter is a vertically oriented tubular sheath that surrounds the membranous urethra and prostate.
For more information about the relevant anatomy, see Prostate Anatomy, Seminal Vesicle Anatomy, and Male Reproductive Organ Anatomy.
A normal prostate gland is approximately 20 g in volume, 3 cm in length, 4 cm in width, and 2 cm in depth. As men get older, the prostate gland may vary in size secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
While selecting patients for RPP, those with smaller glands (20-60cc) located deeper within the pelvis may yield less challenging procedures [10] . In men with very large prostates (>150 cm3), neoadjuvant hormone therapy or 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors are used to reduce the prostate size for easier removal. Massive prostates can be effectively reduced with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) at least 3 months before RPP. Alternatively, the surgeon may be more comfortable performing RRP in these patients.
Aspirin and other anticoagulants must be stopped at least 7 days before the operation.
The day before the procedure, the patient is given an oral mechanical bowel preparation, (eg, Fleet Phospho-soda [C.B. Fleet, Lynchburg, VA], a 1.5-oz. dose of which is taken at 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM). The patient is on a clear liquid diet that day.
On the morning of surgery, after arrival at the hospital, the patient is given a 1% neomycin enema.
Because of the proximity of the incision to the rectum, antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated. A prophylactic dose of cefoxitin is administered intravenously on call to the operating room and twice postoperatively.
The increased interest in RALP has led to a comparison of outcomes among various surgical approaches.
Although the average blood loss associated with robotic procedures is lower, in part because of the hemostatic effects of abdominal insufflation, the difference amounts to only a few hundred milliliters and is generally not associated with higher transfusion rates. [11]
Perineal, retropubic, and robotic approaches to radical prostatectomy procedures yield similar rates in terms of cancer control. Some studies have suggested that the robotic technique may yield a lower incidence of positive margins than RRP does (9.4% vs 24.1% in T2 disease, respectively), but it has not yet been compared with RPP in this regard. [12] Most comparison studies have shown that robotic and retropubic approaches yield similar PSA recurrence rates as well as biochemical recurrance free survival. [13, 14]
Boris et al found no statistical differences in urinary incontinence among the perineal, retropubic, and robotic approaches. [15] Continence was defined as 0-1 pads per day, and rates were found to be approximately 96% for robotic and perineal prostatectomy at 12 months after surgery. Potency rates vary according to definition and institution; nonetheless, perineal and retropubic procedures yield similar rates.
In a study of 703 patients who underwent RPP, with an average follow-up period of 4.2 years, [16] Harris found that 94.5% of patients with organ-confined disease had no evidence of PSA recurrence at 5 years. Moreover, 80% of patients with extracapsular extension but negative margins were free of biochemical recurrence at 5 years (see Table 1 below).
Table 1. Outcome Data From 703 Consecutive Radical Perineal Prostatectomies Performed by 1 Surgeon [16] (Open Table in a new window)
Pathologic Stage
No. of Patients
PSA < 0.2 ng/mL, %
T2
521
95.6
T3 with negative margins
79
79.7
T3 with positive margins
70
67.1
T3 with positive seminal vesicle
29
34.5
Positive nodes
4
0
Total
703
87.8
PSA = Prostate-specific antigen.
Whereas 33% of patients in the Harris study had extracapsular disease, positive margins were observed in only 17.6% without seminal vesicle invasion. [16] Margins were focally positive (< 1 mm) in 8.8% and were nonfocal or multifocal in 7.9%. As expected, biochemical failure was more common with higher pathologic stages. Four men who underwent RPP were found to have lymph node metastasis upon permanent section analysis.
In a prospective study of 1400 consecutive RPPs, Goetz et al reported biochemical recurrence rates of 13.8%, with a mean follow-up of 90 months among patients with T2 disease. [17]
According to a study by Korman et al, RPP had a statistical advantage over RRP for obtaining a wider apical margin in select patients, though no statistical difference based on surgical approach was noted for the amount of extracapsular tissue that could be excised, the distance of surgical margins around tumors, the rate of capsular incision, or the rate of overall margin positivity. [18]
Similarly, Parra reported positive margin rates of 16% for RPP and 18% for RRP in his large prostatectomy series. [19]
Young HH. The Early Diagnosis and Radical Cure of Carcinoma of the Prostate. Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. 1905. VXVI:315-21.
Millin T. Retropubic Urinary Surgery. Carcinoma of the Prostate: Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1947. 15-7.
Keller H, Lehmann J, Beier J. Radical perineal prostatectomy and simultaneous extended pelvic lymph node dissection via the same incision. Eur Urol. 2007 Aug. 52(2):384-8. [Medline].
Fu Q, Moul JW, Sun L. Contemporary radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer. 2011. 2011:645030. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Cancer Facts and Figures 2016. American Cancer Society. Available at http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/document/acspc-047079.pdf. 2016; Accessed: Nov 26, 2016.
Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Aug 5. 149(3):185-91. [Medline].
Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, Walsh PC, Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA. 1997 May 14. 277(18):1445-51. [Medline].
Harris MJ, Thompson IM Jr. The anatomic radical perineal prostatectomy: a contemporary and anatomic approach. Urology. 1996 Nov. 48(5):762-8. [Medline].
Barbash GI, Friedman B, Glied SA, Steiner CA. Factors associated with adoption of robotic surgical technology in US hospitals and relationship to radical prostatectomy procedure volume. Ann Surg. 2014 Jan. 259(1):1-6. [Medline].
Horuz R, Göktas C, Çetinel CA, Akça O, Cangüven Ö, Sahin C. Simple preoperative parameters to assess technical difficulty during a radical perineal prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2013 Feb. 45(1):129-33. [Medline].
Berryhill R Jr, Jhaveri J, Yadav R, Leung R, Rao S, El-Hakim A, et al. Robotic prostatectomy: a review of outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology. 2008 Jul. 72(1):15-23. [Medline].
Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS, Herrell SD, Clark PE, Baumgartner R, et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007 Dec. 178(6):2385-9; discussion 2389-90. [Medline].
Schroeck FR, Sun L, Freedland SJ, Albala DM, Mouraviev V, Polascik TJ, et al. Comparison of prostate-specific antigen recurrence-free survival in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing either radical retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2008 Jul. 102(1):28-32. [Medline].
Ritch CR, You C, May AT, Herrell SD, Clark PE, Penson DF, et al. Biochemical recurrence-free survival after robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2014 Jun. 83(6):1309-15. [Medline].
Boris RS, Kaul SA, Sarle RC, Stricker HJ. Radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon comparison of retropubic, perineal, and robotic approaches. Can J Urol. 2007 Jun. 14(3):3566-70. [Medline].
Harris MJ. The anatomic radical perineal prostatectomy: an outcomes-based evolution. Eur Urol. 2007 Jul. 52(1):81-8. [Medline].
Goetz T, Neugart F, Groh R. Radical perineal prostatectomy–A single institution study on prospectively controlled results in a consecutive series of 1400 cases. J Urol. 2006. 175:208-9A.
Korman HJ, Leu PB, Huang RR, Goldstein NS. A centralized comparison of radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy specimens: is there a difference according to the surgical approach?. J Urol. 2002 Sep. 168(3):991-4. [Medline].
Parra RO. Analysis of an experience with 500 radical perineal prostatectomies in localized prostate cancer [abstract]. J Urol. 2000. 1265.
Bannowsky A, Schulze H, van der Horst C, Hautmann S, Jünemann KP. Recovery of erectile function after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: improvement with nightly low-dose sildenafil. BJU Int. 2008 May. 101(10):1279-83. [Medline].
Saranchuk JW, Kattan MW, Elkin E, Touijer AK, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Achieving optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun 20. 23(18):4146-51. [Medline].
Fitzsimons NJ, Sun LL, Dahm P, Moul JW, Madden J, Gan TJ, et al. A single-institution comparison between radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy on perioperative and pathological outcomes for obese men: an analysis of the Duke Prostate Center database. Urology. 2007 Dec. 70(6):1146-51. [Medline].
Gianino MM, Galzerano M, Martin B, Chiadò Piat S, Gontero P. Costs in surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy: a review of the current state. Urol Int. 2012. 88(1):1-5. [Medline].
Harris MJ. Radical perineal prostatectomy: cost efficient, outcome effective, minimally invasive prostate cancer management. Eur Urol. 2003 Sep. 44(3):303-8; discussion 308. [Medline].
Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen P, Warren J, Yao SL. Effect of age and surgical approach on complications and short-term mortality after radical prostatectomy–a population-based study. Urology. 1999 Aug. 54(2):301-7. [Medline].
Harris MJ, Fischer MC. Urinary Continence After Perineal Prostatectomy with a Running Anastomosis and Four-Day Catheterization. September 2000.
Weldon VE, Tavel FR, Neuwirth H. Continence, potency and morbidity after radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol. 1997 Oct. 158(4):1470-5. [Medline].
Korman HJ, Mulholland TL, Huang R. Preservation of fecal continence and bowel function after radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy: a questionnaire-based outcomes study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2004. 7(3):249-52. [Medline].
Dahm P, Silverstein AD, Weizer AZ, Young MD, Vieweg J, Albala DM, et al. A longitudinal assessment of bowel related symptoms and fecal incontinence following radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003 Jun. 169(6):2220-4. [Medline].
Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, Smith DS. Potency, continence and complication rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol. 1999 Aug. 162(2):433-8. [Medline].
Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS, Gilliland FD, Stephenson RA, Eley JW, et al. Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA. 2000 Jan 19. 283(3):354-60. [Medline].
Pathologic Stage
No. of Patients
PSA < 0.2 ng/mL, %
T2
521
95.6
T3 with negative margins
79
79.7
T3 with positive margins
70
67.1
T3 with positive seminal vesicle
29
34.5
Positive nodes
4
0
Total
703
87.8
PSA = Prostate-specific antigen.
Institution
Procedure
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center [21]
Radical retropubic prostatectomy
30%
42%
47%
53%
Northern Institute of Urology
Radical perineal prostatectomy
53.6%
71.7%
78.9%
81%
Howard J Korman, MD, FACS Consulting Staff, Department of Urology, William Beaumont Hospital
Howard J Korman, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Urological Association, Michigan State Medical Society, Oakland County Medical Society, Phi Beta Kappa
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Damon James Dyche, MD Resident Physician, Department of Urology, William Beaumont Hospital
Damon James Dyche, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Urological Association
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Emily Blum, MD Resident Physician, Department of Urology, William Beaumont Hospital
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Michael J Harris, MD Consulting Staff, Northern Institute of Urology, PC; Consulting Staff, Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, Munson Medical Center
Michael J Harris, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, SWOG, International Society of Urology, American Association of Clinical Urologists, American Urological Association
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Edward David Kim, MD, FACS Professor of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine; Consulting Staff, University of Tennessee Medical Center
Edward David Kim, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American Society of Andrology, American Urological Association, Sexual Medicine Society of North America, Tennessee Medical Association
Disclosure: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Endo, Avadel.
Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference
Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment
Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD Paul A Bunn Professor of Cancer Research, Professor of Surgery and Pharmacology, Director, University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center
Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: American Cancer Society, American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association, Medical Society of Virginia, Society for Basic Urologic Research, and Society of Urologic Oncology
Disclosure: Key Genomics Ownership interest Co-Founder-50% Stock Ownership; KromaTiD, Inc Stock Options Board membership
Radical Perineal Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer
Research & References of Radical Perineal Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer|A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source
0 Comments