G. Coughlin

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 Womens 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 patients 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.

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.

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: validation of World Health Organization/ International Society of Urological Pathology grading

In 2012, the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) introduced a novel grading system for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and papillary renal cell carcinoma. This system is incorporated into the latest World Health Organization renal tumour classification, being designated WHO/ISUP grading. This study was undertaken to compare WHO/ISUP and Fuhrman grading and to validate WHO/ISUP grading as a prognostic parameter in a series of clear cell RCC.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND Previous trials have found similar early outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy. We report functional and oncological postoperative outcomes up to 24 months after surgery for these two surgical techniques. METHODS 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, and were aged between 35 years and 70 years were eligible and recruited from the Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital (Brisbane, QLD, Australia). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to have either robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy or open 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 patients surgical treatment. Primary outcomes were urinary function (urinary domain of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]) and sexual function (sexual domain of EPIC and International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire [IIEF]) at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months and oncological outcome (biochemical recurrence and imaging evidence of progression). The trial was powered to assess health-related and domain-specific quality-of-life outcomes over 24 months. All analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000661976. FINDINGS Between Aug 23, 2010, and Nov 25, 2014, 326 men were enrolled, of whom 163 were randomly assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and 163 to open radical retropubic 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 and 157 in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group proceeded to surgery. At the 24-month follow-up time point, 150 men remained in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group and 146 remained in the open radical retropubic prostatectomy group. Urinary function scores did not differ significantly between robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy at 6 months post-surgery (88·68 [95% CI 86·79-90·58] vs 88·45 [86·54-90·36]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), 12 months post-surgery (90·76 [88·89-92·62] vs 91·53 [90·07-92·98]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), or 24 months post-surgery (91·33 [89·64-93·03] vs 90·86 [89·01-92·70]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001). Sexual function scores were not significantly different between robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy at 6 months post-surgery (EPIC: 37·40 [33·60-41·19] vs 38·63 [34·76-42·49], p1=0·0001, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 29·75 [26·66-32·84] vs 29·78 [26·41-33·16], p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), 12 months post-surgery (EPIC: 42·28 [38·05-46·51] vs 42·51 [38·29-46·72], p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 33·10 [29·59-36·61] vs 33·50 [29·87-37·13], p1=0·0002, p2<0·0001), or 24 months post-surgery (EPIC: 45·70 [41·17-50·23] vs 46·90 [42·20-51·60], p1=0·0003, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 33·95 [30·11-37·78] vs 33·89 [29·82-37·96], p1=0·0003, p2=0·0004). Equivalence testing on the difference between the proportion of biochemical recurrences between the two groups (13 [9%] in the open radical retropubic prostatectomy group vs four [3%] 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 prespecified margin of 10%. However, a superiority test showed that the two proportions were significantly different (p=0·0199). Equivalence testing on the proportion of patients who had imaging evidence of progression revealed that the two groups were not significantly different (p=0·2956). INTERPRETATION Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy yielded similar functional outcomes at 24 months. We advise caution in interpreting the oncological outcomes of our study because of the absence of standardisation in postoperative management between the two trial groups and the use of additional cancer treatments. Clinicians and patients should view the benefits of a robotic approach as being largely related to its minimally invasive nature. FUNDING Cancer Council Queensland.

Can atorvastatin with metformin change the natural history of prostate cancer as characterized by molecular, metabolomic, imaging and pathological variables? A randomized controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND Atorvastatin and metformin are known energy restricting mimetic agents that act synergistically to produce molecular and metabolic changes in advanced prostate cancer (PCa). This trial seeks to determine whether these drugs favourably alter selected parameters in men with clinically-localized, aggressive PCa. METHODS/DESIGN This prospective phase II randomized, controlled window trial is recruiting men with clinically significant PCa, confirmed by biopsy following multiparametric MRI and intending to undergo radical prostatectomy. Ethical approval was granted by the Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital Human and The University of Queensland Medical Research Ethics Committees. Participants are being randomized into four groups: metformin with placebo; atorvastatin with placebo; metformin with atorvastatin; or placebo alone. Capsules are consumed for 8weeks, a duration selected as the most appropriate period in which histological and biochemical changes may be observed while allowing prompt treatment with curative intent of clinically significant PCa. At recruitment and prior to RP, participants provide blood, urine and seminal fluid. A subset of participants will undergo 7Tesla magnetic resonance spectroscopy to compare metabolites in-vivo with those in seminal fluid and biopsied tissue. The primary end point is biochemical evolution, defined using biomarkers (serum prostate specific antigen; PCA3 and citrate in seminal fluid and prostatic tissue). Standard pathological assessment will be undertaken. DISCUSSION This study is designed to assess the potential synergistic action of metformin and atorvastatin on PCa tumour biology. The results may determine simple methods of tumour modulation to reduce disease progression.

Design and Clinical Verification of Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Diagnostic Technology for Individual Cancer Risk Prediction

The use of emerging nanotechnologies, such as plasmonic nanoparticles in diagnostic applications, potentially offers opportunities to revolutionize disease management and patient healthcare. Despite worldwide research efforts in this area, there is still a dearth of nanodiagnostics which have been successfully translated for real-world patient usage due to the predominant sole focus on assay analytical performance and lack of detailed investigations into clinical performance in human samples. In a bid to address this pressing need, we herein describe a comprehensive clinical verification of a prospective label-free surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) nanodiagnostic assay for prostate cancer (PCa) risk stratification. This contribution depicts a roadmap of (1) designing a SERS assay for robust and accurate detection of clinically validated PCa RNA targets; (2) employing a relevant and proven PCa clinical biomarker model to test our nanodiagnostic assay; and (3) investigating the clinical performance on independent training ( n = 80) and validation ( n = 40) cohorts of PCa human patient samples. By relating the detection outcomes to gold-standard patient biopsy findings, we established a PCa risk scoring system which exhibited a clinical sensitivity and specificity of 0.87 and 0.90, respectively [area-under-curve of 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.81-0.87) for differentiating high- and low-risk PCa] in the validation cohort. We envision that our SERS nanodiagnostic design and clinical verification approach may aid in the individualized prediction of PCa presence and risk stratification and may overall serve as an archetypical strategy to encourage comprehensive clinical evaluation of nanodiagnostic innovations.

Mucinous adenocarcinoma of prostate and prostatic adenocarcinoma with mucinous components: a clinicopathological analysis of 143 cases

The clinical significance of mucinous prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa) remains uncertain.

A randomised control trial of salvage radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy following prostatectomy: commentary on five year follow-up findings

The addition of short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to salvage radiotherapy post radical prostatectomy was recently reported in a multi-centre, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (RCT) by Carrie et al . (2016) to improve biochemical and clinical progression free survival at 5 years.

True false negative of MRI scans for prostate cancer screening. How often does MRI miss

Introduction: Ureteric stent placement is oft en associated with morbidity ranging from mild generalised discomfort to signifi cant storage urinary symptoms and loin pain. Our unit identifi ed a high rate of patients re-presenting with side eff ects aft er placement of a ureteric stent. Whilst most re-presentations for common side eff ects only require conservative management they can lead to potentially unnecessary emergency department (ED) consultations, additional investigations and out-of-hours admissions for symptomatic control. All these events result in potentially avoidable increased healthcare costs. Objectives: Prospective single institution audit to assess whether the provision of a written information pamphlet detailing common expected side-eff ects of ureteric stents at the time of discharge in newly stented patients would reduce the rate of re-presentation to hospital related to benign side eff ects and therefore reduce the costs associated with unnecessary emergency room attendances, investigations and occasional hospital admission. Methods: A local stent register was used to identify patients who had ureteric stents inserted 1 year preand post-introduction of the stent information pamphlet. Th e stent information pamphlet was introduced on 5th July 2013. A total of 194 patients had a ureteric stent(s) inserted from 5th July 2012 to 4th July 2013 (Group 1) and a total of 226 patients had a ureteric stent(s) inserted from 5th July 2013 to 5th July 2014 (Group 2). All patients who had ureteric stents inserted during this period were included in the audit, regardless of the initial indication for ureteric stent insertion. Results: Th ere was a 50/194 (25%) and 34/226 (15%) rate of re-presentations preand postimplementation of the stent information pamphlet respectively. Th is refl ected a clinically and statistically signifi cant 10% decrease in the percentage of re-presentations ( P = 0.006) with patients in the pre-implementation group also showing a 1.96 times increased likelihood of re-presenting to hospital (OR = 1.961, 96%CI: 1.206–3.189). Th ere was an average cost saving of

A Randomised Open and Robotic Prostatectomy: Trial Methodology

899 per ED re-presentation and an additional average cost saving of