J. Nossiter

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy: functional outcomes 18 months after diagnosis from a national cohort study in England

Background:Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been rapidly adopted without robust evidence comparing its functional outcomes against laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) or open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP) approaches. This study compared patient-reported functional outcomes following RARP, LRP or ORP.Methods:All men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England during April – October 2014 who underwent radical prostatectomy were identified from the National Prostate Cancer Audit and mailed a questionnaire 18 months after diagnosis. Group differences in patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel and hormonal function (EPIC-26 domain scores) and generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL; EQ-5D-5L scores), with adjustment for patient and tumour characteristics, were estimated using linear regression.Results:In all, 2219 men (77.0%) responded; 1310 (59.0%) had RARP, 487 (21.9%) LRP and 422 (19.0%) ORP. RARP was associated with slightly higher adjusted mean EPIC-26 sexual function scores compared with LRP (3·5 point difference; 95% CI: 1.1–5.9, P=0.004) or ORP (4.0 point difference; 95% CI: 1.5–6.5, P=0.002), which did not meet the threshold for a minimal clinically important difference (10–12 points). There were no significant differences in other EPIC-26 domain scores or HRQoL.Conclusions:It is unlikely that the rapid adoption of RARP in the English NHS has produced substantial improvements in functional outcomes for patients.

The first national clinical audit of prostate cancer care.

Department of Urology, University College Hospital London & St. Bartholomews Hospital London & Centre for Experimental cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, *The Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, †Eastern Cancer Registration & Information Centre, ‡Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, §Department of radiation oncology, University College Hospital London, and ¶Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Quantifying severe urinary complications after radical prostatectomy: the development and validation of a surgical performance indicator using hospital administrative data

To develop and validate a surgical performance indicator based on severe urinary complications that require an intervention within 2 years of radical prostatectomy (RP), identified in hospital administrative data.

The National Prostate Cancer Audit - introducing a new generation of cancer audit.

* The Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK yDepartment of Urology, University College Hospital London and St Bartholomew’s Hospital London and Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Bart’s Cancer Unit, London, UK zDepartment of Oncology, University College Hospital, London, UK xDepartment of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK { Eastern Cancer Registration and Information Service (ECRIC), UK

National cohort study comparing severe medium-term urinary complications after robot-assisted vs laparoscopic vs retropubic open radical prostatectomy

To evaluate the occurrence of severe urinary complications within 2 years of surgery in men undergoing either robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) or retropubic open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

Treatment-related toxicity in men who received Intensity-modulated versus 3D-conformal radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: A national population-based study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In the post-prostatectomy setting the value of Intensity-modulated (IMRT) relative to 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in reducing toxicity remains unclear. We compared genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity after post-prostatectomy IMRT or 3D-CRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS A population-based study of all patients treated with post-prostatectomy 3D-CRT (n = 2422) and IMRT (n = 603) was conducted between January 1 2010 and December 31 2013 in the English National Health Service. We identified severe GI and GU toxicity using a validated coding-framework and compared IMRT and 3D-CRT using a competing-risks proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS There was no difference in GI toxicity between patients who received IMRT and 3D-CRT (3D-CRT: 5.8 events/100 person-years; IMRT: 5.5 events/100 person-years; adjusted HR: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.63-1.13; p = 0.26). The GU toxicity rate was lower with IMRT but this effect was not statistically significant (3D-CRT: 5.4 events/100 person-years; IMRT: 3.8 events/100 person-years; adjusted HR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.55-1.03; p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS The use of post-prostatectomy IMRT compared to 3D-CRT is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in rates of severe GU and GI toxicity, although there is some evidence that GU toxicity is lower with IMRT. We would caution against rapid transition to post-prostatectomy IMRT until further evidence is available supporting its superiority.