Nigel Dunglison

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

BackgroundProstate 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/design200 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.DiscussionThe 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 registrationACTRN12611000661976

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.

Continent bladder stoma

The formation of an aesthetically desirable urinary diversion through a continent bladder stoma requires a long-term commitment by both patient and urologist to monitoring patient progress and addressing problems, both urological and otherwise, which arise over time. In this manuscript, issues relating to physical aspects of surgical management are discussed. These include the nature of and siting of the stoma and its catheterising track, the continence mechanism, provision of a low-pressure storage system of adequate capacity and management of the bladder neck/urethra when incompetent. It is imperative that careful patient selection is practised at the outset when such surgery is contemplated, otherwise a satisfactory outcome is unlikely to ensue irrespective of the procedural skills employed operatively.

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.

Pyoderma gangrenosum of the penis: an important lesson

extensive air-pockets, under pressure, in the mediastinum, overlying the right ventricular outflow tract and the pulmonary arteries (Fig. 2). The air-pockets were decompressed with intraoperative haemodynamic improvement immediately noted. Tissues also removed from the mediastinum during sternotomy exhibited widespread pneumatization giving a ‘bubbled’ appearance. No significant bleeding was noted during sternotomy with mediastinal and bilateral pleural drains placed. The chest was closed in standard fashion with stainless steel sternotomy wires and layered closure technique. Drains were placed on −3 kPa suction with negligible bleeding and no air leak observed. The patient remained stable and was returned to the intensive care unit. Several days later, formal neurological testing confirmed brain death with next of kin consenting to organ donation shortly thereafter. Organ retrieval of heart and lungs occurred expediently and without complication. It is hoped the sharing of these images will alert fellow clinicians to the possibility of tension pneumomediastinum, especially in ventilated, chest trauma patients and to reinforce the vital importance of organ donation

Idiopathic partial thrombosis of the corpus cavernosum: An unusual presentation to consider

Idiopathic partial thrombosis (IPT) of the corpus cavernosum is an uncommon condition characterised by thrombosis of the proximal segment of the corpus cavernosum from uncertain pathogenesis. Young men are mostly affected and usually present with perineal pain, a palpable perineal mass with or without partial priapism.1–3 Diagnosis is predominantly based on clinical symptoms in combination with imaging.2–4 We report on a case of IPT of the corpus cavernosum that was managed successfully with a conservative approach.

Result of Health Illiteracy and Cultural Stigma: Fournier’s Gangrene, a Urological Emergency

A 63-year-old Caucasian man presents to his regional hospital 8 days postinsertion of beads in his urethra, causing Fournier’s gangrene of the penis and delayed surgical management of his gangrene. The reasons for his delay are cultural stigma associated with sexual practices and health illiteracy.