Suppr超能文献

机器人辅助与开放性根治性前列腺切除术治疗前列腺癌的效果比较。

Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control.

机构信息

Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Cancer Prognostics Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Urology, Universita Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

Eur Urol. 2014 Oct;66(4):666-72. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.015. Epub 2014 Feb 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) remains controversial, and no improvement in cancer control outcomes has been demonstrated over open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

OBJECTIVE

To examine population-based, comparative effectiveness of RARP versus ORP pertaining surgical margin status and use of additional cancer therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective observational study of 5556 RARP and 7878 ORP cases from 2004 to 2009 from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked data.

INTERVENTION

RARP versus ORP.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Propensity-based analyses were performed to minimize treatment selection biases. Generalized linear regression models were computed for comparison of RP surgical margin status and use of additional cancer therapy (radiation therapy [RT] or androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]) by surgical approach.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In the propensity-adjusted analysis, RARP was associated with fewer positive surgical margins (13.6% vs 18.3%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.75), largely because of fewer RARP positive margins for intermediate-risk (15.0% vs 21.0%; OR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.75) and high-risk (15.1% vs 20.6%; OR: 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.77) disease. In addition, RARP was associated with less use of additional cancer therapy within 6 mo (4.5% vs 6.2%; OR: 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.81), 12 mo (OR: 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.86), and 24 mo (OR: 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.78) of surgery. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of prostate-specific antigen levels to determine biochemical recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

RARP is associated with improved surgical margin status relative to ORP for intermediate- and high-risk disease and less use of postprostatectomy ADT and RT. This has important implications for quality of life, health care delivery, and costs.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) versus open RP is associated with fewer positive margins and better early cancer control because of less use of additional androgen deprivation and radiation therapy within 2 yr of surgery.

摘要

背景

机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(RARP)仍存在争议,与开放性根治性前列腺切除术(ORP)相比,其在癌症控制结果方面并未显示出改善。

目的

研究 RARP 与 ORP 之间在手术切缘状态和额外癌症治疗使用方面的基于人群的比较效果。

设计、设置和参与者:这是一项回顾性观察性研究,使用 2004 年至 2009 年来自监测、流行病学和最终结果-医疗保险链接数据的 5556 例 RARP 和 7878 例 ORP 病例。

干预措施

RARP 与 ORP。

观察测量和统计分析

采用倾向评分分析以最小化治疗选择偏倚。通过手术方法计算了广义线性回归模型,以比较 RP 手术切缘状态和额外癌症治疗(放疗[RT]或雄激素剥夺治疗[ADT])的使用。

结果和局限性

在倾向调整分析中,RARP 与较少的阳性手术切缘相关(13.6%比 18.3%;优势比[OR]:0.70;95%置信区间[CI]:0.66-0.75),主要是因为 RARP 对中危(15.0%比 21.0%;OR:0.66;95%CI:0.59-0.75)和高危(15.1%比 20.6%;OR:0.70;95%CI:0.63-0.77)疾病的阳性切缘较少。此外,RARP 与术后 6 个月(4.5%比 6.2%;OR:0.75;95%CI:0.69-0.81)、12 个月(OR:0.73;95%CI:0.62-0.86)和 24 个月(OR:0.67;95%CI:0.57-0.78)时额外癌症治疗的使用减少相关。局限性包括研究的回顾性性质以及缺乏前列腺特异性抗原水平来确定生化复发。

结论

与 ORP 相比,RARP 与中危和高危疾病的手术切缘状态改善相关,并且术后雄激素剥夺和放疗的使用减少。这对生活质量、医疗保健提供和成本具有重要意义。

患者总结

机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(RP)与开放性 RP 相比,由于在手术后 2 年内使用额外的雄激素剥夺和放疗进行治疗的情况较少,因此具有更好的切缘状态和早期癌症控制效果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验