Garcia-Barreras Silvia, Sanchez-Salas Rafael, Sivaraman Arjun, Barret Eric, Secin Fernando, Nunes-Silva Igor, Linares-Espinós Estefania, Rozet François, Galiano Marc, Cathelineau Xavier
Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France.
Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France.
J Urol. 2018 Jan;199(1):140-146. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.08.076. Epub 2017 Aug 18.
We analyzed the oncologic and functional outcomes of partial gland ablation compared with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer.
A total of 1,883 patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and 373 underwent partial gland ablation from July 2009 to September 2015. We selected 1,458 of these participants for analysis, including 1,222 and 236 treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and partial gland ablation, respectively. Patients had a Gleason score of 3 + 3 or 3 + 4, clinical stage T2b or less, prostate specific antigen 15 ng/dl or less, unilateral disease and life expectancy greater than 10 years. Propensity score matching analysis (1:2) was applied in the overall robot-assisted radical prostatectomy sample, which selected 472 patients for comparison. For partial gland ablation 188 men underwent high intensity focused ultrasound and 48 underwent cryotherapy. Oncologic outcomes were analyzed in terms of the need for salvage treatment. Partial gland ablation failure was defined as any positive control biopsy after treatment. Functional outcomes were assessed by validated questionnaires.
Matching was successful across the 2 groups, although men treated with partial gland ablation were older (p <0.001). Mean followup in the partial gland ablation group was 38.44 months. Partial gland ablation failure was observed in 68 men (28.8%), including 53 (28.1%) treated with high intensity focused ultrasound and 15 (31.2%) treated with cryotherapy. Partial gland ablation was associated with a higher risk of salvage treatment (HR 6.06, p <0.001). Complications were comparable between the groups (p = 0.06). Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was associated with less continence recovery and a lower potency rate 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery (p <0.001).
In select patients with organ confined prostate cancer partial gland ablation offered good oncologic control with fewer adverse effects that required additional treatments. Potency and continence appeared to be better preserved after partial gland ablation.
我们分析了低危和中危前列腺癌患者中,部分腺体消融与机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术相比的肿瘤学和功能学结果。
2009年7月至2015年9月期间,共有1883例患者接受了机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术,373例接受了部分腺体消融。我们选择了其中1458例参与者进行分析,分别包括1222例接受机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术和236例接受部分腺体消融的患者。患者的 Gleason评分为3+3或3+4,临床分期为T2b或更低,前列腺特异性抗原为15 ng/dl或更低,单侧疾病且预期寿命大于10年。在整个机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术样本中应用倾向评分匹配分析(1:2),选择472例患者进行比较。对于部分腺体消融,188例男性接受了高强度聚焦超声治疗,48例接受了冷冻治疗。根据挽救治疗的需求分析肿瘤学结果。部分腺体消融失败定义为治疗后任何一次对照活检呈阳性。通过经过验证的问卷评估功能学结果。
两组匹配成功,尽管接受部分腺体消融治疗的男性年龄较大(p<0.001)。部分腺体消融组的平均随访时间为38.44个月。68例男性(28.8%)观察到部分腺体消融失败,包括53例(28.1%)接受高强度聚焦超声治疗和15例(31.2%)接受冷冻治疗。部分腺体消融与更高的挽救治疗风险相关(HR 6.06,p<0.001)。两组之间的并发症相当(p = 0.06)。机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术与术后3、6和12个月时较低的控尿恢复率和较低的性功能恢复率相关(p<0.001)。
在选定的局限性前列腺癌患者中,部分腺体消融提供了良好的肿瘤学控制,不良反应较少,无需额外治疗。部分腺体消融后性功能和控尿功能似乎得到了更好的保留。