Pathologic outcomes during the learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE: We report our initial experience with 62 patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), focusing on the primary parameter of positive surgical margins. The authors demonstrate that excellent oncologic outcomes can be attained with a less steep learning curve than previously hypothesized. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The first 62 patients undergoing RALP by a single physician (DPD) at our institution between November 2005 and August 2007 were retrospectively assessed. Surgical pathology records were reviewed for Gleason score, pathologic tumor stage, nodal status, location of prostate cancer within the specimen, extracapsular extension, surgical margin status, presence of perineural invasion, tumor volume, and weight of the surgical specimen. Margin status was determined using surgical specimens only, and not intraoperative frozen sections. All cases in this series were completed using the four-arm da Vinci Robotic System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, California). RESULTS: Sixty-one patients had prostate cancer on their final surgical pathology specimens. Pathologic stage T2 and stage T3 patients were 88.7 percent and 9.7 percent of all cases, respectively. The pathologic Gleason score was 7 or greater in 62.3 percent. Our overall positive surgical margin rate was 3.3 percent. Patients with pathologic T2 and T3 disease had a positive surgical margin rate of 1.8 percent and 16.7 percent, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that RALP can have equal if not better pathologic outcomes compared to open radical prostatectomy even during the initial series of cases. We argue that the learning curve for RALP is shorter than previously thought with respect to oncologic outcomes, and concerns asserting that lack of tactile feedback leads to poor oncologic outcomes are unfounded.

Urothelial-Type adenocarcinoma of the prostate mimicking metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma

Adenocarcinoma arising in urinary bladder or prostatic urethra is uncommon. When they occur, the tumor can be mistaken for metastatic lesions, especially from the colon. Here we report the fifth case of a primary urothelial-type adenocarcinoma arising in the prostate which showed enteric differentiation. The patient was a 55 year-old male whose prostatic needle core biopsy showed a high grade adenocarcinoma which was initially thought to be metastatic colon cancer. A follow-up colonoscopy was unremarkable. Subsequent prostatectomy revealed a high grade adenocarcinoma which was positive for cytokeratins 7 and 20, carcinoembryonic antigen, CDX2, and high molecular weight cytokeratin, and negative for prostate specific antigen, prostate specific acid phosphatase and AMACR. A diagnosis of urothelial-type adenocarcinoma of the prostate was rendered. We review the literature regarding this entity, and discuss the differential diagnosis, emphasizing utility of immunohistochemistry in making the diagnosis. Finally, we speculate on the behavior of these rare tumors.