ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: There is a growing interest about the role of radical prostatectomy (RP) in local cancer control in oligometastatic prostate cancer (PCa). PURPOSE: To evaluate the oncological and functional outcomes of RP in the management of oligometastatic PCa through a systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review search was performed and the following bibliographic databases were accessed: PubMed, Scopus, Embase and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched from January 2000 to November 2022. This was carried out by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Based on the literature search of 384 articles, 11 (511 patients) met the inclusion criteria (mean age: 65.5 yr.). Positive surgical margins were 59%. Median follow-up ranged from 13 to 64 months. Clinical progression-free survival ranged from 56% at 3 years to 45% at 7 years. Specific and overall survival rates ranged from 60 to 80.5% and 78 to 80% at 5 years, respectively. Clavien ≥3 complications ranged from 0 to 21%. The urinary incontinence rate was 14.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to published studies, RP of oligometastatic PCa appears to be safe with acceptable morbidity in selected patients. The lack of a consensual definition, the low level of evidence and the bias of the comparative and retrospective studies available do not allow practical recommendations to be made. There is currently no place for metastatic surgery outside of participation in a clinical trial.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term sexual outcome of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) vs robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to the 412 patients treated by the same surgeon by LRP or RALP from March 2004 to July 2009. Ninety-six patients were evaluated preoperatively with a good erectile function before surgery and a follow-up more than 24 months. Erectile function was evaluated by the IIEF-5, the QLQ-C30 PR25 questionnaires. Partner's sexuality was evaluated with a FSFI's based questionnaire. RESULTS: There was no significant difference before surgery between two groups LRP and RALP. After surgery, the IIEF-5 without any treatment was better in RALP group than in LRP group (P=0.025). When a bilateral nerve sparing was performed, the IIEF-5 maximum was better in RALP group (P=0.002). For the partners, there was no difference between the two techniques and it appeared that communication about sexuality is the less altered, long time after a radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: In case of bilateral nerve sparing prostatectomy, an experimented operator in laparoscopic surgery should have better long-term erectile function results with RALP than LRP. Partner's sexuality modifications need more prospective studies to know its influence on erectile rehabilitation.
