切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2024, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (05) : 435 -440. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2024.05.003

临床研究

机器人辅助单孔腹膜外根治性前列腺切除治疗高危前列腺癌的瘤控效果初探
王岩1, 钱宏阳1, 朱寅杰1, 董柏君1, 潘家骅1,(), 薛蔚1   
  1. 1. 200127 上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院泌尿外科
  • 收稿日期:2024-04-28 出版日期:2024-10-01
  • 通信作者: 潘家骅
  • 基金资助:
    国家卫健委创新药物上市后临床研究科研专项(WKZX2023CX100002); 上海市科委医学创新研究专项(21Y11904100)

Preliminary exploration of tumor control effect of robot assisted single port extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer

Yan Wang1, Hongyang Qian1, Yinjie Zhu1, Baijun Dong1, Jiahua Pan1,(), Wei Xue1   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Renji Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 200127 Shanghai, China
  • Received:2024-04-28 Published:2024-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Jiahua Pan
引用本文:

王岩, 钱宏阳, 朱寅杰, 董柏君, 潘家骅, 薛蔚. 机器人辅助单孔腹膜外根治性前列腺切除治疗高危前列腺癌的瘤控效果初探[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 435-440.

Yan Wang, Hongyang Qian, Yinjie Zhu, Baijun Dong, Jiahua Pan, Wei Xue. Preliminary exploration of tumor control effect of robot assisted single port extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(05): 435-440.

目的

评估机器人辅助单孔腹膜外根治性前列腺切除术(RA-SPERP)在高危前列腺癌患者中的瘤控效果,探讨影响RA-SPERP瘤控效果的风险因素。

方法

回顾性纳入2020年1月至2023年7月于上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院行RA-SPERP的高危前列腺癌患者共94例,患者中位年龄及PSA中位数分别为70岁和49.8 ng/ml,所有患者均为高危前列腺癌(PSA>20 ng/ml或GS>7或cT2c;任何PSA,任何GS,cT3~4或cN+)。建立腹膜外通道后,安置Lagiport套件,连接da Vinci Si系统后进行前入路腹膜外根治性前列腺切除术。以根治病理的切缘阳性率和术后6周PSA是否达到根治水平作为RA-SPERP的瘤控效果指标,使用Logistic回归方法分析影响瘤控效果的因素。

结果

所有患者均顺利完成RA-SPERP,无中转腹腔镜或开放手术。病理报告提示切缘阳性11例(11.70%),术后6周复诊检查PSA未达根治标准(PSA≥0.2 ng/ml)共14例(14.89%)。Logistic回归的结果显示,切缘阳性事件与术前较高的T分期有关,其OR=2.450;术后6周PSA未达根治标准事件,则与初诊PSA、前列腺穿刺的国际泌尿病理协会(ISUP)分级、术前T分期及淋巴结转移情况均有关,且各自变量的OR值均>1,由此建立预测术后PSA无法下降到根治水平的列线图。

结论

高危前列腺癌患者实施RA-SPERP安全可行,手术的瘤控效果可靠。术前细致评估个体的肿瘤部位与肿瘤负荷是降低切缘阳性率及避免术后PSA无法降至根治水平的关键。

Objective

To evaluate the tumor control effect of robotic-assisted single port extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (RA-SPERP) in high-risk prostate cancer patients, and explore the risk factors affecting the tumor control effect of RA-SPERP.

Methods

A total of 94 high-risk prostate cancer patients who underwent RA-SPERP in Renji Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine from January 2020 to July 2023 were retrospectively included. The median age and PSA of the patients were 70 years and 49.8 ng/ml, respectively. All patients were high risk prostate cancer (PSA>20 µg/lor Gleason score >7 or cT ≥2c), of which 44 were locally advanced tumors (any PSA, any Gleason score; cT3-T4 or cN+). After establishing an extraperitoneal channel, place the Lagiport and connect to the da Vinci Si system. The tumor control effect of RA-SPERP was evaluated by the rate of positive surgical margins on pathology and whether PSA persistent at 6 weeks after surgery. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the factors affecting tumor control.

Results

All patients successfully completed RA-SPERP without any conversion to laparoscopic or open surgery. Pathology reports showed positive margins in 11 cases(11.70%) and lymph node metastasis in 22 cases (23.40%). A total of 14 cases (14.89%) underwent follow-up examination at 6 weeks post-surgery with PSA ≥0.2 ng/ml. The results of Logistic regression indicate that positive surgical margin event is related to the level of preoperative T staging, with an OR of 2.450. For the event PSA persistent at 6 weeks after surgery, which is related to the initial diagnosis of PSA, International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade of prostate biopsy, clinical T staging, and lymph node metastasis, with OR values all >1. The nomogram for judging PSA persistent was established based on these four factors.

Conclusions

RA-SPERP is safe and feasible for high-risk prostate cancer patients, and the tumor control effect of surgery is reliable. Preoperative assessment of individual tumor location and tumor burden is the key to reducing the rate of positive surgical margins and avoiding the PSA persistent after surgery.

表1 94例单孔机器人腹膜外前列腺癌根治术患者的一般资料
表2 94例单孔机器人腹膜外前列腺癌根治术患者术后病理资料
表3 Logistic回归单孔机器人腹膜外前列腺癌根治术后切缘阳性影响因素分析
表4 Logistic回归单孔机器人腹膜外前列腺癌根治术后6周PSA达到根治水平影响因素分析
图1 关于预测单孔机器人腹膜外前列腺癌根治术术后PSA未达根治水平的列线图
[1]
Chen J, Oromendia C, Halpern J A, et al. National trends in management of localized prostate cancer: a population based analysis 2004-2013[J]. Prostate, 2018, 78(7): 512-520.
[2]
Oberlin DT, Flum AS, Lai JD, et al. The effect of minimally invasive prostatectomy on practice patterns of American Urologists[J]. Urol Oncol, 2016, 34(6): 255.e1-255.e5.
[3]
Kaouk J, Garisto J, Bertolo R. Robotic urologic surgical interventions performed with the single port dedicated platform: first clinical investigation[J]. Eur Urol, 2019, 75(4): 684-691.
[4]
Kaouk J, Bertolo R, Eltemamy M, et al. Single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: first clinical experience using the SP surgical system[J]. Urology, 2019, 124: 309.
[5]
Lenfant L, Sawczyn G, Aminsharifi A, et al. Pure single-site robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using single-port versus multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a single-institution comparative study[J]. Eur Urol Focus, 2021, 7(5): 964-972.
[6]
Ju GQ, Wang ZJ, Shi JZ, et al. A comparison of perioperative outcomes between extraperitoneal robotic single-port and multiport radical prostatectomy with the da vinci si surgical system[J]. Asian J Androl, 2021, 23(6): 640-647.
[7]
Kaouk J, Valero R, Sawczyn G, et al. Extraperitoneal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial experience and description of technique[J]. BJU Int, 2020, 125(1): 182-189.
[8]
曲发军, 徐丁, 虞永江, 等. 经腹膜外途径行单孔机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的临床应用(附36例报告)[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2022, 27(8): 607-611, 617.
[9]
魏勇, 沈露明, 杨健, 等. 运用国产单孔机器人手术系统完成腹膜外入路前列腺根治性切除术的初步经验[J]. 南京医科大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 43(8): 1156-1160.
[10]
王东, 郭剑明, 古迪, 等. 单孔机器人辅助前列腺癌根治术专家共识[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2023, 12(1): 18-24.
[11]
Kaouk J, Aminsharifi A, Wilson CA, et al. Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal single port robotic radical prostatectomy: a comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes[J]. J Urol, 2020, 203(6): 1135-1140.
[12]
李星, 曾晓勇. 中国前列腺癌流行病学研究进展[J]. 肿瘤防治研究, 2021, 48(1): 98-102.
[13]
Patrikidou A, Loriot Y, Eymard JC, et al. Who dies from prostate cancer?[J]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2014, 17(4): 348-352.
[14]
Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update[J]. Eur Urol, 2014, 65(2): 303-313.
[15]
Preisser F, Heinze A, Abrams-Pompe RS, et al. Impact of positive surgical margin length and gleason grade at the margin on oncologic outcomes in patients with nonorgan-confined prostate cancer[J]. Prostate, 2022, 82(9): 949-956.
[16]
Sasaki T, Ebara S, Tatenuma T, et al. Prognostic differences among the positive surgical margin locations following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a large Japanese cohort (the MSUG94 group)[J]. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 2023, 53(5): 443-451.
[17]
Kim M, Yoo D, Pyo J, et al. Clinicopathological significances of positive surgical resection margin after radical prostatectomy for prostatic cancers: a meta-analysis[J]. Medicina, 2022, 58(9): 1251.
[18]
Matikainen MP, von Bodman CJ, Secin FP, et al. The depth of the prostatic apex is an independent predictor of positive apical margins at radical prostatectomy[J]. BJU Int, 2010, 106(5): 622-626.
[19]
Hong SK, Chang IH, Han BK, et al. Impact of variations in bony pelvic dimensions on performing radical retropubic prostatectomy[J]. Urology, 2007, 69(5): 907-911.
[20]
Ploussard G, Fossati N, Wiegel T, et al. Management of persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of the literature[J]. Eur Urol Oncol, 2021, 4(2): 150-169.
[21]
Wu S, Lin SX, Cornejo KM, et al. Clinicopathological and oncological significance of persistent prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Asian J Urol, 2023, 10(3): 317-328.
[22]
Micoogullari U, Cakici MC, Kisa E, et al. A risk grouping algorithm for predicting factors of persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen in patients following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy[J]. Int J Clin Pract, 2021, 75(10): e14495.
[23]
Preisser F, Chun FKH, Pompe RS, et al. Persistent prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy and its impact on oncologic outcomes[J]. Eur Urol, 2019, 76(1): 106-114.
[24]
Ghadjar P, Hayoz S, Bernhard J, et al. Dose-intensified versus conventional-dose salvage radiotherapy for biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after prostatectomy: the SAKK 09/10 randomized phase 3 trial[J]. Eur Urol, 2021, 80(3): 306-315.
[25]
Milonas D, Laenen A, Venclovas Z, et al. Benefits of early salvage therapy on oncological outcomes in high-risk prostate cancer with persistent PSA after radical prostatectomy[J]. Clin Transl Oncol, 2022, 24(2): 371-378.
[1] 裴琪, 赵卫红, 郝敏. 宫颈上皮内瘤变3级锥切术后病理切缘阳性的多因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2017, 11(16): 2125-2128.
阅读次数
全文


摘要