FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2000679267> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2000679267 endingPage "185" @default.
• W2000679267 startingPage "184" @default.
• W2000679267 abstract "For men at significant risk of dying from untreated prostate cancer within reasonably estimated remaining life spans, which technique offers the best disease-free survival: open radical prostatectomy (RP) or robot-assisted RP (RARP)? The practice patterns in many countries suggest RARP, but many concerns have been raised about the RARP technique for high-risk disease, including positive surgical margin rates, adequate lymph node dissections (LNDs), and the learning curve. In this issue of the BJUI, Silberstein et al. 1 provide a convincing study, short of a randomised trial, that suggests that in experienced hands both techniques can be effective, and that surgeon experience had a stronger effect than technique. In contrast to large population-based studies 2, this study sought to take the learning curve and low-volume surgeon variables out of the equation by restricting the inclusion criteria to four high-volume surgeons from a single centre. The follow-up is short (one year), and may underestimate the true biochemical relapse rates, and needs follow-up study, but for now offers no difference in relapse rates nor pathological staging outcomes. Beyond the comparative effectiveness research (CER), Silberstein et al. 1 also provide a valuable vision for prostate cancer surgeons using any standard technique. Several recent landmark studies on PSA screening 3, 4, the Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) 5, and comparisons of metastatic progression between RP and radiation 6, all indicate the need to shift our practice pattern towards active surveillance for lower risk patients (with or without adjunctive focal therapy, but the former still experimental in our view), and curative therapy for intermediate- to high-risk disease. Such a practice pattern is evident when you compare this study (2007–2010) with a similar effort from this institution (2003–2005) comparing RP with laparoscopic RP (LRP) 7. In the former study, >55% had low-risk disease compared with <35% from the current study 1. As expected, the present study 1 shows higher N1 stage (9%) and positive surgical margin rates (15%) than the former (7% and 11%, respectively). While erectile function recovery was not presented, the authors noted the familiar reality that patients demand nerve sparing whenever feasible, only 2% in this study had bilateral non-nerve-sparing and 91% had a combination of bilateral or partial nerve sparing. The number of LNs retrieved has increased from 12–13/case to 15–16, and the authors state that even with nomogram-based exclusion of mandatory pelvic LNDs with <2% risk of N1 staging, this modern cohort had a pelvic LND in 94% of cases, including external iliac, obturator, and hypogastric templates. We fully concur with this practice pattern, and have recently provided a video-based illustration of how to learn the technique, and early experience showing an increase in median LN counts from eight to 16, and an increase in positive LNs from 7% to 18% 8. By risk group, our positive-LN rate was 3% for low risk, 9% for intermediate risk, and 39% for high risk. We certainly hope that future multi-institutional studies will no longer reflect what these authors found, in that RARP surgeons are five times more likely to omit pelvic LNDs than open, even for high-risk cancers. Finally, Silberstein et al. 1 and related CER publications leave us the question, does each publication on CER in RP have to be comprehensive (i.e. oncological, functional, and morbidity) or can it focus on one question. Members of this authorship line have published the ‘trifecta’ (disease control, potency, and continence) 9 and others the ‘pentafecta’ (the trifecta plus negative surgical margins and no complications) 10. Indeed, Eastham and Scardino 11 stated in an editorial that ‘data on cancer control, continence, or potency in isolation are not sufficient for decision making and that patients agreeing to RP should be informed of functional results in the context of cancer control’. We feel that the answer should be no, focused manuscripts have their merit and publication space/word limits create this reality. But we should not discount the sometimes surprising results when one institution using the same surgeons and methodologies publishes on the broader topic: the Touijer et al. paper 7 discussed above found the same oncological equivalence between RP and LRP as this comparison of RP and RARP, but also included functional data showing significantly lower recovery of continence with LRP. Nevertheless, the recent body of work in the BJUI now provides a well-rounded picture of modern CER including oncological outcomes 1, 12, complications 13, recovery of erectile dysfunction 14, 15, continence 15 and costs 16. We feel it is reasonable to conclude that patients should be counselled that RARP has potential benefits in terms of blood loss, hospital stay, and complications (at increased costs), but oncological and functional results are probably based upon surgeon experience." @default.
• W2000679267 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2000679267 creator A5006241226 @default.
• W2000679267 creator A5032400726 @default.
• W2000679267 date "2013-01-29" @default.
• W2000679267 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2000679267 title "A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons" @default.
• W2000679267 cites W1520872987 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W1524625101 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W1544429223 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W1546542672 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W1553684495 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W1553801861 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W1831174980 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W1921065648 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W2009346005 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W2046392254 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W2058519695 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W2105959001 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W2106058419 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W2110569728 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W2139566281 @default.
• W2000679267 cites W2146720344 @default.
• W2000679267 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2012.11643.x" @default.
• W2000679267 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23356744" @default.
• W2000679267 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2000679267 type Work @default.
• W2000679267 sameAs 2000679267 @default.
• W2000679267 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2000679267 countsByYear W20006792672017 @default.
• W2000679267 countsByYear W20006792672018 @default.
• W2000679267 countsByYear W20006792672021 @default.
• W2000679267 countsByYear W20006792672022 @default.
• W2000679267 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2000679267 hasAuthorship W2000679267A5006241226 @default.
• W2000679267 hasAuthorship W2000679267A5032400726 @default.
• W2000679267 hasBestOaLocation W20006792671 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConcept C2779466945 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConcept C2780192828 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConcept C2780849966 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConcept C509974204 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConceptScore W2000679267C121608353 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConceptScore W2000679267C126322002 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConceptScore W2000679267C141071460 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConceptScore W2000679267C2779466945 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConceptScore W2000679267C2780192828 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConceptScore W2000679267C2780849966 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConceptScore W2000679267C2908647359 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConceptScore W2000679267C509974204 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConceptScore W2000679267C61434518 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConceptScore W2000679267C71924100 @default.
• W2000679267 hasConceptScore W2000679267C99454951 @default.
• W2000679267 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2000679267 hasLocation W20006792671 @default.
• W2000679267 hasLocation W20006792672 @default.
• W2000679267 hasOpenAccess W2000679267 @default.
• W2000679267 hasPrimaryLocation W20006792671 @default.
• W2000679267 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W2000679267 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W2000679267 hasRelatedWork W2065437117 @default.
• W2000679267 hasRelatedWork W2305959020 @default.
• W2000679267 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W2000679267 hasRelatedWork W2545489389 @default.
• W2000679267 hasRelatedWork W2973010805 @default.
• W2000679267 hasRelatedWork W4246083279 @default.
• W2000679267 hasRelatedWork W4313245133 @default.
• W2000679267 hasRelatedWork W193188344 @default.
• W2000679267 hasVolume "111" @default.
• W2000679267 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2000679267 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2000679267 magId "2000679267" @default.
• W2000679267 workType "article" @default.