A systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of surgical method on specimen margins and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer.

Abstract

65 Background: To date there is no robust evidence comparing the outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomies in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. The purpose of this study is to perform a meta-analysis comparing the rates of positive surgical margins (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) between open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: A systematic review was performed on Pubmed, Embase and Scopus databases in August 2016, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. References retrieved were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Black and Down’s tool for quality assessment. Nine retrospective cohorts comparing ORP and RARP were selected and included in the meta-analysis. Results: Nine studies reported the PSMs. Patients treated with RARP presented less risk of PSMs (risk difference -0.04, p 0.02) than those treated with ORP. Five articles reported hazard ratios for BCR-free survival. Patients treated with RARP had less risk of BCR (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.89) than those treated with ORP. Reports for PSM assessment were considered of adequate quality, while the studies retrieved for BCR assessment were considered limited because of the heterogeneity of their results. Conclusions: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with RARP have less risk of having PSM and BCR when compared to those treated with ORP. A strong conclusion is precluded due to the observational nature of the studies retrieved for our analysis.