51 Background: Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) remains controversial due to exaggerated marketing claims, higher costs, hidden risks, and few clinically significant benefits, including an absence of improved cancer control compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). The purpose of our study is to compare surgical margin status by surgical approach. Methods: We identified 13,434 men with a histologically confirmed, non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with RARP versus ORP during 2004 and 2009 from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked data. Propensity-based analyses were performed to minimize treatment selection biases. Generalized linear regression models were computed for comparison of radical prostatectomy surgical margin status by surgical approach. Results: During the study period, 5,556 and 7,878 men underwent RARP and ORP, respectively. In the propensity-adjusted cohort, the incidence of positive surgical margins was significantly lower among men undergoing RARP versus ORP (13.7% vs. 18.4%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63–0.73, p<0.001). This reduction in the incidence of positive surgical margins of RARP over ORP was more pronounced among men with more advanced disease—6.6% lower absolute incidence of positive margins among men with intermediate- and high-risk disease (p<0.001, respectively) and 15.4% lower absolute incidence of positive margins among men with extracapsular extension (p<0.001). Moreover, RARP was associated with lower odds of positive surgical margins compared to ORP for pT2 (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.61–0.74, p<0.001) and pT3a (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60–0.85, p<0.001) disease. Additionally, RARP was associated with lower odds of positive surgical margins for intermediate (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58–0.74) and high-risk (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.64–0.75) disease. Conclusions: RARP was associated with improved surgical margin status among men with intermediate and high-risk disease. This has important implications for cancer control, patient quality of life, health care delivery and additional costs of downstream therapies.
Read full abstract