Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Original article

Vol. 148 No. 4748 (2018)

Does seminal vesicle-sparing robotic radical prostatectomy influence postoperative prostate-specific antigen measured with an ultrasensitive immunoassay?

  • Orlando Burkhardt
  • Julia Neuenschwander
  • Hubert John
  • Marco Randazzo
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2018.14685
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2018;148:w14685
Published
26.11.2018

Summary

PURPOSE

Sparing of the seminal vesicles during robotic radical prostatectomy (SVRP) is an attempt to reduce potential damage to the hypogastric pelvic nerves. However, the seminal vesicles are known to express prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and it is unknown whether SVRP influences oncological outcome measured with ultrasensitive PSA immunoassays. In a retrospective study we analysed whether SVRP affects oncological outcome in terms of ultrasensitive PSA nadir and biochemical recurrence as compared with standard robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (sRALP).

METHODS

Overall, 102 patients underwent robotic prostatectomy. Patients were non-randomly allocated to the following surgical techniques: a SVRP group of 39 patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy sparing the tips of the seminal vesicles; a standard group of 63 patients who were treated with sRALP. Inclusion criteria were histologically proven negative margins (R0) and negative lymph node status (pN0). PSA was measured with an ultrasensitive assay. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare the differences in PSA nadir and follow-up PSA. Biochemical recurrence was diagnosed if PSA rose to ≥0.2 mg/ml.

RESULTS

Median (range) follow-up was 31.4 (16.4–43.8) months. Preoperative PSA was 5.8 (0.13–15.29) ng/ml in the SVRP group and 7.1 (0.8–46) ng/ml in the sRALP group. Two cases of biochemical recurrence occurred in the sRALP group during follow-up. One of these two patients presented with locally advanced prostate carcinoma diagnosed from the definitive pathological specimen (pT3b). No patient of the SVRP group had seminal vesicle invasion or biochemical recurrence. No significant between-group difference in terms of PSA nadir and follow-up PSA was recorded. However, the percentage of patients who did not reach PSA nadir values of <0.01 ng/ml was higher in the SVRP group (10 vs 5% in the sRALP group).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with sRALP, SVRP had no clinical impact on oncological outcome in terms of PSA nadir or biochemical recurrence measured with an ultrasensitive PSA immunoassay. A slightly higher PSA nadir after SVRP seems to be expected, which needs to be mentioned during follow-up of these patients.

References

  1. Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, Tammela TL, Penson DF, Carter HB, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1046–55. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062
  2. Stamey TA. The era of serum prostate specific antigen as a marker for biopsy of the prostate and detecting prostate cancer is now over in the USA. BJU Int. 2004;94(7):963–4. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.05212.x
  3. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol. 2007;178(3):S14–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.135
  4. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al.; ProtecT Study Group. 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415–24. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
  5. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):418–30. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.046
  6. Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, Close A, Vale L, Armstrong N, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(41):1–313. doi:.https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16410
  7. Vickers A, Savage C, Bianco F, Mulhall J, Sandhu J, Guillonneau B, et al. Cancer control and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy as markers of surgical quality: analysis of heterogeneity between surgeons at a single cancer center. Eur Urol. 2011;59(3):317–22. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.045
  8. Walz J, Graefen M, Huland H. Basic principles of anatomy for optimal surgical treatment of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2007;25(1):31–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0159-6
  9. Ganzer R, Stolzenburg JU, Neuhaus J, Weber F, Fuchshofer R, Burger M, et al. Anatomical study of pelvic nerves in relation to seminal vesicles, prostate and urethral sphincter: immunohistochemical staining, computerized planimetry and 3-dimensional reconstruction. J Urol. 2015;193(4):1205–12. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.001
  10. John H, Hauri D. Seminal vesicle-sparing radical prostatectomy: a novel concept to restore early urinary continence. Urology. 2000;55(6):820–4. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00547-1
  11. Villers A, Puech P, Flamand V, Haber GP, Desai MM, Crouzet S, et al. Partial Prostatectomy for Anterior Cancer: Short-term Oncologic and Functional Outcomes. Eur Urol. 2017;72(3):333–42.
  12. Bellina M, Mari M, Ambu A, Guercio S, Rolle L, Tampellini M. Seminal monolateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy in selected patients. Urol Int. 2005;75(2):175–80. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1159/000087174
  13. Schäfers S, de Geeter P, Löhmer H, Albers P. [Seminal vesicle sparing radical perineal prostatectomy]. Urologe A. 2009;48(4):408–14. Article in German.
  14. Jepsen JV, Bruskewitz RC. Should the seminal vesicles be resected during radical prostatectomy? Urology. 1998;51(1):12–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00475-5
  15. Stein JP, Hautmann RE, Penson D, Skinner DG. Prostate-sparing cystectomy: a review of the oncologic and functional outcomes. Contraindicated in patients with bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 2009;27(5):466–72. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2007.12.014
  16. John H, Hauri D, Maake C. The effect of seminal vesicle-sparing radical prostatectomy on serum prostate-specific antigen level. BJU Int. 2003;92(9):920–3. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2003.04501.x
  17. Nakamura M, Hasumi H, Miyoshi Y, Sugiura S, Fujinami K, Yao M, et al. Usefulness of ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen assay for early detection of biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2005;12(12):1050–4. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2005.01202.x
  18. Sakai I, Harada K, Kurahashi T, Muramaki M, Yamanaka K, Hara I, et al. Usefulness of the nadir value of serum prostate-specific antigen measured by an ultrasensitive assay as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol Int. 2006;76(3):227–31. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1159/000091624
  19. Hong SK, Park HZ, Lee WK, Kim DS, Lee JS, Doo SH, et al. Prognostic significance of undetectable ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen nadir after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2010;76(3):723–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.081
  20. Yoshida T, Matsuzaki K, Kobayashi Y, Takeda K, Nakayama M, Arai Y, et al. Usefulness of postoperative nadir prostate-specific antigen value by ultrasensitive assay as a predictor of prostate-specific antigen relapse for pathological T3 or positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol. 2012;44(2):479–85. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-011-0044-5
  21. Tilki D, Kim SI, Hu B, Dall’Era MA, Evans CP. Ultrasensitive prostate specific antigen and its role after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. J Urol. 2015;193(5):1525–31. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.087
  22. Doherty AP, Bower M, Smith GL, Miano R, Mannion EM, Mitchell H, et al. Undetectable ultrasensitive PSA after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer predicts relapse-free survival. Br J Cancer. 2000;83(11):1432–6. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1474
  23. Kristiansen A, Wiklund F, Wiklund P, Egevad L. Prognostic significance of patterns of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer. Histopathology. 2013;62(7):1049–56. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12104
  24. Gilbert SM. Prostate cancer: seminal vesicle sparing: a continuing trend? Nat Rev Urol. 2009;6(9):475–6. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2009.167
  25. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192
  26. Ahmed HU, Dickinson L, Charman S, Weir S, McCartan N, Hindley RG, et al. Focal Ablation Targeted to the Index Lesion in Multifocal Localised Prostate Cancer: a Prospective Development Study. Eur Urol. 2015;68(6):927–36. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.030
  27. Ong CH, Schmitt M, Thalmann GN, Studer UE. Individualized seminal vesicle sparing cystoprostatectomy combined with ileal orthotopic bladder substitution achieves good functional results. J Urol. 2010;183(4):1337–42. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.017
  28. Albers P, Schäfers S, Löhmer H, de Geeter P. Seminal vesicle-sparing perineal radical prostatectomy improves early functional results in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2007;100(5):1050–4.
  29. Gilbert SM, Dunn RL, Miller DC, Montgomery JS, Skolarus TA, Weizer AZ, et al. Functional Outcomes Following Nerve Sparing Prostatectomy Augmented with Seminal Vesicle Sparing Compared to Standard Nerve Sparing Prostatectomy: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Urol. 2017;198(3):600–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.133
  30. Mogorovich A, Nilsson AE, Tyritzis SI, Carlsson S, Jonsson M, Haendler L, et al. Radical prostatectomy, sparing of the seminal vesicles, and painful orgasm. J Sex Med. 2013;10(5):1417–23. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12086
  31. Ohori M, Scardino PT, Lapin SL, Seale-Hawkins C, Link J, Wheeler TM. The mechanisms and prognostic significance of seminal vesicle involvement by prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993;17(12):1252–61. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-199312000-00006
  32. Korman HJ, Watson RB, Civantos F, Block NL, Soloway MS. Radical prostatectomy: is complete resection of the seminal vesicles really necessary? J Urol. 1996;156(3):1081–3. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65709-4
  33. Villers AA, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Pathogenesis and biological significance of seminal vesicle invasion in prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol. 1990;143(6):1183–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)40220-5
  34. Samaratunga H, Samaratunga D, Perry-Keene J, Adamson M, Yaxley J, Delahunt B. Distal seminal vesicle invasion by prostate adenocarcinoma does not occur in isolation of proximal seminal vesicle invasion or lymphovascular infiltration. Pathology. 2010;42(4):330–3. doi:.https://doi.org/10.3109/00313021003767330
  35. Costello AJ, Brooks M, Cole OJ. Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int. 2004;94(7):1071–6. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.05106.x
  36. Walsh PC. The discovery of the cavernous nerves and development of nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;177(5):1632–5. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.01.012
  37. Ganzer R, Stolzenburg JU, Neuhaus J, Weber F, Fuchshofer R, Burger M, et al. Anatomical study of pelvic nerves in relation to seminal vesicles, prostate and urethral sphincter: immunohistochemical staining, computerized planimetry and 3-dimensional reconstruction. J Urol. 2015;193(4):1205–12. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.001