Ashutosh Tewari

The authors from the Vattikuti Institute in the USA report a prospective comparison of radical prostatectomy and robot‐assisted prostatectomy. They found that the robot‐assisted procedure was safer, and yielded favourable oncological and functional results. They also present work in association with the Department of Urology in Mansoura into robot‐assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion, and point out the advantages and disadvantages associated with performing the most complex types of urinary diversion. There is also an interesting paper relating to the association between sexual factors and prostate cancer, from authors in institutions in Australia, New Zealand and Italy. They found that in a case‐control study of men aged P < 0.001). There were four times as many complications after RRP (20% vs 5%, P < 0.05), the haemoglobin level at discharge was lower (100 vs 130 g/L, P < 0.005) and the hospital stay longer (3.5 vs 1.2 days; P < 0.05). Most (93%) of VIP and none of the RRP patients were discharged within 24 h ( P < 0.001); the duration of catheterization was twice as long after RRP (15.8 vs 7 days; P < 0.05). Positive margin was more frequent after RRP (23% vs 9%, P < 0.05). After VIP, patients achieved continence and return of erections more quickly than after RRP (160 vs 44, and 180 vs 440 days, both P < 0.5). The median return to intercourse was 340 days after VIP but after RRP half the patients have as yet not resumed intercourse at 700 days ( P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The VIP procedure appears to be safer, less bloody and requires shorter hospitalization and catheterization. The oncological and functional results were favourable in patients undergoing VIP.

The Vattikuti Urology Institute has been developing a robotic prostatectomy system for the management of prostate cancer. This technique is based on the scientific foundations of Walsh’s anatomic prostatectomy. Two hundred fifty patients with clinically localized prostate cancer have undergone this technique. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative parameters were collected, and functional outcomes using previously validated quality-of-life instruments were evaluated. The mean operating time for these patients was 2.5 hours (165 and 135 minutes with and without lymphadenectomy, respectively), and the average blood loss was 150 mL. The median specimen Gleason score was 7, and the mean tumor volume was 7 mL. Four patients had a positive surgical margin (three unifocal, one multifocal). Ninety-five percent of the patients were discharged within 23 hours, and the mean catheterization time was 4.2 days. The complication rate was 4%. Approximately 78% of the patients had intact erectile response and 96% achieved continence by the sixth month after surgery. The robotic prostatectomy system is a safe and effective operation for the management of prostate cancer.

Background and Purpose: Despite many new procedures, radical prostatectomy remains one of the commonest methods of treating clinically localized prostate cancer. Both from the physician's and the patient's point of view, it is important to have objective estimation of the likelihood of recurrence, which forms the foundation for treatment selection for an individual patient. Currently, it is difficult to predict the probability of biochemical recurrence (rising serum prostate specific antigen [PSA] concentration) in an individual patient, and approximately 30% of the patients do experience recurrence. Tools predicting the recurrence will be of immense practical utility in the treatment selection and planning follow up. We have utilized preoperative parameters through a computer based genetic adaptive neural network model to predict recurrence in such patients, which can help primary care physicians and urologists in making management recommendations. Patients and Methods: Fourteen hundred patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at participating institutions form the subjects of this study. Demographic data such as age, race, preoperative PSA, systemic biopsy based staging and Gleason scores were used to construct a neural network model. This model simulated the functioning of a trained human mind and learned from the database. Once trained, it was used to predict the outcomes in new patients. Results: The patients in this comprehensive database were representative of the average prostate cancer patients as seen in USA. Their mean age was 68.4 years, the mean PSA concentration before surgery was 11.6 ng/mL, and 67% patients had a Gleason sum of 5 to 7. The mean length of follow-up was 41.5 months. Eighty percent of the cancers were clinical stage T2 and 5% T3. In our series, 64% of patients had pathologically organ-confined cancer, 33% positive margins, and 14% had seminal vesicle invasion. Lymph node positive patients were not included in this series. Progression as judged by serum PSA was noted in 30.6%. With entry of a few routinely used parameters, the model could correctly predict recurrence in 76% of the patients in the validation set. The area under the curve was 0.831. The sensitivity was 85%, the specificity 74%, the positive predictive value 77%, and the negative predictive value of 83%. Conclusion: It was possible to predict PSA recurrence with a high accuracy (76%). Physicians desiring objective treatment counseling can use this model, and significant cost savings are anticipated because of appropriate treatment selection and patient-specific follow-up protocols. This technology can be extended to other treatments such as watchful waiting, external-beam radiation, and brachytherapy.