Partial gland ablation using high-intensity focused ultrasound versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity score-matched study

被引:1
|
作者
Jung, Gyoohwan [1 ]
Kim, Jung Kwon [1 ]
Oh, Jong Jin [1 ]
Lee, Sangchul [1 ]
Byun, Seok-Soo [1 ,2 ]
Hong, Sung Kyu [1 ,3 ]
Lee, Hakmin [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ, Bundang Hosp, Dept Urol, Seongnam, South Korea
[2] Seoul Natl Univ, Coll Med, Dept Med Device Dev, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Seoul Natl Univ, Coll Med, Dept Urol, Seoul, South Korea
[4] Seoul Natl Univ, Bundang Hosp, Dept Urol, 173-82 Gumi Ro, Seongnam 13620, South Korea
关键词
High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation; Outcome; Prostatectomy; Prostate cancer; Propensity score; FOCAL THERAPY; CANCER; OUTCOMES; FAILURE; WHOLE;
D O I
10.1016/j.prnil.2022.12.001
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: We compared the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and partial gland ablation (PGA) using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in localized prostate cancer. Methods: We analyzed 3,859 patients who had undergone RARP and PGA using HIFU. According to the propensity score for each treatment, 137 patients after PGA were matched to 3,722 patients after RARP at a 1:4 ratio using the nearest neighbor method. Results: The matched cohort comprised 685 subjects (RARP, 548; PGA, 137), with a median follow-up period of 22 months. Treatment failures were identified in 13.9% and 9.1% of patients in the PGA and RARP groups, respectively, after a median follow-up of 36 months postoperatively. Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed significantly longer failure-free (P < 0.001) and salvage-free survival (P = 0.003) in the RARP group than in the PGA group. There was no significant difference in the postoperative urinary symptom score (P = 0.748), but the postoperative erectile function score was significantly higher in the PGA group (P < 0.001). The rate of urinary incontinence (any pad) was significantly lower in the PGA group than that in the RARP group (P < 0.001). Postoperative complications were more frequent in the PGA group (P = 0.003); however, there was no significant difference in high-grade complications (>= 3) (P = 0.467). Conclusion: PGA using HIFU showed statistically inferior oncological outcomes compared with RARP for failure-free survival and salvage-free survival. However, functional outcomes regarding postoperative incontinence and erectile dysfunction were more favorable in the PGA group. (c) 2023 Asian Pacific Prostate Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页码:134 / 138
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] WHOLE GLAND ABLATION USING HIGH-INTENSITY FOCUSED ULTRASOUND VERSUS ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: A PROPENSITY SCORE-MATCHED STUDY
    Noh, Jin
    Jung, Gyoohwan
    Lee, Hae Sung
    Nam, Jun Hyun
    Kim, Jung Kwon
    Lee, Sangchul
    Jeong, Seong Jin
    Oh, Jong Jin
    Byun, Seok-Soo
    Hong, Sung Kyu
    Lee, Hakmin
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 209 : E1042 - E1042
  • [2] Propensity score matched analysis of functional outcome in five thousand cases of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus high-intensity focused ultrasound
    Nam, Junhyun
    Kim, Jung Kwon
    Oh, Jong Jin
    Lee, Sangchul
    Byun, Seok-Soo
    Hong, Sung Kyu
    Song, Sang Hun
    PROSTATE INTERNATIONAL, 2024, 12 (02) : 104 - 109
  • [3] PARTIAL ABLATION AND TOTAL ABLATION WITH HIGH INTENSITY FOCUSED ULTRASOUND (HIFU) COMPARED TO RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY (RP): A PROPENSITY SCORE-MATCHED STUDY
    Ye, Changhee
    Jung, Gyoohwan
    Kim, Hwanik
    Kim, Jung Kwon
    Oh, Jong Jin
    Lee, Sangchul
    Jeong, Seong Jin
    Hong, Sung Kyu
    Byun, Seok-Soo
    Lee, Hakmin
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 207 (05): : E939 - E940
  • [4] Partial ablation and total ablation with High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) compared to Radical Prostatectomy (RP): A propensity score-matched study
    Ye, C.
    Jung, G.
    Kim, H.
    Kim, J. K.
    Oh, J. J.
    Lee, S.
    Jeong, S. J.
    Hong, S. K.
    Byun, S. -S
    Lee, H.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2022, 81 : S482 - S483
  • [5] Outcomes of Extraperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the Morbidly Obese: A Propensity Score-Matched Study
    Agrawal, Vineet
    Feng, Changyong
    Joseph, Jean
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2015, 29 (06) : 677 - 682
  • [6] Comparison of functional outcomes between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a propensity score-matched comparison study
    Ku, Ja Yoon
    Lee, Chan Ho
    Lee, Jeong Zoo
    Ha, Hong Koo
    ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2017, 13 (03) : 212 - 218
  • [7] COMPARISON OF FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES BETWEEN LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY AND ROBOT-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: A PROPENSITY SCORE-MATCHED COMPARISON STUDY
    Ku, JaYoon
    Lee, ChanHo
    Lee, Kyoung
    Kim, KyungHwan
    Lee, Sang Don
    Chung, Moon Kee
    Ha, HongKoo
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 197 (04): : E1237 - E1238
  • [8] LigaSure versus the standard technique (Hem-o-lok clips) for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity score-matched study
    Hamamoto, Shuzo
    AbdelRazek, Mostafa
    Naiki, Taku
    Taguchi, Kazumi
    Etani, Toshiki
    Iwatsuki, Shoichiro
    Ando, Ryosuke
    Okada, Atsushi
    Kawai, Noriyasu
    Yasui, Takahiro
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2021, 15 (06) : 869 - 875
  • [9] LigaSure versus the standard technique (Hem-o-lok clips) for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity score-matched study
    Shuzo Hamamoto
    Mostafa AbdelRazek
    Taku Naiki
    Kazumi Taguchi
    Toshiki Etani
    Shoichiro Iwatsuki
    Ryosuke Ando
    Atsushi Okada
    Noriyasu Kawai
    Takahiro Yasui
    Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2021, 15 : 869 - 875
  • [10] Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in indian men of age 75 years and above: a propensity score-matched analysis
    Carbin, Danny Darlington
    Tamhankar, Ashwin Sunil
    Ahluwalia, Puneet
    Gautam, Gagan
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2022, 16 (04) : 799 - 806