MP20-20 Outcomes Following Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy in Patients on Active Surveillance/Watchful Waiting or with Incidental Prostate Cancer Diagnosis on Pathology

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology I (MP20)1 May 2024MP20-20 Outcomes Following Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy in Patients on Active Surveillance/Watchful Waiting or with Incidental Prostate Cancer Diagnosis on Pathology Dylan Buller, Ilene Staff, Tara McLaughlin, Kevin Pinto, Laura Olivo Valentin, Joseph Tortora, David Ahlborn, Brandon Stahl, Ryan Dorin, Stuart Kesler, and Joseph Wagner Dylan BullerDylan Buller , Ilene StaffIlene Staff , Tara McLaughlinTara McLaughlin , Kevin PintoKevin Pinto , Laura Olivo ValentinLaura Olivo Valentin , Joseph TortoraJoseph Tortora , David AhlbornDavid Ahlborn , Brandon StahlBrandon Stahl , Ryan DorinRyan Dorin , Stuart KeslerStuart Kesler , and Joseph WagnerJoseph Wagner View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008732.80104.31.20AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) is an effective surgical option for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), particularly for men with large/very large prostates. Outcomes have not been studied in men undergoing RASP with prior diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS)/watchful waiting (WW) or who have PCa incidentally identified on pathology specimen. Additionally, the proportion of patients who subsequently undergo radical treatment for PCa is unknown. Our goal was to analyze oncologic and surgical outcomes of these groups. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all men aged 18-89 who underwent RASP from 8/1/2016 to 9/30/2023 at our institution. Men who were on AS/WW or who had PCa first identified on RASP pathology were included. Here, we present descriptive statistics on oncologic and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: Of 288 patients who underwent RASP, 23 (8%) were on AS/WW and 20 (7%) had new PCa diagnosis on RASP pathology. Of those 43 patients, median pre-operative PSA was 8.5 and median first post-RASP PSA was 1.2. No patient required additional BPH surgery. There were no instances of bladder neck contracture. All 43 were able to void spontaneously following RASP, including 18 patients (42%) in retention at the time of surgery. Five patients (1.7% of total cohort) underwent subsequent radical therapy for PCa, including 2 with high risk PCa on RASP pathology and 3 with pathologic upstaging on subsequent prostate biopsy; of the five, 2 were on AS/WW and 3 had new PCa diagnosis (Figure 1). Median follow-up after surgery was 14 months. Table 1 lists oncologic and surgical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: RASP is safe and effective in men with a prior diagnosis of PCa or with new diagnosis of PCa on RASP pathology. Few men undergoing RASP in our cohort proceeded to radical therapy for PCa. Nonetheless, patients on AS/WW undergoing RASP or those with PCa diagnosed on RASP specimen should be monitored for progression of PCa warranting further intervention. Download PPT Source of Funding: Unfunded © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e328 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Dylan Buller More articles by this author Ilene Staff More articles by this author Tara McLaughlin More articles by this author Kevin Pinto More articles by this author Laura Olivo Valentin More articles by this author Joseph Tortora More articles by this author David Ahlborn More articles by this author Brandon Stahl More articles by this author Ryan Dorin More articles by this author Stuart Kesler More articles by this author Joseph Wagner More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...