Skip to main content

Table 2 Pathological and oncological outcomes in men received RRP or RARP

From: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy significantly reduced biochemical recurrence compared to retro pubic radical prostatectomy

   RRP (n = 490) RARP (n = 418) P value
Gleason score (%) 6 148 (30) 23 (5) <0.0001
7 295 (60) 288 (69)
8–10 47 (9.7) 107 (26)
Pathological T stage (%) 0 11 (2.2) 1 (0.2) 0.007
2a 49 (10) 43 (10) 1
2b 82 (17) 50 (12) 0.04
2c 219 (44) 195 (46) 0.69
3a 118 (24) 107 (25) 0.64
3b 6 (1) 22 (5.3) <0.0001
4 5 (1) 0 (0) N.A.
Lymphovascular invasion (%) 0 390 (80) 236 (56) <0.0001
1 100 (20) 182 (44)
Perineural invasion 0 203 (41) 119 (29) <0.0001
1 287 (59) 298 (71)
N stage (%) 0 486 (99) 83 (93) 0.014
1 4 (0.8) 6 (7)
Positive surgical margin (PSM) (%) Total 213 (44) 89 (21) <0.0001
pT2a 6 /49 (12) 5/43 (11) 0.92
pT2b 15/82 (18) 6/50 (12) 0.33
pT2c 95/219 (43) 19/195 (9.8) <0.0001
pT3a 92/118 (78) 46/107 (43) <0.0001
pT3b 3/6 (50) 13/22 (55) 0.7
pT4 2/5 (40) 0/0 N.A.
Sites of PSM (%) Base 33 (6.7) 32 (7.7) 0.59
Lateral lobe 62 (13) 24 (5.7) 0.0003
Apex 136 (28) 33 (7.8) <0.0001
Anterior 5 (1) 5 (1) 0.8
Posterior 3 (0.6) 1 (0.2) 0.4
Fat tissues 2 (0.4) 6 (1.4) 0.9
Seminal vesicle 1 (0.2) 4 (1) 0.1
PSA-relapse (%)   121 (25) 36 (8.6) <0.0001
Salvage therapy RT 38 21 N.A
ADT 61 7
RT + ADT 9 6
Surveillance 13 1
  1. RRP Retro-pubic radical prostatectomy; RARP Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; N.A. Not applicable; RT radio therapy; ADT androgen deprivation therapy