ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2015
Oncological outcomes following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in a multiracial Asian population.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Positive surgical margin is associated with biochemical recurrence risk following radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis from high-quality retrospective cohort studies.World journal of surgical oncology · 2018Pooled it
- Long-term cancer control outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment: a meta-analysis.International urology and nephrology · 2017Pooled it
- Prostate Cancer Characteristics and Outcomes after Prostatectomy in Asian-American Men.Clinical genitourinary cancer · 2022Article
- Comparison of perioperative outcomes in elderly (age ≧ 75 years) vs. younger men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.PloS one · 2020Article
- Multiparametric MRI reporting using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0 (PI-RADSv2) retains clinical efficacy in a predominantly post-biopsy patient population.Asian journal of urology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the oncological outcomes of RARP in a multiracial Asian population from a single institution. All suitable patients from 1st January 2003-30th June 2013 were identified from a prospectively maintained cancer registry. Peri-operative and oncological outcomes were analysed. Significance was defined as p < 0.05. There were n = 725 patients identified with a mean follow-up duration 28 months. The mean operative time, EBL and LOS were 186 min, 215 ml and 3 days, respectively. The pathological stage was pT2 in 68.6% (n = 497/725), pT3 in 31.3% (n = 227/725) and n = 1 patient with pT4 disease. The pathological Gleason scores (GS) were 6 in 27.9% (n = 202/725), GS 7 in 63.6% (n = 461/725) and GS ≥ 8 in 8.0 % (n = 58/725). The node positivity rate was 5.8% (n = 21/360). The positive margin rates were 31.0% (n = 154/497) and 70.9% (n = 161/227) for pT2 and pT3, respectively, and decreasing PSM rates are observed with surgical maturity. The biochemical recurrence rates were 9.7% (n = 48/497) and 34.2% (n = 78/228) for pT2 and pT3/T4, respectively. On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of BCR were pathological T stage and pathological Gleason score. Post-operatively, 78.5% (n = 569/725) of patients had no complications and 17.7% (n = 128/725) had minor (Clavien grade I-II) complications. This series, representing the largest from Southeast Asia, suggests that RARP can be a safe and oncologically feasible treatment for localised prostate cancer in an institution with moderate workload.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.