ArticleEuropean urology open science2020
Risk of Recurrent Disease 6 Years After Open or Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the Prospective Controlled Trial LAPPRO.
Article in European urology open science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prostate Cancer's Silent Partners: Fibroblasts and Their Influence on Glutamine Metabolism Manipulation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Robot-assisted vs open retropubic radical prostatectomy: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis based on 15 years and 18,805 patients.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- The Longitudinal Course of Prospectively Recorded Patient-reported Outcomes in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Surgery and Salvage Radiotherapy.European urology open science · 2023Article
- Learning curve for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a large prospective multicentre study.Scandinavian journal of urology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConclusive evidence of superiority in oncological outcome for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) over retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) is lacking.
objectiveTo compare RALP and RRP regarding recurrent disease and to report the mortality rate 6 yr after surgery. DESIGN SETTING AND
participantsA total of 4003 men with localized prostate cancer were enrolled between 2008 and 2011 in Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open (LAPPRO)- a prospective, controlled, nonrandomized trial performed at 14 Swedish centers. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were collected at visits and by patient questionnaires at 3, 12, and 24 mo, and through a structured telephone interview at 6 yr. Cause of death was retrieved from the National Cause of Death Register in Sweden. The modified Poisson regression approach was used for analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After adjustment for patient-, tumor-, and surgeon-related confounders, no statistically significant difference was observed between RALP and RRP in biochemical recurrence rate (14 vs 16%, relative risk [RR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-1.06) or in not cured endpoint (22% vs 23%, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.6-1.11). Stratified by D'Amico risk group, a significant benefit for RALP existed for recurrent disease in high-risk patients (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.86,
conclusionsNo significant difference was observed for cancer recurrence rate between RALP and RRP 6 yr after surgery. However, in a subgroup analysis, we found a significant benefit for RALP regarding recurrence rate in the high-risk group. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to make a firm conclusion and to evaluate a possible survival benefit. PATIENT SUMMARY: In general, the oncological outcome is comparable between robotic and open radical prostatectomy 6 yr after surgery. For high-risk patients, our findings indicate that there is an advantage for robotics, but further studies with longer follow-up time is needed to make a firm conclusion.
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.