Zero positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: is the end in sight?

References

• Jemal A, Siegal R, Ward E et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J. Clin.58(2), 71–96 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J. Urol.128(3), 492–497 (1982).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate4(5), 473–485 (1983).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J. Urol.174, 903–907 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA281, 1395–1400 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graefen N, Noldus J, Pichlmeier U et al. Early prostate-specific antigen relapse after radical prostatectomy: prediction on the basis of preoperative and postoperative tumor characteristics. Eur. Urol.36(1), 21–30 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards R, Lee DI, Skarecky D. Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology65(6), 1224–1228 (2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borin J, Skarecky DW, Narula N, Ahlering TE. The impact of urethral stump length on continence and positive surgical margins in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RLP) urology. Urology70(1), 173–177 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuessler WW, Kavoussi LR, Clayman RV, Vancaillie TG. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial case report. J. Urol.147, A246 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology50(6), 854–857 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M et al. Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J. Urol.20(6), 360–366 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Hatzinger M, Schulze M, Frede T. Technical evolution of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after 450 cases. J. Endourol.17(3), 143–154 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Cathelineau X et al. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience. J. Urol.167(1) 51–56 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillonneau B, El-Fettouh H, Baumert H et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases at Montsouris Institute. J. Urol.169, 1261–1266 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green PE, Piantanida TA, Hill JW et al. Telepresence: dexterious procedures in a virtual operating field. Am. Surg.57, 192 (1991) (Abstract).
   Google Scholar
• Shennib H, Bastawisy A, McLoughlin J, Moll F. Robotic computer-assisted telemanipulation enhances coronary artery bypass. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.117(2), 310–319 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardiere GB, Himpens J, Vertruyen M, Favretti F. The world’s first obesity surgery performed by a surgeon at a distance. Obes. Surg.9, 206–209 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int.87(4), 408–410 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wieder JA, Soloway MS. Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J. Urol.160, 299>–315 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology66, 83–94 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA et al. Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J. Clin. Oncol.23, 7005–7012 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohori M, Scardino PT. Localized prostate cancer. Curr. Probl. Surg.39, 833–957 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Iocca A et al. Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J. Urol.165, 119–125 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karakiewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graeffen M et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology66, 1245–1250 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han M, Partin AW, Chan DY, Walsh PC. An evaluation of the decreasing incidence of positive surgical margins in a large retropubic prostatectomy series. J. Urol.171, 23–26 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lepor H, Nieder AM, Ferrandino MN. Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J. Urol.166, 1729–1733 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zincke H, Oesterling JE, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Myers RP, Barrett DM. Long-term (15 years) results after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized (stage T2C or lower) prostate cancer. J. Urol.152, 1850–1857 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J. Urol.167, 528–534 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iselin CE, Robertson JE, Paulson DF. Radical perineal prostatectomy: oncological outcome during a 20-year period. J. Urol.161, 163–168 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabah DM, Schellhammer PF, Diaz JI, Tuerk I, Soderdahl DW, Fabrizio MD. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: is intact organ removal attainable? Study of margin status. J. Endourol.18, 731–734 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozet F, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Cathala N, Vallancien G. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective evaluation of 600 cases. J. Urol.174, 908–911 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M et al. Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology70, 965–969 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahlering TE, Patel V, Lee DI, Skarecky DW. Multi-institutional review of pathological margins after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RLP). J. Urol.175(4), 1158 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menon M, Shrivastava A, Sarle R, Hemal A, Tewari A. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: a single-team experience of 100 cases. J. Endourol.17, 785–790 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfram M, Brautigam R, Engl T et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Frankfurt technique. World J. Urol.21, 128–132 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentas W, Wolfram M, Jones J, Brautigam R, Kramer W, Binder J. Robotic technology and the translation of open radical prostatectomy to laparoscopy: the early Frankfurt experience with robotic radical prostatectomy and one year follow-up. Eur. Urol.44, 175–181 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Robotic radical prostatectomy: the European experience. Urol. Clin. North Am.31(4), 693–699 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting – the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J. Urol.174(1), 269–272 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph JV, Rosenbaum R, Madeb R, Erturk E, Patel HR. Robotic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: an alternative approach. J. Urol.175, 945–950 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikhail AA, Orvieto MA, Billatos ES et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: first 100 patients with one year of follow-up. Urology68(6), 1275–1279 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sim HG, Yip SKH, Lau WKO et al. Team-based approach reduces learning curve in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Int. J. Urol.13, 560–564 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel VR, Shah S, Arend D. Histopathological outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy TSW. Urology1, 38 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Badani KK, Kaul S, Menon M. Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy. Cancer110(9), 1951–1958 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Novara G, Aragona M, Artibani W. Evidence from robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur. Urol.51(1), 45–55 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Gonen et al. Effects of pathologic stage on the learning curve for radical prostatectomy: evidence that recurrence in organ-confined cancer is largely related to inadequate surgical technique. Eur. Urol.53, 560–566 (2008).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsuboi T, Ohori M, Kuroiwa K et al. Is intraoperative frozen section analysis an efficient way to reduce positive surgical margins? Urology66, 1287–1291 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen J, Lee L. Clinical applications and new developments of optical coherence tomography: and evidenced-based review. Clin. Exp. Optom.90(5), 317–335 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brezinski ME. Applications of optical coherence tomography to cardiac and musculoskeletal diseases: bench to bedside? J. Biomed. Opt.12(5), 051705 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ukimura O, Magi-Galluzzi C, Gill IS. Real-time transrectal ultrasound guidance during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: impact on surgical margins. J. Urol.175, 1304–1310 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tearney GJ, Brezinski ME, Southern JF, Bouma BE, Boppart SA, Fujimoto JG. Optical biopsy in human urologic tissue using optical coherence tomography. J. Urol.157, 1915–1919 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Amico AV, Weinstein M, Li X, Richie JP, Fujimoto J. Optical coherence tomography as a method for identifying benign and microscopic structure in the prostate gland. Urology55(5), 783–787 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rais-Bahrami S, Levinson AW, Fried NM et al.Optical coherence tomography of cavernous nerves: a step toward real-time intra-operative imaging during nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urology72(1), 198–204 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aron M, Kaouk JH, Hegarty NJ et al.Preliminary experience with Niris™ optical coherence tomography system during laparoscopic and robotic prostatectomy. J. Endourol.21(8), 814–818 (2007)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanimoto S, Rodriguez-Granillo G, Barlis P et al. A novel approach for quantitative analysis of intra coronary optica coerence tomography. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv.72(2), 228–235 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar