Prostate Cancer: LocalizedModerated Poster 47: Tuesday, May 17, 2011: 8:00 AM-10:00 AM1467 OUTCOME COMPARISONS FOR MINIMALLY INVASIVE AND RETROPUBIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
Section snippets
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
Minimally invasive prostatectomy (MIRP) has diffused rapidly despite limited data on outcomes and greater costs than for retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). A previous study comparing the effectiveness of the two approaches relied on claims databases, which have imprecise information about two important consequences of prostatectomy: incontinence and impotence. The present study compared the two procedures using patient self-report information as outcomes.
METHODS
A questionnaire about current and presurgical urinary and sexual function was mailed to 1500 randomly selected prostate cancer patients from the Utah Cancer Registry (UCR) who met the following criteria: prostatectomy more than one year previously, age 70 or younger, no metastatic disease, and no other cancer therapy. Information about chronic diseases, in-hospital complications, and length of stay was obtained from the UCR and the uniform hospital discharge abstract. Regression analysis was
RESULTS
767 participants who had surgery between 1988 and 2008 completed a questionnaire, and 678 met inclusion criteria. After eliminating responding patients who did not meet inclusion criteria, had perineal surgery, were treated by a low volume surgeon, or were treated by an unidentified or out of state surgeon, there were 464 patients evaluated in this analysis; 58 had MIRP and 406 had RRP. The respective rates of a poor outcome for MIRP and RRP were 22% versus 19% (NS) for leaking urine more than
CONCLUSIONS
This preliminary study suggests that MIRP definitely reduces length of stay and may reduce complication rate, but probably does not substantially improve quality of life.
References (0)
Cited by (0)
Source of Funding: National Cancer Institute, Utah State Department of Health, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute