Khanna, Abhinav

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has become the leading approach for radical prostatectomy driven by innovations aimed at improving functional and oncological outcomes. The initial advancement in this field was transperitoneal multiport robotics, which has since undergone numerous technical modifications. These enhancements include the development of extraperitoneal, transperineal, and transvesical approaches to radical prostatectomy, greatly facilitated by the advent of the Single Port (SP) robot. This review offers a comprehensive analysis of these evolving techniques and their impact on RARP. Additionally, we explore the transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI) in digitizing robotic prostatectomy. AI advancements, particularly in automated surgical video analysis using computer vision technology, are unprecedented in their scope. These developments hold the potential to revolutionize surgeon feedback and assessment and transform surgical documentation, and they could lay the groundwork for real-time AI decision support during surgical procedures in the future. Furthermore, we discuss future robotic platforms and their potential to further enhance the field of RARP. Overall, the field of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been an incubator of innovation over the last two decades. This review focuses on some recent developments in robotic prostatectomy, provides an overview of the next frontier in AI innovation during prostate cancer surgery, and highlights novel robotic platforms that may play an increasing role in prostate cancer surgery in the future.

421 Background: Reported rates of adherence to post-radical cystectomy (RC) surveillance guidelines in real-world practice have been as low as 9%, in part reflecting a nihilistic view held by many of the value of routine follow-up. Indeed, conflicting data exist regarding the outcomes of patients with cancer recurrence detected by scheduled surveillance versus symptom-directed evaluation. Herein, we assessed comparative outcomes of patients with symptomatic recurrence (SR) versus asymptomatic recurrence (AR) after RC. Methods: We reviewed our Institutional Registry of RC patients to identify patients with cancer recurrence following RC. Presenting symptoms in the SR cohort included pain, constitutional symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms, and hematuria/voiding symptoms, whereas AR was defined as recurrence detected on routine surveillance in the absence of symptoms. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between study groups using chi-square and t-test. Kaplan-Meier and Cox survival analyses were performed to compare cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) between AR and SR groups. Results: Of 3822 patients who underwent RC from 1980-2018 (with a median follow-up after RC of 2.4 years (IQR 1.1,5.5), a total of 1100 were subsequently diagnosed with recurrence, including 311 (28.3%) with AR and 789 (71.7%) with SR. Median time from RC to recurrence was longer in the AR group (13.2 months) than in the SR group (10.8 months; p = 0.01). Presenting symptoms included pain (70.2%), constitutional symptoms (50.7%), gastrointestinal symptoms (23.3%), and urinary symptoms (23.3%). Median follow-up after recurrence was 2.4 years (IQR 1.1-5.5), during which time 997 patients died, including 840 who died of bladder cancer. Compared to patients with SR, patients with AR had a longer median CSS (54.5 months vs 27.3 months, p < 0.001) and OS (43.0 months vs 25.8 months, p < 0.001). On multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for demographic and clinical factors, SR was associated with a significantly increased risk of cancer-specific (hazard ratio [HR] 1.66 [95% confidence interval 1.41-1.96], p < 0.0001) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.48 [1.23-1.71], p < 0.0001). Conclusions: SR after RC is associated with worse oncologic outcomes than post-RC recurrence detected by routine surveillance. As such, continued surveillance is warranted, while further study is needed to determine the optimal follow-up regimen balancing patient and disease risks.

416 Background: Urethral recurrence (UR) has been reported to occur in up to 5% of patients following radical cystectomy (RC). Debate continues regarding the utility of screening for UR after RC. Moreover, oncologic outcomes of patients with UR remain incompletely described, and reports have been limited by small cohort sizes. Herein, we evaluated risk factors for UR as well as cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) among patients with UR. Methods: We reviewed our institutional RC registry to identify patients with UR following RC. Logistic regression was used to assess risk factors for UR. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard regression were used to compare outcomes in those with UR diagnosis prompted by symptoms versus those with asymptomatic UR diagnosed on surveillance cytology. Results: Overall, 2930 patients underwent RC from 1980-2018, with a median post-operative follow-up of 4.9 years (IQR 1.6-11.0), of whom 144 (4.9%) were subsequently diagnosed with UR. Prostatic urethral involvement at RC (odds ratio [OR] 5.75 [3.67-9.01], p < 0.0001) and higher pT-stage (OR 3.57 [2.07-6.14], p < 0.0001) were associated with an increased risk of UR, whereas receipt of continent urinary diversion (OR 0.34 [0.20-0.58], p < 0.0001) was associated with a decreased risk of UR. A total of 72/144 (50%) patients were diagnosed with UR based on symptoms, and 104/144 (72.2%) patients with UR underwent subsequent urethrectomy. Patients with symptomatic recurrence had higher tumor stage on urethrectomy than those with asymptomatic recurrence (≥pT2 in 13.1% vs 3.1%, p = 0.007). At a median follow-up of 2.6 years (IQR 1.0-7.1) after UR, 68 of the patients with UR died of urothelial carcinoma. Kaplan-Meier analyses suggest longer median overall and cancer-specific survival for patients with UR detected by cytology than those presenting with symptoms (p = 0.05 for both). On multivariable analyses, patients who experienced UR had significantly increased risk of cancer-specific (hazard ratio [HR] 1.93 [95% confidence interval 1.50-2.50), p < 0.0001) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.34 [1.13-1.65], p = 0.001). Conclusions: Approximately 5% of patient undergoing RC experience UR, with higher pT-stage and prostatic urethral involvement increasing the risk of UR. Asymptomatic detection of UR was associated with lower pathologic stage at urethrectomy as well as longer cancer-specific and overall survival, supporting urethral surveillance after RC.