Vourganti, Srinivas

Introduction The introduction of the purpose‐built single‐port (SP) robotic platform has allowed for the advent of regionalized minimally invasive surgical approaches for robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP), including the extraperitoneal and transvesical techniques. This study sought to develop a best practice consensus on the key principles, patient selection, surgical techniques, expected clinical outcomes, and learning curves pertaining to SP‐RARP. Methods A modified Delphi consensus was developed by a panel of experts, consisting of a 33‐item questionnaire, with each statement rated using a binary Likert scale (‘agree’ or ‘disagree’). The survey was distributed via email to all practicing SP‐RARP surgeons across the USA and Europe. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement on a given statement. Results A total of 53 surgeons participated in the Delphi Consensus across the two rounds. Of 33 statements, 28 (84.8%) reached agreement in the first round. The remaining consensus was achieved in the second round, involving 35 surgeons, and with one additional statement. The panel agreed that, although are no absolute contraindications to SP‐RARP, the preference towards specific SP‐RARP techniques should remain guided by the individual patients and surgical expertise. Although the SP extraperitoneal technique is recommended to pursue pelvic lymph node dissections, the panel agreed that transvesical SP‐RARP showed promise in promoting shorter hospital stay, faster recovery of urinary continence, and utility in patients with extensive prior abdominal surgery. Consensus was also reached on the need for a structured training pathway, with most recommending beginning with extraperitoneal SP‐RARP before advancing to the transvesical approach. Conclusion This Delphi consensus demonstrates broad agreement among experienced SP surgeons in the USA and Europe, forming the foundation for future research on the clinical utility and necessary training pathways for SP‐RARP. Nevertheless, empirical validation based on clinical data from large cohort studies remains important.

The PRESERVE study (NCT04972097) aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the NanoKnife System to ablate prostate tissue in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The NanoKnife uses irreversible electroporation (IRE) to deliver high-voltage electrical pulses to change the permeability of cell membranes, leading to cell death. A total of 121 subjects with organ-confined PCa ≤ T2c, prostate-specific antigens (PSAs) ≤ 15 ng/mL, and a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or 4 + 3 underwent focal ablation of the index lesion. The primary endpoints included negative in-field biopsy and adverse event incidence, type, and severity through 12 months. At the time of analysis, the trial had completed accrual with preliminary follow-up available. Demographics, disease characteristics, procedural details, PSA responses, and adverse events (AEs) are presented. The median (IQR) age at screening was 67.0 (61.0–72.0) years and Gleason distribution 3 + 4 (80.2%) and 4 + 3 (19.8%). At 6 months, all patients with available data (n = 74) experienced a median (IQR) percent reduction in PSA of 67.6% (52.3–82.2%). Only ten subjects (8.3%) experienced a Grade 3 adverse event; five were procedure-related. No Grade ≥ 4 AEs were reported. This study supports prior findings that IRE prostate ablation with the NanoKnife System can be performed safely. Final results are required to fully assess oncological, functional, and safety outcomes.

BACKGROUNDPartial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) are standard treatments for a small renal mass. Retrospective studies suggest an overall survival (OS) advantage, however a randomized phase 3 trial suggests otherwise. The effects of both surgical modalities on OS were evaluated compared with controls.METHODSA matched cohort study was performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)‐Medicare dataset. Individuals treated with PN or RN for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) measuring ≤4 cm were compared with 2 control groups (non–muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (BCC) and noncancer controls (NCC). Using a greedy algorithm, RCC groups were matched with controls by demographics and comorbidities. OS for surgical groups and controls were compared. The cause of death was evaluated for cancer groups when differences in OS were noted.RESULTSPatients undergoing PN and RN were matched with controls. All cancer groups had >95% 10‐year cancer‐specific survival (CSS). Median OS was similar between RN (9.05 years) and BCC (8.67 years; P = .067) and NCC (8.77 years; P = .49). Median OS was improved for PN (10.45 years) compared with BCC (8.75 years; P<.001) and NCC controls (8.76 years; P<.001). A multivariate Cox hazards model demonstrated that PN improved OS compared with NCC (hazard ratio, 1.257; P<.001) and BCC (hazard ratio, 1.364; P<.001).CONCLUSIONSRN patients had similar OS compared with controls, suggesting that this treatment modality does not compromise survival. Patients undergoing PN had improved OS compared with controls, suggesting possible selection bias. The apparent survival advantage conferred by PN in SEER‐Medicare case series is likely the result of selection bias involving unmeasured confounders. Cancer 2013;119:2981—2989. © 2013 American Cancer Society.