Effect of open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on cancer control in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: Prospective analysis of 1,014 consecutive patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
80 Background: There are limited prospective data comparing outcomes of Open Radical Prostatectomy (ORP) and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (RALRP) for clinically localized prostate cancer. Our aim was to compare ORP and RALRP with respect to cancer control outcomes. Methods: A prospective analysis of data from the University of Alberta Radical Prostatectomy Database was performed. Between September 2007 and August 2010, 1019 consecutive men underwent radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. The surgical approach was selected by the surgeon. The outcomes were biochemical recurrence (BCR) and positive surgical margins (PSM). BCR was defined as a PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/ml followed by a subsequent confirmatory value or initiation of salvage therapy. PSM was defined as the presence of cancer at the inked margin in the radical prostatectomy specimen. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate biochemical recurrence free survival (BCRFS). Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine the association between surgical approach and outcomes. Results: Data were evaluable for 1014 out of 1019 patients. 204 patients underwent ORP and 810 patients underwent RALRP. The median follow-up duration was 21 months (IQR 12 to 29). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. In univariable analysis, 3-year BCRFS (90.6% versus 88.9%), overall PSM (26.5% versus 28.8%), and stage-stratified PSM (pT2: 19.9% versus 21.8%; pT3: 40.6% versus 49.1%) did not differ between the groups (all comparisons p>0.05). In multivariable analysis, surgical approach was not independently associated with BCR (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37, p=0.37) or PSM (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.67, p=0.44). Conclusions: ORP and RALRP provided comparable short-term oncologic efficacy. Extended follow-up of the prospective cohort is needed to confirm these preliminary findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".