Improved Oncological Outcomes With Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

[snoraste]

I was not sure if this article has been posted here. But just in case:

"TAKE-HOME MESSAGE

The authors compared oncologic outcomes in men with prostate cancer and, at most, five suspicious areas on bone scan, treated either with prostatectomy (n = 38) or androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT; n = 41). Progression-free and cancer-specific survival were markedly better in men treated with prostatectomy vs ADT (75 vs 28 months; endpoint not reached vs 40 months, respectively). Multivariate analysis demonstrated prostatectomy as an independent predictor of these survival outcomes. Additionally, men treated with prostatectomy reported fewer urinary complications.

These results support ongoing efforts to define the role of prostatectomy in oligometastatic disease. Despite limitations of the study, the authors demonstrate that prostatectomy is safe and feasible in carefully selected men with oligometastatic disease.

– Michael H. Johnson, MD"

practiceupdate.com/journals...

[Dr_WHO]

Thank you. I am a firm believer in getting the primary source of cancer out! That should be followed by hormonal treatments and, if appropriate, radiation. Two years ago I had to argue (plead) with my surgeon to operate even though the cancer had spread to the pelvic area. That was followed by hormonal treatments (still on) and 38 rounds of radiation. Two years later the cancer, while still inside me, is still hiding.

[Hidden]

Yes, I agree that 'de-bulking' -- getting rid of the primary tumor is the way to go. It just seems like common sense to a layman like me. I guess the argument against it is: why subject men to the side effects of surgery when they are already screwed. Or maybe it is more nefarious: why expend the money for surgery when ... you get the idea.