Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Considering the role of radical prostatectomy in 21st century prostate cancer care

Nature Reviews Urology volume 17, pages 177–188 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The practice of radical prostatectomy for treating prostate cancer has evolved remarkably since its general introduction around 1900. Initially described using a perineal approach, the procedure was later popularized using a retropubic one, after it was first described as such in 1948. The open surgical method has now largely been abandoned in favour of the minimally invasive robot-assisted method, which was first described in 2000. Until 1980, the procedure was hazardous, often accompanied by massive blood loss and poor outcomes. For patients in whom surgery is indicated, prostatectomy is increasingly being used as the first step in a multitherapeutic approach in advanced local, and even early metastatic, disease. However, contemporary molecular insights have enabled many men to safely avoid surgical intervention when the disease is phenotypically indolent and use of active surveillance programmes continues to expand worldwide. In 2020, surgery is not recommended in those men with low-grade, low-volume Gleason 6 prostate cancer; previously these men — a large cohort of ~40% of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer — were offered surgery in large numbers, with little clinical benefit and considerable adverse effects. Radical prostatectomy is appropriate for men with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease (Gleason score 7–9 or Grade Groups 2–5) in whom radical prostatectomy prevents further metastatic seeding of potentially lethal clones of prostate cancer cells. Small series have suggested that it might be appropriate to offer radical prostatectomy to men presenting with small metastatic burden (nodal and or bone) as part of a multimodal therapeutic approach. Furthermore, surgical treatment of prostate cancer has been reported in cohorts of octogenarian men in good health with minimal comorbidities, when 20 years ago such men were rarely treated surgically even when diagnosed with localized high-risk disease. As medical therapies for prostate cancer continue to increase, the use of surgery might seem to be less relevant; however, the changing demographics of prostate cancer means that radical prostatectomy remains an important and useful option in many men, with a changing indication.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Landmarks in prostatectomy.
Fig. 2: Zonal anatomy of the prostate.
Fig. 3: Lymph node dissection templates.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Young, H. H. VIII. conservative perineal prostatectomy: the results of two years’ experience and report of seventy-five cases. Ann. Surg. 41, 549–557 (1905).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Sathianathen, N. J. et al. Landmarks in prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 15, 627–642 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Millin, T. Retropubic prostatectomy. J. Urol. 59, 267–280 (1948).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bailey, H., Love, R. J. A Short Practice of Surgery. 4th ed. (H.K.Lewis & Co Ltd., 1938).

  5. Young, H. H. The cure of cancer of the prostate by radical perineal prostatectomy (prostato-seminal vesiculectomy). J. Urol. 53, 188–253 (1945).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Walsh, P. C. Radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostatic carcinoma. Urol. Clin. North Am. 7, 583–591 (1980).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Reiner, W. G. & Walsh, P. C. An anatomical approach to the surgical management of the dorsal vein complex. J. Urol. 121, 198–200 (1979).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lange, P. H. & Reddy, P. K. Technical nuances and surgical results of radical retropubic prostatectomy in 150 patients. J. Urol. 138, 348–352 (1987).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson & Boileau. in Genito Urinary Tumours Ch 3 46–47 (Grune and Stratton Sullivan, 1982).

  10. Walsh, P. C. & Donker, P. J. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J. Urol. 128, 492–497 (1982).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Breyer, B. N. & McAninch, J. W. Management of recalcitrant bladder neck contracture after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Endoscopic and open surgery. J. Urol. 185, 390–391 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Msezane, L. P. et al. Bladder neck contracture after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: evaluation of incidence and risk factors and impact on urinary function. J. Endourol. 22, 97–104 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Harding Rains, A. J., Capper, M. Bailey & Love’s Short Practice of Surgery. (H.K.Lewis & Co Ltd., 1968).

  14. Bumpus, H. C. Carcinoma of the prostate radium and surgical treatment. Surg. Gynaecol. Obstet. 35, 177 (1922).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cabot, H. Factors influencing the mortality of suprapubic prostatectomy. Surg. Gynaecol. Obstet. 17, 689 (1913).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Blandy, J. P. Operative Urology (Blackwell, (1978).

  17. Tornblom, M. et al. Lead time associated with screening for prostate cancer. Int. J. Cancer 108, 122–129 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Chang, S. L., Kibel, A. S., Brooks, J. D. & Chung, B. I. The impact of robotic surgery on the surgical management of prostate cancer in the USA. BJU Int. 115, 929–936 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nuhn, P. et al. Update on systemic prostate cancer therapies: management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the Era of precision oncology. Eur. Urol. 75, 88–99 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Harding Rains, A. J. & Capper, M. Bailey & Love’s Short Practice of Surgery. 14th ed. (H.K.Lewis & Co Ltd, 1998).

  21. Hudson, M. A., Bahnson, R. R. & Catalona, W. J. Clinical use of prostate specific antigen in patients with prostate cancer. J. Urol. 142, 1011–1017 (1989).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Catalona, W. J. et al. Detection of organ confined prostate cancer is increased through PSA based screening. JAMA 270, 948–954 (1993).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ellis, W. J. et al. Early detection of prostate cancer with an ultrasensitive chemoluminescent PSA assay. Urology 50, 573–579 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ragde, H. H., Aldape, H. C. & Bagley, C. M. Ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Biopsy gun superior to aspiration. Urology 32, 503–506 (1988).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stabile, A. et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions. Nat. Rev. Urol. 17, 41–61 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McNeal, J. E., Redwine, E. A., Freiha, F. S. & Stamey, T. A. Zonal distribution of prostate cancer. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 12, 897–906 (1988).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cohen, M. R. Laparoscopy, Culdography and Ginecography; Technique (Atlas Saunders, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ferguson, C. M. Electrosurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am. Surg. 58, 96–99 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ferzili, G. J., Trapasso, A., Raboy, A. & Albert, P. Extraperitoneal endoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection. J. Laparoendosc. Surg. 2, 39–44 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Abbou, C. C. et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. Urology 55, 630–633 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Steiner, M., Morton, R. A. & Walsh, P. C. Impact of anatomical radical prostatectomy on urinary continence. J. Urol. 145, 512–515 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Touijer, K. et al. Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis of outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005. J. Urol. 179, 1811–1817 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Ballantyne, G. H. & Moll, F. The daVinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surg. Clin. North Am. 83, 1293–1304 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Menon, M. et al. Vattikuti institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases. Urol. Clin. North Am. 31, 701–717 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Abbou, C. C. et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J. Urol. 165, 1964–1966 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Binder, J. & Kramer, W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 87, 408–410 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Goad, J. R. Scardino 1994 modifications of technique of radical prostatectomy to minimise blood loss. Atlas Urol. Clin. North Am. 2, 510–513 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Patel, V. R. et al. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 59, 702–707 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nelson, J. B. The ongoing challenge of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 198, 1223–1225 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kaye, D. R. et al. Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share? Nat. Rev. Urol. 12, 55–60 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Yaxley, J. W. et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 388, 1057–1066 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Secin, F. P., Joborn-Andres, T. & Bjartell, S. Multi-institutional study of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in prostate cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol 53, 134–145 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cisek, L. J. & Walsh, P. C. Thromboembolic complications after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 42, 406–408 (1993).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Magera, J. S. et al. Increased optical magnification from 2.5× to 4.3× with technical modification lowers the positive margin rate in open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J. Urol. 179, 130–135 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kaye, D. R., Mullins, J. K., Carter, H. B. & Bivalacqua, T. J. Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share? Nat. Rev. Urol. 12, 55–60 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Vaessen, C. Location of robotic surgical systems world-wide and in France. J. Visc. Surg. 148 (Suppl.), e9–e11 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rassweiler, J. J. et al. Future of robotic surgery in urology. BJU Int. 120, 822–841 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Capogrosso, P. et al. Are we improving erectile function recovery after radical prostatectomy? Analysis of patients treated over the last decade. Eur. Urol. 75, 221–228 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Costello, A. J. Editorial comment. J. Urol. 198, 606 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Novara, G. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 62, 382–404 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Carlsson, S. et al. Oncological and functional outcomes 1 year after radical prostatectomy for very-low-risk prostate cancer: results from the prospective LAPPRO trial. BJU Int. 118, 205–212 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Trinh, Q. D. et al. A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 64, 786–798 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Thompson, R. H., Slezak, J. M., Webster, W. S. & Lieber, M. M. Radical prostatectomy for octogenarians: how old is too old? Urology 68, 1042–1045 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Costello, A. J. Beyond marketing: the real value of robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 96, 1–2 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Coughlin, G. D. et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol. 19, 1051–1060 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Vickers, A. J. Editorial comment on: impact of surgical volume on the rate of lymph node metastases in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection for clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 54, 802–803 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Begg, C. B. et al. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 1138–1144 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Vickers, A. J. et al. Effects of pathologic stage on the learning curve for radical prostatectomy: evidence that recurrence in organ-confined cancer is largely related to inadequate surgical technique. Eur. Urol. 53, 960–966 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Tharmalingam, H. et al. New approaches for effective and safe pelvic radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 16, 523–538 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ku, S., Gleave, M. E. & Beltran, H. Towards precision oncology in advanced prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 16, 645–654 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Rescigno, P. & de Bono, J. S. Immunotherapy for lethal prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 16, 69–70 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Bruinsma, S. et al. Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer — results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure. Nat. Rev. Urol. 14, 312–322 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Student, V. Jr. et al. Advanced reconstruction of vesicourethral support (ARVUS) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: one-year functional outcomes in a two-group randomised controlled trial. Eur. Urol. 71, 822–830 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Rocco, B. et al. Posterior musculofascial reconstruction after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of the literature. Eur. Urol. 62, 779–790 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Coakley, F. V. et al. Urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy: relationship with membranous urethral length on preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. J. Urol. 168, 1032–1035 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Schlomm, T. et al. Full functional-length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 60, 320–329 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Menon, M. et al. Functional recovery, oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an evidence-based analysis comparing the retzius sparing and standard approaches. J. Urol. 199, 1210–1217 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. John, H. & Hauri, D. Seminal vesicle-sparing radical prostatectomy: a novel concept to restore early urinary continence. Urology 55, 820–824 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Savera, A. T. et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy with the “Veil of Aphrodite” technique: histologic evidence of enhanced nerve sparing. Eur. Urol. 49, 1065–1073 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Haglind, E. et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur. Urol. 68, 216–225 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Pignot, G. et al. Systemic treatments for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 15, 498–510 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Klotz, L. et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 126–131 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Dall’Era, M. A. et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur. Urol. 62, 976–983 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Lengana, T. et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT replacing bone scan in the initial staging of skeletal metastasis in prostate cancer: a fait accompli? Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 16, 392–401 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Culp, S. H., Schellhammer, P. F. & Williams, M. B. Might men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer benefit from definitive treatment of the primary tumor? A SEER-based study. Eur. Urol. 65, 1058–1066 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Dundee, P. et al. Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand-positron-emission tomography: still just the tip of the iceberg. Urology 120, 187–191 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Finne, P. et al. Lead time in the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur. J. Can. 46, 3102–3108 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Assel, M. et al. Association between lead time and prostate cancer grade: evidence of grade progression from long-term follow-up of large population-based cohorts not subject to prostate-specific antigen screening. Eur. Urol. 73, 961–967 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Halsted, W. S. I. A clinical and histological study of certain adenocarcinomata of the breast: and a brief consideration of the supraclavicular operation and of the results of operations for cancer of the breast from 1889 to 1898 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Ann. Surg. 28, 557–576 (1898).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Babaian, R. et al. Metastases from transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Urology 16, 142–144 (1980).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Shah, R. B. et al. Androgen independant prostate cancer is a heterogenous group of diseases. Cancer Res. 64, 9209–9216 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Sharma, V. et al. Gene expression correlates of site-specific metastasis among men with lymph node positive prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: a case series. Urology 112, 29–32 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. van Leeuwen, F. W. B. et al. Technologies for image-guided surgery for managing lymphatic metastases in prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 16, 159–171 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Perera et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 15, 686–692 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Mattei, A. et al. The template of theprimary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur. Urol. 53, 118–125 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Yaxley, J. W. et al. Reconsidering the role of pelvic lymph node dissection with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in an era of improving radiological staging techniques. World J. Urol. 36, 15–20 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Ploussard, G. et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications-a systematic review of the literature. Eur. Urol. 65, 7–16 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Donin, N. M. & Reiter, R. E. Why targeting PSMA is a game changer in the management of prostate cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 59, 177–182 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Jadvar, H. & Ballas, L. K. PSMA PET: transformational change in prostate cancer management? J. Nucl. Med. 59, 228–229 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Meredith, G. et al. The use of GaPSMA PET/CT in men with biochemical recurrence after definitive treatment of acinar prostate cancer. BJU Int. 118, 49–55 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Burkhard, F. C. & Studer, U. E. The role of lymphadenectomy in high risk prostate cancer. World J. Urol. 26, 231–236 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Aguirre-Ghiso, J. A. Models, mechanisms and clinical evidence for cancer dormancy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 7, 834–846 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Seiler, R., Studer, U. E., Tschan, K., Bader, P. & Burkhard, F. C. Removal of limited nodal disease in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: long-term results confirm a chance for cure. J. Urol. 191, 1280–1285 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Pierorazio, P. M. et al. Pathological and oncologic outcomes for men with positive lymph nodes at radical prostatectomy: the Johns Hopkins Hospital 30-year experience. Prostate 73, 1673–1680 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Ost, P. et al. Progression-free survival following stereotactic body radiotherapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer treatment-naive recurrence: a multi-institutional analysis. Eur. Urol. 69, 9–12 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Murphy, D. G. & Costello, A. J. How can the autonomic nervous system contribute to urinary continence following radical prostatectomy? a “boson-like” conundrum. Eur. Urol. 63, 445–447 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Reeves, F. et al. Preservation of the neurovascular bundles is associated with improved time to continence after radical prostatectomy but not long-term continence rates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 68, 692–704 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Takenaka, A. et al. Preservation of the puboprostatic collar and puboperineoplasty for early recovery of urinary continence after robotic prostatectomy: anatomic basis and preliminary outcomes. Eur. Urol. 51, 433–440 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Sohayda, C. et al. Extent of extracapsular extension in localized prostate cancer. Urology 55, 382–386 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Costello, A. J., Brooks, M. & Cole, O. J. Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int. 94, 1071–1076 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Weerakoon, M. et al. The current use of active surveillance in an Australian cohort of men: a pattern of care analysis from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry. BJU Int. 115, 50–56 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Parker, C. C. et al. Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 392, 2353–2366 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. DiBlasio, C. J. et al. Patterns of sexual and erectile dysfunction and response to treatment in patients receiving androgen derivation therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 102, 39–43 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Jadvar, H. & Ballas, L. K. PSMA PET: transformational change in prostate cancer management. J. Nucl. Med. 59, 228–229 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Clark, C. E. et al. Adopting robotics training into a general surgery residency curriculum: where are we now? Curr. Surg. Rep. 7, 2 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Clarebrough, E. E. et al. Cadaveric analysis of periprostatic nerve distribution: an anatomical basis for high anterior release during radical prostatectomy? J. Urol. 185, 1519–1525 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Koraitim, M. M. The male urethral sphincter complex revisited: an anatomical concept and its physiological correlate. J. Urol. 179, 1683–1689 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Kim, P. H. et al. Trends in the use of incontinence procedures after radical prostatectomy: a population based analysis. J. Urol. 189, 602–608 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Ficarra, V. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 62, 418–430 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Gilbert, S. M. et al. Functional outcomes following nerve sparing prostatectomy augmented with seminal vesicle sparing compared to standard nerve sparing prostatectomy: results from a randomized controlled trial. J. Urol. 198, 600–607 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Lim, S. K. et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: combining the best of retropubic and perineal approaches. BJU Int. 114, 236–244 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Dalela, D. et al. A pragmatic randomized controlled trial examining the impact of Retzius-sparing approach on early urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 72, 677–685 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Brennen, W. N. & Isaacs, J. T. Mesenchymal stem cells and the embryonic reawakening theory of BPH. Nat. Rev. Urol. 15, 703–715 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks H. Crowe for her valuable contributions to the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Anthony J. Costello

Authors
  1. Anthony J. Costello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony J. Costello.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Costello, A.J. Considering the role of radical prostatectomy in 21st century prostate cancer care. Nat Rev Urol 17, 177–188 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-020-0287-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-020-0287-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing