Neoplasms

Urinary Tract, Sexual Organs, and Pregnancy Conditions

All Conditions

Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases

Symptoms and General Pathology

Prostatic Neoplasms

Obesity

Neoplasm Metastasis

Genital Neoplasms, Male

Urogenital Neoplasms

Genital Diseases

Genital Diseases, Male

Urogenital Diseases

Prostatic Diseases

Male Urogenital Diseases

Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

Joseph Tam, MBBCh

Becky Ward

Mathias Winkler, FRCS

Charlotte Bevan, PhD

The investigators will be collecting prostate and fat tissue from participants undergoing radical prostatectomy to culture and study in the laboratory.

Both obesity and prostate cancer are major health problems in the UK, affecting 1 in 3 and 1 in 8 men respectively. Moreover, obesity increases the risk of developing aggressive disease and the risk of prostate cancer spreading. How this happens is not known. The investigators want to understand how fat cells communicate with prostate cancer cells. Investigators will be collecting prostate and fat tissue from radical prostatectomy participants for culture, in particular to look at exosome communication.

Prostate cancer tissue, benign prostate tissue, peri-prostatic adipose tissue, omental adipose tissue, blood, urine

Biological male only (can include transgender women)

How Does Prostate Cancer Metastasize? Studying the Role of Secreted Packages (Exosomes) From Fat Tissue in Lean and Obese Patients

The EXOPRO Study: How Does Prostate Cancer Metastasize? Understanding the Role of Exosomal Communication in Lean vs Obese Patients

De-identified individual participant data for all primary and secondary outcomes will be made available.

Proliferation, migration, invasion, apoptosis and epthelial-mesenchymal transition assays will be performed using isolated exosomes on prostate cancer cell lines

Exosomal RNA transferred from human adipose tissue to prostate cancer cell lines will be isolated using a tagged magnetic bead isolation method and sequenced to identify transferred small RNAs

Prostate cancer cell lines will be treated with isolated exosomes, then parental and treated cells sequenced to identify differentially expressed RNA and underlying changes

Treatment of prostate cancer cell lines with microRNA mimics or inhibitors and comparison of changes with exosome treated cell lines

Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust

Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres

Imperial College London

Patients with prostate cancer who have undergone robotic radical prostatectomy at The Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Medical Center.

Patients with prostate cancer that will undergo robotic radical prostatectomy at The Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Medical Center .

robotic radical prostatectomy

Steven Clinton, MD

This is a retrospective/prospective Analysis of surgical outcomes of robotic prostatectomy.

This retrospective / prospective study will allow us to collect and analyze the presurgical, peri-operative, and outcome data of patients who undergo robotic radical prostatectomy at The Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Medical Center, beginning February 2008 onwards.

Retrospective/Prospective Analysis of Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Prostatectomy at The James

Retrospective/Prospective Analysis of Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Prostatectomy at Ohio State University/The James.

Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center

Principal Investigator

Adenocarcinoma

Open Radical Prostatectomy

To date, no study has prospectively compared open versus robotic radical prostatectomy in a randomized fashion for patients with prostate cancer. For patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer who choose surgical management, the choice of surgical approach is often limited to surgeon preference and experience. This study will prospectively randomize patients with localized prostate cancer who are candidates for surgical management to open versus robotic radical prostatectomy.

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Robotic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy

Free from biochemical recurrence, continent, and potent 2 years after radical prostatectomy

Any complication according to Calvien classification

Mayo Clinic

R. Houston Thompson, MD

The patient is laid in the exaggerated lithotomy and 15 degree Trendelenburg position. An incision is made between both ischial tuberosities. Perineal dissection is performed till the apex of the prostate is seen. Subcutaneous tissue laying under the incision borders is dissected deeply over the superficial perineal fascia to place the GelPOINT®.Once the robotic system is docked, dissection of prostate is started.

GelPOINT®

CHI HANG YEE, MBBS

Sui Yan Lau, MPH

Radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) was the first approach utilized for the removal of the entire prostate gland for prostate cancer. In the minimally invasive surgery era, the robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) was first described in the early 2000s, and has become the mainstay of prostatectomy in Hong Kong and many parts of the world. Incorporating the robotic technology into the technique of RPP has been studied recently. Some preliminary data showed that such approach resulted in a better functional outcome in continence and erectile function. Our study aims at assessing the safety and effectiveness of robotic RPP in prostate cancer management.

Radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) was the first approach utilized for the removal of the entire prostate gland for prostate cancer \[1\]. It continued to be the favoured approach for radical prostatectomy for several decades before the description of the radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) by Walsh in 1970s, who has refined the anatomical retropubic approach \[2\]. In the minimally invasive surgery era, the robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) was first described in the early 2000s \[3\]. With time, the robotic retropubic approach became one of the most common approaches for prostate removal in prostate cancer patients. In parallel with the implementation of robotic surgery in retropubic prostatectomy, a revival in interest was experienced for the RPP approach in its role for the management of localized prostate cancer. In 2003, Resnick reported a cohort of RPP with reasonable operative times and cancer control concluding that the procedure was safe and effective \[4\]. Janoff and Parra noted that in comparison to RRP, patients undergoing RPP had less postoperative discomfort, shorter return of bowel function and hospital stay with a decreased transfusion rate \[5\]. Incorporating the robotic technology into the technique of RPP, Kaouk et al. performed robotic RPP in four patients with localized prostate cancer using a multi-arm da Vinci Surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA). The procedures were successfully completed applying a robotic perineal approach with patients discharged within 48 hours \[6\]. Tugku et al reported their clinical experience with 15 patients who underwent robotic RPP \[7\]. Early continence rate was shown to be 40% at urethral catheter removal and 94% at third months postoperatively. Furthermore, a study was performed by the same group comparing outcomes of robotic RPP versus transperitoneal RALP \[8\]. Eighty patients (40 robotic RPP vs 40 RALP) with localized prostate cancer were included in the study. Continence rates were 94% in the robotic RPP and 72% in the RALP (p = 0.001) group at the 6th-month follow-up. In terms of erectile function, the rates favoured robotic RPP at 3, 6, and 9-month follow-ups with 44%, 66%, and 75%, respectively. In addition, compared with conventional RALP, robotic RPP would offer an advantage for those patients who had previous intra-abdominal surgery. Moreover, not having the need of putting the patients into steep Trendelenburg position is another potential benefit of robotic RPP over conventional RALP. In this study, we evaluate the early oncological outcome and objective functional outcome of patients undergoing robotic RPP for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Robotic Radical Perineal Prostatectomy Study

Robotic Radical Perineal Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Feasibility Study

As defined by completion of prostatectomy via robotic perineal approach

Positive margin rate in the prostatectomy specimen pathology

Change in scores in EPIC-26 questionnaires

Study title	NCT ID	Conditions	Interventions	Eligibility	Organization
How Does Prostate Cancer Metastasize? Studying the Role of Secreted Packages (Exosomes) From Fat Tissue in Lean and Obese Patients	NCT04167722	Prostate Cancer Obesity	Robotic Radical...	-	Imperial College London
Retrospective/Prospective Analysis of Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Prostatectomy at The James	NCT01643954	Prostate Cancer	robotic radical...	18 Years -	Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center
How Does Prostate Cancer Metastasize? Studying the Role of Secreted Packages (Exosomes) From Fat Tissue in Lean and Obese Patients	NCT04167722	Prostate Cancer Obesity	Robotic Radical...	-	Imperial College London
Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Robotic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy	NCT01365143	Prostatic Neopl... Adenocarcinoma	Robotic Radical... Open Radical Pr...	18 Years -	Mayo Clinic
How Does Prostate Cancer Metastasize? Studying the Role of Secreted Packages (Exosomes) From Fat Tissue in Lean and Obese Patients	NCT04167722	Prostate Cancer Obesity	Robotic Radical...	-	Imperial College London
Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Robotic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy	NCT01365143	Prostatic Neopl... Adenocarcinoma	Robotic Radical... Open Radical Pr...	18 Years -	Mayo Clinic
Robotic Radical Perineal Prostatectomy Study	NCT04919057	Robotic Radical...	GelPOINT®	40 Years - 80 Years	Chinese University of Hong Kong
Robotic Radical Perineal Prostatectomy Study	NCT04919057	Robotic Radical...	GelPOINT®	40 Years - 80 Years	Chinese University of Hong Kong

Spots Global Cancer Trial Database for robotic radical prostatectomy