Robot assisted radical prostatectomy in fit older patients compared to a standard population: Clinical characteristics, surgical, oncological and functional outcomes.

INTRODUCTION:To compare robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in well-selected older patients with clinically localized prostate cancer, compared to a younger population. Primary endpoint was perioperative outcomes comparison and secondary endpoint were oncological and functional outcomes comparison to a younger population. METHODS:Single tertiary center cohort of consecutive patients treated with RARP (2017-2020) with retrospective analysis. Patients were classified by age in two groups: <75: control group (CG) and ≥75: study group (SG). Patients aged ≥75 had a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and only patients classified Balducci ≤2 were admitted to surgery. RESULTS:Two hundred and sixty-nine patients were included, 56 in SG and 213 in CG. Median follow-up was 9.8 months. Univariate analysis showed no statistically significant (SS) difference between the groups for patients' characteristics (PSA, digital rectal examination -DRE- and biopsy Gleason Score), perioperative data (operative time, hospitalization length, transfusions rate, immediate complications, Clavien-Dindo complications, 30-days re-interventions and 30-days re-hospitalisation), oncological (TNM, margins, extraprostatic extension, postoperative PSA, BCR, metastases, overall survival -OS- and cancer specific survival -CSS-) and functional outcomes. Median perioperative blood loss was lower in the SG: 200.00 cc IQR [100.00, 300.00] vs 200.00cc IQR [100.00, 400.00] in the CG (P<0.05). A multivariate regression considering age>75, DRE, GS, PSA, cardiovascular history and diabetes showed none of variables associated with early BCR. Limitations are retrospective design, small number of patients and short follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:RARP shows similar perioperative, oncologic and functional outcomes for older patients selected by a CGA when compared to younger patients. The SG shows a minor perioperative bleeding. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:IV.