This trial is active, not recruiting.

Conditions prostate cancer, quality of life
Treatment quality of life questionnaires
Sponsor Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Collaborator The Cleveland Clinic
Start date July 2005
End date July 2016
Trial size 959 participants
Trial identifier NCT00578123, 04-094


The goal of the study is to look at surgical recovery and quality of life for men who have an open versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RP). RP is a procedure that removes the prostate gland. We want to see how long it will take you to return to health and strength after surgery. Quality-of-life (QOL) means how you feel about your life and your treatment of prostate cancer. The QOL surveys ask questions about your sexual, urinary and bowel functions. We will also ask questions about your use of health care services, out-of-pocket-spending on medical care and about your return to work, in order to learn about the financial impact of prostate cancer treatment. We hope that the surveys will help show how prostate cancer treatments affect your daily life after surgery.

United States No locations recruiting
Other countries No locations recruiting

Study Design

Allocation randomized
Intervention model single group assignment
Masking open label
Primary purpose supportive care
Quality of Life Questionnaires
quality of life questionnaires
Three surveys you will need to complete. We will give you the surveys during your regularly scheduled clinic visits at three, six, and twelve months after surgery. You will NOT be asked to make additional appointments just for the study. You will have the option of completing some of the surveys in an easy to use computer format in the clinic waiting area or on paper.

Primary Outcomes

To compare robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) with respect to potency function at 1 year, after adjusting for known confounding variables measured at baseline.
time frame: 1 year

Secondary Outcomes

To evaluate the recovery of continence after RALP or ORP.
time frame: 2 years
To evaluate patient convalescence after RALP or ORP.
time frame: 2 years
To evaluate operative details.
time frame: 2 years
To evaluate inpatient (hospital) details
time frame: 2 years
To evaluate post-discharge (home) details.
time frame: 2 years
To evaluate health service utilization, out-of-pocket spending and changes in employment following RALP or ORP.
time frame: 2 years

Eligibility Criteria

Male participants of any age.

Inclusion Criteria: - Biopsy proven adenocarcinoma of the prostate - Clinical stage T1-T2, NX or N0, Mx or M0 - Life expectancy greater than or equal to 10 years - Planned radical prostatectomy - Patients must be able to read and speak English, be free of cognitive impairment, and be reachable by telephone Exclusion Criteria: - Prior hormonal therapy for prostate cancer - Prior pelvic radiation - Prior chemotherapy for prostate cancer

Additional Information

Official title Prospective Assessment of Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes After Open or Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
Principal investigator James Eastham, MD
Description This study will prospectively assess clinical outcomes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in men undergoing open, or robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Open radical prostatectomy is a frequently performed treatment for patients with clinically localized (cT1-T2) prostate cancer. The open technique stands as a benchmark against which all other treatments, including new surgical techniques, must be compared. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is considered an alternative surgical option for clinically localized prostate cancer. While this minimally invasive technique is more frequently being performed in the United States, a detailed comparison of the open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques has not been performed. The relative risks and benefits of these surgical treatment options have not been explored in a contemporary group of patients treated at the same center by surgeons experienced in the open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques. This study will address this deficiency in that follow-up information will be collected prospectively in consecutive patients undergoing open or robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. While a prospective, randomized trial might be considered a more appropriate methodology to conduct such a comparative study, we have no baseline information, no guidelines to assess robotic-assisted laparoscopic competence, and a lack of skilled robotic-assisted laparoscopic pelvic surgeons to justify a lengthy and expensive trial. We will also collect information on health service utilization and employment during the 12-month postoperative period in order to assess the economic impacts of the different surgical approaches. While results from our proposed study will not necessarily be generalizable to all surgeons and may very well be a comparison of surgeons rather than techniques, the results will provide an initial assessment comparing experts in the open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques. To date, no such comparison has been published. To our knowledge, no other center has expert surgeons in these techniques where such a study would be feasible. Because open techniques have improved dramatically over the past several years, and because the baseline data to be recorded in this proposal is not currently collected, use of historical controls for open radical prostatectomy would be inappropriate.
Trial information was received from ClinicalTrials.gov and was last updated in August 2015.
Information provided to ClinicalTrials.gov by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.