Open Access

Ingmar Wolff, Martin Burchardt, Christian Gilfrich, Julia Peter, Martin Baunacke, Christian Thomas, Johannes Huber, Rolf Gillitzer, Danijel Sikic, Christian Fiebig, Julie Steinestel, Paola Schifano, Niklas Löbig, Christian Bolenz, Florian A. Distler, Clemens Huettenbrink, Maximilian Janssen, David Schilling, Bara Barakat, Nina N. Harke, Christian Fuhrmann, Andreas Manseck, Robert Wagenhoffer, Ekkehard Geist, Lisa Blair, Jesco Pfitzenmaier, Bettina Reinhardt, Bernd Hoschke, Maximilian Burger, Johannes Bründl, Marco J. Schnabel, Matthias May

• Simple Summary This multicenter study investigated the extent of patient’s decision regret (PatR) in patients with prostate cancer comparing different surgical modalities. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has replaced open radical prostatectomy as the surgical standard of care in many countries worldwide. However, a broad scientific basis evaluating the difference in patient-relevant outcomes between both approaches is still lacking. In this context, PatR is increasingly moving into the scientific focus. Our study shows a critical PatR in slightly more than one third of patients about 15 months after surgery. Patients who underwent robot-assisted surgery, and also patients without postoperative urinary stress incontinence, report significantly lower PatR. Likewise, this difference was also demonstrated for patients who decided together with their treating physician on the specific surgical procedure (consensual decision making). Our study helps to further establish PatR as an important endpoint in the setting of radical prostatectomy and identifies criteria which may be addressed to reduce PatR. Abstract Patient’s regret (PatR) concerning the choice of therapy represents a crucial endpoint for treatment evaluation after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCA). This study aims to compare PatR following robot-assisted (RARP) and open surgical approach (ORP). A survey comprising perioperative-functional criteria was sent to 1000 patients in 20 German centers at a median of 15 months after RP. Surgery-related items were collected from participating centers. To calculate PatR differences between approaches, a multivariate regressive base model (MVBM) was established incorporating surgical approach and demographic, center-specific, and tumor-specific criteria not primarily affected by surgical approach. An extended model (MVEM) was further adjusted by variables potentially affected by surgical approach. PatR was based on five validated questions ranging 0–100 (cutoff >15 defined as critical PatR). The response rate was 75.0%. After exclusion of patients with laparoscopic RP or stage M1b/c, the study cohort comprised 277/365 ORP/RARP patients. ORP/RARP patients had a median PatR of 15/10 (p < 0.001) and 46.2%/28.1% had a PatR >15, respectively (p < 0.001). Based on the MVBM, RARP patients showed PatR >15 relative 46.8% less frequently (p < 0.001). Consensual decision making regarding surgical approach independently reduced PatR. With the MVEM, the independent impact of both surgical approach and of consensual decision making was confirmed. This study involving centers of different care levels showed significantly lower PatR following RARP.