Mortality after prostate cancer treatment with radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiation therapy, or brachytherapy in men without comorbidity

The Impact of Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiation Therapy on Cancer-Specific Mortality for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Analysis of an Other-Cause Mortality Matched Cohort

INTRODUCTION

Studies comparing radical prostatectomy (RP) to radiation therapy (RT) have consistently shown that patients undergoing RT have a higher risk of other-cause mortality (OCM) compared to RP, signifying poor health status of the former patients. We aimed to evaluate the impact of RP versus RT on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) over a cohort with equivalent OCM risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The SEER database was queried to identify patients with nonmetastatic PCa between 2004 and 2009. Patients were matched based on their calculated 10-year OCM risk and further stratified for D'Amico Risk Score and Gleason Grade. A Cox-regression model was used to calculate the 10-year OCM risk. Propensity-score based on the calculated OCM risk were used to match RP and RT patients. Cumulative incidence curves and Competing-risk regression analyses were used to examine the impact of treatment on CSM in the matched cohort.

RESULTS

We identified 55,106 PCa patients treated with RP and 36,674 treated with RT. After match, 6,506 patients were equally distributed for RT versus RP, with no difference in OCM rates (P = .2). The 10-year CSM rates were 8.8% versus 0.6% (P = .01) for RT versus RP in patients with unfavorable-intermediate-risk (Gleason Score 4 + 3) and 7.9% versus 3.9% (P = .003) for high-risk disease. There was no difference in CSM among RT and RP patients for favorable-intermediate-risk (Gleason Score 3 + 4) and low-risk disease.

CONCLUSIONS

In a matched cohort of PCa patients with comparable OCM between the 2 arms, RP yielded a more favorable CSM rate compared to RT only for unfavorable-intermediate- and high-risk groups.

Localized prostate cancer in older patients: Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy versus observation

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the effects of radical prostatectomy (RP) or irradiation on overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in older patients with localized prostate cancer (PC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature review across PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception up to December 2023 to identify studies comparing the outcomes of surgery or radiotherapy (RT) versus observation in patients aged 65 and older with localized PC. We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PCSM using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies involving 284,066 patients were analyzed. Three were large randomized trials (RCTs) and 10 were retrospective studies. Overall survival with surgery was greater in observational studies (HR = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.59; P < 0.001) than in RCTs (HR = 0.84, 95%CI 0.72-0.98; P = 0.03). Data on PCSM from seven studies also indicated a significant benefit for RP in RCTs (HR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.3-0.73; P < 0.001) and observational studies (HR = 0.41, 95%CI 0.27-0.62; P < 0.001). Both analyses presented high heterogeneity (I2 = 90%, P < 0.001 and I2 = 65%, P = 0.01). An analysis of patients receiving RT indicated a significant, albeit smaller, OS (n = 7 studies) and PCSM (n = 5 studies) advantage (HR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.59-0.79; P < 0.001; and HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.82; P = 0.001) compared to observation (1 RCT and 8 observational studies).

DISCUSSION

The evidence suggests that patients with PC might consider opting for surgery as the main treatment option or, alternatively, for RT, as an alternative to observation, based on their individual medical history, life expectancy, and preferences.

Long-Term Biochemical Control of a Prospective Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Interstitial Brachytherapy Versus Radical Prostatectomy

AIMS

To report long-term oncological outcomes of men treated prospectively as part of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group phase III Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial (SPIRIT) at our institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2003-2004, patients eligible for SPRIT attended a multidisciplinary educational session, following which they could choose radical prostatectomy, low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) or randomisation to SPIRIT. Biochemical failure was determined by the accepted definitions of a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≥0.2 ng/ml after radical prostatectomy and the Phoenix definition of PSA ≥2 ng/ml above the nadir after LDR-BT. A sensitivity analysis, using a PSA >0.5 ng/ml to define biochemical failure after LDR-BT and a threshold PSA ≥0.2 ng/ml, was carried out to test the robustness of the results. To account for the competing risk of death, Gray's test was used to test the equality of the cumulative incidence function of biochemical failure between treatment groups. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival and prostate cancer-specific survival. A P-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of 156 patients, 100 received LDR-BT (15 after randomisation) and 56 underwent radical prostatectomy (15 after randomisation). The median follow-up was 12.6 and 14.7 years for LDR-BT and radical prostatectomy, respectively. The median age was 60 years; the median pre-treatment PSA was 5.5 (interquartile range 4.3-7.1). No significant differences in patient characteristics were found between groups. Two patients received adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. The cumulative incidence function of biochemical failure was 0%, 1.1% and 2.4% at 5, 10 and 15 years, respectively, in the LDR-BT arm versus 8.5%, 15.8% and 15.8% in the radical prostatectomy arm (P < 0.001). These results were consistent when varying the definition of biochemical failure defined as PSA ≥0.5 ng/ml (P = 0.01). At 15 years, overall survival was higher in patients treated with radical prostatectomy compared with those treated with LDR-BT; however, no statistical difference was found in prostate cancer-specific survival.

CONCLUSION

In low-risk prostate cancer patients, LDR-BT offers excellent long-term oncological outcomes comparable with radical prostatectomy, in addition to the previously reported advantage for LDR-BT in urinary and sexual quality of life domains and patient satisfaction.

Mortality and biochemical recurrence after surgery, brachytherapy, or external radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a 10-year follow-up cohort study

To compare the effectiveness at ten years of follow-up of radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy and external radiotherapy, in terms of overall survival, prostate cancer-specific mortality and biochemical recurrence. Cohort of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (T1/T2 and low/intermediate risk) from ten Spanish hospitals, followed for 10 years. The treatment selection was decided jointly by patients and physicians. Of 704 participants, 192 were treated with open radical retropubic prostatectomy, 317 with ¹²⁵I brachytherapy alone, and 195 with 3D external beam radiation. We evaluated overall survival, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and biochemical recurrence. Kaplan–Meier estimators were plotted, and Cox proportional-hazards regression models were constructed to estimate hazard ratios (HR), adjusted by propensity scores. Of the 704 participants, 542 patients were alive ten years after treatment, and a total of 13 patients have been lost during follow-up. After adjusting by propensity score and Gleason score, brachytherapy and external radiotherapy were not associated with decreased 10-year overall survival (aHR = 1.36, p = 0.292 and aHR = 1.44, p = 0.222), but presented higher biochemical recurrence (aHR = 1.93, p = 0.004 and aHR = 2.56, p < 0.001) than radical prostatectomy at ten years of follow-up. Higher prostate cancer-specific mortality was also observed in external radiotherapy (aHR = 9.37, p = 0.015). Novel long-term results are provided on the effectiveness of brachytherapy to control localized prostate cancer ten years after treatment, compared to radical prostatectomy and external radiotherapy, presenting high overall survival, similarly to radical prostatectomy, but higher risk of biochemical progression. These findings provide valuable information to facilitate shared clinical decision-making.

Study identifier at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01492751.

Surgical Tolerability and Frailty in Elderly Patients Undergoing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Narrative Review

Simple Summary

Life expectancy in Western countries and East Asian countries has incremented over the past decades, resulting in a rapidly aging world, while in general, radical prostatectomy (RP) is not recommended in elderly men aged ≥75 years. Together with the evolving technique of robotic surgeries, surgical indications for RP should be reconsidered in ‘elderly’ and ‘frail’ men, since this procedure has now become one of the safest and most effective cancer treatments for prostate cancer. One important element to determine surgical indications is surgical tolerability. However, evidence is scarce regarding the surgical tolerability in elderly men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). In this review, we focused on the surgical tolerability in ‘elderly’ and/or ‘frail’ men undergoing RARP, with the intent to provide up-to-date information on this matter and to support the decision making of therapeutic options in this spectrum of patients.

Abstract

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has now become the gold standard treatment for localized prostate cancer. There are multiple elements in decision making for the treatment of prostate cancer. One of the important elements is life expectancy, which the current guidelines recommend as an indicator for choosing treatment options. However, determination of life expectancy can be complicated and difficult in some cases. In addition, surgical tolerability is also an important issue. Since frailty may be a major concern, it may be logical to use geriatric assessment tools to discriminate ‘surgically fit’ patients from unfit patients. Landmark studies show two valid models such as the phenotype model and the cumulative deficit model that allow for the diagnosis of frailty. Many studies have also developed geriatric screening tools such as VES-13 and G8. These tools may have the potential to directly sort out unfit patients for surgery preoperatively.

Description of Surgical Technique and Oncologic and Functional Outcomes of the Precision Prostatectomy Procedure (IDEAL Stage 1-2b Study)

BACKGROUND

The existing treatment options for men with intermediate- or high-volume low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are associated with a substantial risk of over- or undertreatment. The development of risk-adjusted therapies is an unmet need for these patients.

OBJECTIVE

To describe our novel technique of precision prostatectomy, a form of surgical focal therapy that allows radical excision of the index PCa lesion along with >90% prostatic tissue extirpation while preserving the prostatic capsule and seminal vesicle/vas deferens complex on the side contralateral to the dominant cancer lesion, and to report on medium-term functional and oncologic outcomes in the first 88 consecutive men who underwent this procedure between December 2016 and January 2020.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Men with (1) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤20 ng/ml, (2) clinical T stage ≤cT2, (3) a dominant unilateral lesion with Gleason ≤ 4 + 3 disease with any number or percentage of cores involved ipsilaterally on prostate biopsy, (4) no primary Gleason ≥4 lesion contralaterally, and (5) a preoperative Sexual Health Inventory of Men (SHIM) score of ≥17 (out of 25) with/without phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitor use who consented to undergo precision prostatectomy were included in this single-arm, single-center, IDEAL stage 2b prospective development study.

INTERVENTION

Robotic precision prostatectomy.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The safety and urinary, sexual, and oncologic outcomes of the precision prostatectomy technique were studied. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess 12-mo urinary continence (0-1 pad), 12-mo sexual potency (SHIM score ≥17), 36-mo freedom from clinically significant PCa (grade group ≥2), secondary treatments, metastatic disease, and mortality.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

At study entry, the median age, PSA, and SHIM score were 60.0 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 54.2-65.9), 5.7 ng/ml (IQR 4.2-7.1), and 22 points (IQR 19-24), respectively. The median follow-up was 25 mo (IQR 14-38). At 12 mo, all patients were continent (0-1 pads), with 90.9% of patients using 0 pads. The median time to urinary continence was 1 mo (IQR 1-4). At 12 mo, 85% of all-comers and 90.2% of the preoperatively potent men were potent. The median time to sexual potency was 4 mo (IQR 4-12). From an oncologic standpoint, at 36 mo an estimated 93.4% of the patients were free from clinically significant residual PCa and 91.7% had not undergone any additional treatment. All patients were alive and free of metastatic disease at 36 mo.

CONCLUSIONS

Precision prostatectomy is technically safe and reproducible and offers excellent postoperative functional results. At 36-mo follow-up, the oncologic outcomes and secondary treatment rates appear to be superior to existing ablative focal therapy results. Pending long-term data, a risk-stratified surgical approach to PCa may avoid whole-gland therapy and preserve functional quality of life in men with localized PCa.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Precision prostatectomy is a new form of focal therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer in which a 5-10-mm rim of prostate capsule is left on the opposite side of the gland to where the dominant cancer is located. The technique appears to be safe and efficacious and adds to the growing armamentarium of risk-adapted therapies for treatment of localized prostate cancer that avoid the adverse effects on urinary and erectile function of whole-gland treatments.

Supervivencia de pacientes con cáncer de próstata en un hospital de Bogotá, Colombia 2008-2014

El cáncer de próstata es actualmente una de las principales patologías que afectan a los hombres. El objetivo del presente artículo fue estimar la supervivencia de los pacientes con cáncer de próstata de riesgo intermedio y alto pertenecientes al régimen especial de salud (militares). Se realizó un estudio de cohorte que estima la función de supervivencia con el método de Kaplan-Meier y el Hazard ratio (HR) en función de variables explicativas mediante un modelo de regresión de Cox. Los pacientes incluidos fueron diagnosticados por urología y/o confirmados con apoyos diagnósticos. No se incluyeron pacientes tratados para cáncer de próstata en otra institución o por tumores primarios diferentes a próstata y quienes consultaron para tomar una segunda opinión médica. Los pacientes de riesgo intermedio sobreviven en un 90% tanto a cinco como a siete años, y los de riesgo alto sobrevivieron en 35% y 30% a cinco y siete años, respectivamente, con una mediana de 28 meses. Este estudio permitió concluir que la supervivencia de los pacientes clasificados como riesgo intermedio es similar a la nacional e internacional; sin embargo, en los pacientes de alto riesgo la supervivencia es inferior respecto a otros países.

Curcumin against Prostate Cancer: Current Evidence

Cancer is a condition characterized by remarkably enhanced rates of cell proliferation paired with evasion of cell death. These deregulated cellular processes take place following genetic mutations leading to the activation of oncogenes, the loss of tumor suppressor genes, and the disruption of key signaling pathways that control and promote homeostasis. Plant extracts and plant-derived compounds have historically been utilized as medicinal remedies in different cultures due to their anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and antimicrobial properties. Many chemotherapeutic agents used in the treatment of cancer are derived from plants, and the scientific interest in discovering plant-derived chemicals with anticancer potential continues today. Curcumin, a turmeric-derived polyphenol, has been reported to possess antiproliferative and proapoptotic properties. In the present review, we summarize all the in vitro and in vivo studies examining the effects of curcumin in prostate cancer.

The impact of very high initial PSA on oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

To analyze oncological outcomes of very high-risk patients with initial PSA 50-99.9 and ≥100 ng/ml who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) for clinically localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

Overall, 2,811 RP patients (1992-2018) with negative preoperative CT-scan and bone scintigraphy were included. The impact of preoperative PSA level, categorized as 20-49.9 (n = 2,195) vs. 50-99.9 (n = 454) vs. ≥100 ng/ml (n = 162) on biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival, metastasis-free survival (MFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression models.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 47.5 months. Ten-year BCR-free survival rates were 46.9 vs. 32.1 vs. 29.0% within PSA-categories 20-49.9 vs. 50-99.9 vs. ≥100 ng/ml, respectively (P < 0.001). Ten-year MFS rates were 78.4 vs. 67.2 vs. 37.3% within PSA-categories 20-49.9 vs. 50-99.9 vs. ≥100 ng/ml (P < 0.001). 10-year CSS rates were 93.7 vs. 85.5 vs. 66.7% within PSA-categories 20-49.9 vs. 50-99.9 vs. ≥100 ng/ml (P < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, PSA-categories 50-99.9 ng/ml and ≥100 ng/ml were independently predicting higher risk of BCR (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.3 and 1.4), metastatic progression (HR: 1.4 and 2.3), and cancer-specific mortality (CSM, HR: 1.9 and 3.4) compared with PSA-category 20-49.9 ng/ml.

CONCLUSION

Initial PSA levels ≥50 ng/ml are associated with higher risk of BCR, metastatic progression, and CSM compared with high-risk patients with PSA of 20-49.9 ng/ml. In consequence, these patients may be counseled about a potentially increased risk of undetected metastases prior to RP possibly necessitating intensified multimodal treatments in the future.

125I low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy and radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer

Radical prostatectomy (RP) and low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR) are two widely used treatment options for patients with T1c-T3a prostate cancer. In the present study, the efficacy of the two treatments was compared. A total of 429 patients who underwent either LDR (n=218) or RP (n=211) between January 2010 and June 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Biochemical relapse-free survival time (bRFS) and clinical relapse-free survival time (cRFS) were assessed. The log-rank test compared bRFS between the two modalities, and Cox regression identified factors associated with bRFS. The median follow-up time and patient age were 46.6 months and 71 years, respectively. The bRFS at 1, 2 and 5 years was 89.4, 87.2 and 79.9% for LDR, respectively, and 91.0, 82.8 and 72.2% for RP, respectively (P=0.077). The cRFS at 1, 2 and 5 years was 99.1, 97.7 and 94.9% for LDR, respectively, and 99.0, 96.2 and 94.5% for RP, respectively (P=0.630). It was indicated that LDR produced equivalent bRFS and cRFS rates compared with RP. The risk of biochemical failure (bF) was higher for the RP group compared with the LDR group in patients with a Gleason score ≤3+4 (P=0.022) or initial prostate specific antigen ≤10 ng/ml (P=0.002). Based on the univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of all 429 patients, T stage ≥T2b was an independent predictor for bF.

Outcomes of clinically localized prostate cancer patients managed with initial monitoring approach versus upfront local treatment: a North American population-based study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the outcomes of active monitoring (active surveillance or watchful waiting) as an initial management approach compared to upfront definitive local treatments (prostatectomy or radiation therapy) in a cohort of clinically localized prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients with clinically localized prostate cancer registered within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) watchful waiting database from 2010-2015 were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare overall survival outcomes between patients treated with different initial therapeutic approaches. Multivariate Cox regression analysis (stratified by the risk group) was used to assess potential factors affecting prostate cancer-specific survival.

RESULTS

Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, prostatectomy was associated with better overall survival compared to radiation therapy and active monitoring (P < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis was then employed to evaluate different factors affecting prostate cancer-specific survival. Among patients with low-risk disease, the following factors were predictive of better prostate cancer-specific survival: younger age (hazard ratio for patients ≥ 70 years versus patients 40-69 years: 2.081; 95% CI 1.277-3.390; P = 0.003), white race (hazard ratio for black race versus white race: 2.575; 95% CI 1.538-4.311; P < 0.001), non-Hispanic ethnicity (hazard ratio versus Hispanic ethnicity: 0.472; 95% CI 0.244-0.910; P = 0.025), and initial treatment with prostatectomy (hazard ratio for prostatectomy versus active monitoring: 0.551; 95% CI 0.371-0.818; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Active monitoring seems to be at least as effective as upfront radiation therapy in the management of low-risk disease. Radical prostatectomy is associated with better overall and prostate cancer-specific survival compared to either radiation therapy or active monitoring.

Differences in overall survival and cancer-specific survival in high-risk prostate cancer patients according to the primary treatment

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

There is no high-level evidence as to which primary treatment provides an overall survival (OS) or cancer-specific survival (CSS) advantage in high-risk localised prostate cancer (HRLPC). Our aim was to analyse the differences in survival and predictive factors in this group of patients, according to their primary treatment (radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy and androgen blockade (RT+HT)).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study of 286 HRLPC patients diagnosed between 1996-2008, treated by RP (n=145) or RT+HT(n=141). Survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Significant differences between the different variables were analysed using the log-rank test. A uni and multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors.

RESULTS

the median follow-up was 117.5 (IQR 87-158) months. The OS was longer (p=.04) in the RP patients, while there were no differences (P=.44) in CSS between either group. The type of primary treatment was not related to OS or CSS. Age (P=.002), the onset during follow-up of a 2nd tumour (P=.0001), and stage cT3a (P=.009) behaved as independent predictive variables of OS. None of the variables behaved as an independent predictive variable of CSS, although biochemical recurrence after rescue treatment (P=.058), and the onset of a 2nd tumour during follow-up showed a significant trend to statistical significance, the latter reducing specific cancer mortality (HR .16, 95%CI .02-1.18, P=.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary treatment did not relate to OS or CSS in patients with HRPC.

Individual and Population Comparisons of Surgery and Radiotherapy Outcomes in Prostate Cancer Using Bayesian Multistate Models

IMPORTANCE

Whether surgery or radiotherapy is the preferred treatment for patients with localized prostate cancer continues to be debated, and randomized clinical trials cannot yet fully address this question. Furthermore, there may be heterogeneity in responses, and the optimal treatment for a patient will depend on his clinical and tumor characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

To use a unified statistical approach to compare the association of surgery and radiotherapy with both metastatic clinical failure (CF) and survival in localized prostate cancer and to develop an online calculator for individualized, treatment-specific outcome prediction.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cohort study for statistical analysis and development of individualized predictions using Bayesian multistate models that jointly consider both CF and survival and adjust for confounding factors. This study used data from patients treated at the University of Michigan between January 1, 1996, and July 1, 2013, with detailed information on treatment, patient and tumor characteristics, and outcomes. Primary analyses were performed in 2017 and 2018. Participants were a cohort of 4544 patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing primary treatment.

EXPOSURES

Radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The clinical outcomes were metastatic CF, death after CF, and death from other causes. The adjustment factors were age, prostate gland volume, prostate-specific antigen level, comorbidities, Gleason score, perineural invasion, cT category, race, and treatment year. An online calculator was developed to estimate risks for multiple outcomes for any patient based on 2 treatment choices and on his clinical and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 4544 men (mean [SD] age, 61.2 [8.0] years), 3769 underwent radical prostatectomy, 775 received external beam radiotherapy, 157 (3.5%) had CF, 90 (2.0%) died after CF, and 378 (8.3%) died of other causes. Across all patients, there was no significant difference in risk of CF for surgery vs radiotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52-1.23). However, using multistate models, in some cases individualized predictions resulted in different expected outcomes between surgery and radiotherapy for a given patient.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, after adjustment for measured confounders, the hazard of CF was similar between treatments on average. However, these data indicate a greater oncologic benefit for some individual patients if treated with surgery and for other patients if treated with radiotherapy. Individualized predictions provide a novel approach to facilitate treatment decision making.

Does supplemental external beam radiation therapy impact urinary, bowel, and erectile function following permanent prostate brachytherapy?: results of two prospective randomized trials

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of supplemental external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) prior to permanent prostate brachytherapy on long term urinary, bowel, and erectile function.

Material and methods

Patient administered urinary, bowel, and erectile quality of life (QoL) instrument were obtained prior to treatment and following brachytherapy. The study population was comprised of the 457 patients who were alive as of June 2016, had been randomized to two markedly different supplemental EBRT dose regimens and a third arm without supplemental EBRT, and had completed the June 2016 QoL survey. The need for urinary or bowel surgical intervention was prospectively recorded during routine follow-up. Multiple parameters were evaluated for effect on outcomes.

Results

The urinary catheter was removed on day 0 in 92.1% of patients and 0.4% required a post-implant transurethral prostatic resection (TURP). On average, the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) normalized at week 14. The 10-year rate of urethral strictures was 5.3%. No significant differences were discerned between baseline and post-implant rectal function assessment score (RFAS), and no patient developed a rectal ulcer or fistula. The 10-year potency preservation rate was 50.3%. Supplemental EBRT did not affect urinary, bowel, or erectile function. Urethral strictures were most closely related to bulbomembranous urethral brachytherapy doses, post-implant rectal function to pre-implant hemorroidal bleeding, and RFAS and erectile function to pre-brachytherapy international index of erectile function and age.

Conclusions

Supplemental EBRT did not significantly effect catheter dependency, IPSS resolution, urethral stricture rate, the need for post-implant TURP, bowel, or erectile function. Careful attention to brachytherapy dose distributions appears to be most important in minimizing post-brachytherapy morbidity.

Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments for patient-centered outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA Compliant)

BACKGROUND

In the context of prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by the multiple alternative treatment strategies, comparative effectiveness analysis is essential for informed decision-making. We analyzed the comparative effectiveness of PCa treatments through systematic review and meta-analysis with a focus on outcomes that matter most to newly diagnosed localized PCa patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of literature published in English from 1995 to October 2016. A search strategy was employed using terms "prostate cancer," "localized," "outcomes," "mortality," "health related quality of life," and "complications" to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, and retrospective studies. For observational studies, only those adjusting for selection bias using propensity-score or instrumental-variables approaches were included. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratio was used to assess all-cause and disease-specific mortality. Funnel plots were used to assess the level of bias.

RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded 58 articles, of which 29 were RCTs, 6 were prospective studies, and 23 were retrospective studies. The studies provided moderate data for the patient-centered outcome of mortality. Radical prostatectomy demonstrated mortality benefit compared to watchful waiting (all-cause HR = 0.63 CI = 0.45, 0.87; disease-specific HR = 0.48 CI = 0.40, 0.58), and radiation therapy (all-cause HR = 0.65 CI = 0.57, 0.74; disease-specific HR = 0.51 CI = 0.40, 0.65). However, we had minimal comparative information about tradeoffs between and within treatment for other patient-centered outcomes in the short and long-term.

CONCLUSION

Lack of patient-centered outcomes in comparative effectiveness research in localized PCa is a major hurdle to informed and shared decision-making. More rigorous studies that can integrate patient-centered and intermediate outcomes in addition to mortality are needed.

TIPE2 Overexpression Suppresses the Proliferation, Migration, and Invasion in Prostate Cancer Cells by Inhibiting PI3K/Akt Signaling Pathway

Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α)-induced protein 8-like 2 (TNFAIP8L2, TIPE2) is involved in the invasion and metastasis of human tumors. However, the functional role of TIPE2 in prostate cancer remains unclear. In the present study, we explored the role of TIPE2 in prostate cancer and cancer progression including the molecular mechanism that drives TIPE2-mediated oncogenesis. Our results showed that TIPE2 was lowly expressed in human prostate cancer tissues and cell lines. In addition, restored TIPE2 obviously inhibits proliferation in prostate cancer cells. TIPE2 overexpression also suppresses the epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) process and migration/invasion in prostate cancer cells. Mechanistically, TIPE2 overexpression obviously inhibits the phosphorylation levels of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) and Akt in prostate cancer cells. In conclusion, for the first time we demonstrated that TIPE2 overexpression may suppress proliferation, migration, and invasion in prostate cancer cells by inhibiting the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway. Therefore, TIPE2 might serve as a potential therapeutic target for human prostate cancer.

Cancer-Specific Mortality Among Korean Men with Localized or Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer Treated with Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiotherapy: A Multi-Center Study Using Propensity Scoring and Competing Risk Regression Analyses

Purpose

Studies comparing radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes with those of radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy (RT±ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) have yielded conflicting results. Therefore, we used propensity score-matched analysis and competing risk regression analysis to compare cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM) between these two treatments.

Materials and Methods

The multi-center, Severance Urological Oncology Group registry was utilized to identify 3,028 patients with clinically localized or locally advanced PCa treated by RP (n=2,521) or RT±ADT (n=507) between 2000 and 2016. RT±ADT cases (n=339) were matched with an equal number of RP cases by propensity scoring based on age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, clinical tumor stage, biopsy Gleason score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). CSM and OCM were co-primary endpoints.

Results

Median follow-up was 65.0 months. Five-year overall survival rates for patients treated with RP and RT±ADT were 94.7% and 92.0%, respectively (p=0.105). Cumulative incidence estimates revealed comparable CSM rates following both treatments within all National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groups. Gleason score ≥ 8 was associated with higher risk of CSM (p=0.009). OCM rates were comparable between both groups in the low- and intermediate-risk categories (p=0.354 and p=0.643, respectively). For high-risk patients, RT±ADT resulted in higher OCM rates than RP (p=0.011). Predictors of OCM were age ≥ 75 years (p=0.002) and CCI ≥ 2 (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

RP and RT±ADT provide comparable CSM outcomes in patients with localized or locally advanced PCa. The risk of OCM may be higher for older high-risk patients with significant comorbidities.

American Brachytherapy Society Task Group Report: Combination of brachytherapy and external beam radiation for high-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To review outcomes for high-risk prostate cancer treated with combined modality radiation therapy (CMRT) utilizing external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with a brachytherapy boost.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The available literature for high-risk prostate cancer treated with combined modality radiation therapy was reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

At this time, the literature suggests that the majority of high-risk cancers are curable with multimodal treatment. Several large retrospective studies and three prospective randomized trials comparing CMRT to dose-escalated EBRT have demonstrated superior biochemical control with CMRT. Longer followup of the randomized trials will be required to determine if this will translate to a benefit in metastasis-free survival, disease-specific survival, and overall survival. Although greater toxicity has been associated with CMRT compared to EBRT, recent studies suggest that technological advances that allow better definition and sparing of critical adjacent structures as well as increasing experience with brachytherapy have improved implant quality and the toxicity profile of brachytherapy. The role of androgen deprivation therapy is well established in the external beam literature for high-risk disease, but there is controversy regarding the applicability of these data in the setting of dose escalation. At this time, there is not sufficient evidence for the omission of androgen deprivation therapy with dose escalation in this population. Comparisons with surgery remain limited by differences in patient selection, but the evidence would suggest better disease control with CMRT compared to surgery alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to a series of technological advances, modern combination series have demonstrated unparalleled rates of disease control in the high-risk population. Given the evidence from recent randomized trials, combination therapy may become the standard of care for high-risk cancers.

Obesity and prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database

Background:

At the population level, obesity is associated with prostate cancer (PC) mortality. However, few studies analyzed the associations between obesity and long-term PC-specific outcomes after initial treatment.

Methods:

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 4268 radical prostatectomy patients within the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database. Cox models accounting for known risk factors were used to examine the associations between body mass index (BMI) and PC-specific mortality (PCSM; primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included biochemical recurrence (BCR) and castration-resistant PC (CRPC). BMI was used as a continuous and categorical variable (normal <25 kg/m², overweight 25–29.9 kg/m² and obese ⩾30 kg/m²). Median follow-up among all men who were alive at last follow-up was 6.8 years (interquartile range=3.5–11.0). During this time, 1384 men developed BCR, 117 developed CRPC and 84 died from PC. Hazard ratios were analyzed using competing-risks regression analysis accounting for non-PC death as a competing risk.

Results:

On crude analysis, higher BMI was not associated with risk of PCSM (P=0.112), BCR (0.259) and CRPC (P=0.277). However, when BMI was categorized, overweight (hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, P=0.034) and obesity (HR 1.97, P=0.048) were significantly associated with PCSM. Obesity and overweight were not associated with BCR or CRPC (all P⩾0.189). On multivariable analysis adjusting for both clinical and pathological features, results were little changed in that obesity (HR=2.05, P=0.039) and overweight (HR=1.88, P=0.061) were associated with higher risk of PCSM, but not with BCR or CRPC (all P⩾0.114) with the exception that the association for overweight was no longer statistical significant.

Conclusions:

Overweight and obesity were associated with increased risk of PCSM after radical prostatectomy. If validated in larger studies with longer follow-up, obesity may be established as a potentially modifiable risk factor for PCSM.

The role of radical prostatectomy as an initial approach for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer

CONTEXT

The treatment of high-risk prostate cancer requires a multimodal approach to improve control of the disease. There is still no consensus as to the initial strategy of choice. The aim of this study is to review the results of radical prostatectomy as first step in management of patients with high-risk disease.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

A search was conducted on PubMed of English and Spanish texts. We included those studies that reported the results of radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk prostate cancer, as well as those that compared radical prostatectomy with other treatment alternatives. The last search was conducted in November 2015.

SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE

The advantages of radical prostatectomy include a better pathological analysis, more accurate staging, better local control of the disease and better follow-up and adjuvant therapy strategies. When compared with external radiation therapy plus hormonal blockade, the patients who underwent prostatectomy had greater chances of healing and longer cancer-specific survival. The patients who most benefit from this approach are younger, have fewer comorbidities and no evidence of organ metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

The available scientific evidence to date is not without bias and confounders; however, they appear to favour radical prostatectomy as the initial approach of choice for high-risk prostate cancer.

Overactive Bladder and Storage Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Following Radical Prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To describe the rate of overactive bladder (OAB) and storage lower urinary tract symptoms following radical prostatectomy (RP) and determine if subsequent radiation increases the risk of OAB.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients who underwent open RP at our tertiary care institution from January 2006 to June 2011. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with new OAB and time to development of OAB in those treated with RP alone vs RP plus radiation. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients treated for OAB. A Cox survival analysis was used to assess the impact of radiation on development of OAB.

RESULTS

Of the 875 patients who met study criteria, 19% of patients developed de novo OAB defined as urgency with or without frequency and nocturia. A total of 256 patients (29%) developed 1 or more urinary symptoms including nocturia (22%), frequency (21%), urgency (19%), and urge incontinence (6%) following RP. After adjusting for age, body mass index, smoking status, cancer stage, and nerve-sparing status, radiation therapy was associated with an increased relative hazard of OAB (5.59; 95% CI 3.63-8.61, P < .001). Among men classified with de novo OAB, only 41% received treatment.

CONCLUSION

OAB and storage lower urinary tract symptoms are prevalent in men post-RP. Adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy increases the risk of developing OAB after RP. OAB may be undertreated in men following prostate cancer treatment.

Ablative therapy for people with localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

For people with localised prostate cancer, active treatments are effective but have significant side effects. Minimally invasive treatments that destroy (or ablate) either the entire gland or the part of the prostate with cancer may be as effective and cause less side effects at an acceptable cost. Such therapies include cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and brachytherapy, among others.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies compared with radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and active surveillance (AS) for primary treatment of localised prostate cancer, and compared with RP for salvage treatment of localised prostate cancer which has recurred after initial treatment with EBRT.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1946 to March week 3, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (29 March 2013), EMBASE (1974 to week 13, 2013), Bioscience Information Service (BIOSIS) (1956 to 1 April 2013), Science Citation Index (1970 to 1 April 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 3, 2013), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (issue 3, 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (inception to March 2013) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (inception to March 2013) databases were searched. Costs were obtained from NHS sources.

REVIEW METHODS

Evidence was drawn from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, and from case series for the ablative procedures only, in people with localised prostate cancer. For primary therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy, HIFU, brachytherapy and other ablative therapies. The comparators were AS, RP and EBRT. For salvage therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy and HIFU. The comparator was RP. Outcomes were cancer related, adverse effects (functional and procedural) and quality of life. Two reviewers extracted data and carried out quality assessment. Meta-analysis used a Bayesian indirect mixed-treatment comparison. Data were incorporated into an individual simulation Markov model to estimate cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The searches identified 121 studies for inclusion in the review of patients undergoing primary treatment and nine studies for the review of salvage treatment. Cryotherapy [3995 patients; 14 case series, 1 RCT and 4 non-randomised comparative studies (NRCSs)], HIFU (4000 patients; 20 case series, 1 NRCS) and brachytherapy (26,129 patients; 2 RCTs, 38 NRCSs) studies provided limited data for meta-analyses. All studies were considered at high risk of bias. There was no robust evidence that mortality (4-year survival 93% for cryotherapy, 99% for HIFU, 91% for EBRT) or other cancer-specific outcomes differed between treatments. For functional and quality-of-life outcomes, the paucity of data prevented any definitive conclusions from being made, although data on incontinence rates and erectile dysfunction for all ablative procedures were generally numerically lower than for non-ablative procedures. The safety profiles were comparable with existing treatments. Studies reporting the use of focal cryotherapy suggested that incontinence rates may be better than for whole-gland treatment. Data on AS, salvage treatment and other ablative therapies were too limited. The cost-effectiveness analysis confirmed the uncertainty from the clinical review and that there is no technology which appears superior, on the basis of current evidence, in terms of average cost-effectiveness. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest that a number of ablative techniques are worthy of further research.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available on cancer-related outcomes and dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that there is insufficient evidence to form any clear recommendations on the use of ablative therapies in order to influence current clinical practice. Research efforts in the use of ablative therapies in the management of prostate cancer should now be concentrated on the performance of RCTs and the generation of standardised outcomes.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002461.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Erectile Function Recovery after Radical Prostatectomy in Men with High Risk Features

PURPOSE

We describe the efficacy of radical prostatectomy to achieve complete primary tumor excision while preserving erectile function in a cohort of patients with high risk features in whom surgical resection was tailored according to clinical staging, biopsy data, preoperative imaging and intraoperative findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a retrospective review we identified 584 patients with high risk features (prostate specific antigen 20 ng/ml or greater, clinical stage T3 or greater, preoperative Gleason grade 8-10) who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2006 and 2012. The probability of neurovascular bundle preservation was estimated based on preoperative characteristics. Positive surgical margin rates and erectile function recovery were determined in patients who had some degree of neurovascular bundle preservation.

RESULTS

The neurovascular bundles were resected bilaterally in 69 (12%) and unilaterally in 91 (16%) patients. The remaining patients had some degree of bilateral neurovascular bundle preservation. Preoperative features associated with a lower probability of neurovascular bundle preservation were primary biopsy Gleason grade 5 and clinical stage T3 disease. Among the patients with some degree of neurovascular bundle preservation 125 of 515 (24%) had a positive surgical margin, and 75 of 160 (47%) men with preoperatively functional erections and available erectile function followup had recovered erectile function within 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

High risk features should not be considered an indication for complete bilateral neurovascular bundle resection. Some degree of neurovascular bundle preservation can be done safely by high volume surgeons in the majority of these patients with an acceptable rate of positive surgical margins. Nearly half of high risk patients with functional erections preoperatively recover erectile function after radical prostatectomy.

[Localized intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer]

BACKGROUND

National and international guidelines recommend radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (EBRT) as standard treatment for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Survival benefit of RP in prostate cancer has been proven in prospectively randomized trials. In contrast, the benefit of EBRT as well as the direct comparison of EBRT and RP have been investigated in several retrospective analyses, but are limited by typical problems associated with retrospective studies.

RESULTS

Most of the studies comparing RP with EBRT favor RP with regard to overall survival and cancer-specific survival. Especially in young patients with high-grade prostate cancer, RP seems to be superior in comparison with EBRT. These patient are at high risk of a PSA recurrence and subsequently need an additional radiotherapy. Mortality and morbidity related to these both methods are low. Main complications of RP are urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In contrast, rectal sequelae, erectile dysfunction, and irritative urinary symptoms are the main cause for postinterventional morbidity in patients after EBRT.

[Comparative oncologic and functional outcomes of prostate cancer surgery with other curative treatments]

OBJECTIVE

Review of the comparative results of different treatment strategies (surgery, radiotherapy, ultrasound, surveillance) of prostate cancer, in which the main goal is the local control and the second target is the tolerance of the side effects of those treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Review of literature using Medline databases selected based on scientific relevance. Clinical keys centered on the oncological and functional outcomes of comparative series between different curative treatments.

RESULTS

The numerous comparative series between surgery and other therapeutic modalities are essentially retrospective with significant methodological bias that is difficult to overcome in order to formulate the optimal thesis. However, there is a clear tendency toward surgery usually with young patients who have intermediate risk tumors without important comorbidity.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of randomized comparative series with significant power, the oncological and functional results of the radical prostatectomy with or without adjuvant treatment seem at least the same, in a selected population of patients, compared with the combination of radiotherapy-hormonotherapy in terms of survival, without biochemical recurrence, disease-specific survival and overall survival, for the aggressive tumors necessitating curative local treatments.

Anatomical Patterns of Recurrence Following Biochemical Relapse in the Dose Escalation Era of External Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

We provide a comprehensive analysis of anatomical patterns of recurrence following external beam radiotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 2,694 patients with localized prostate cancer who received definitive, dose escalated external beam radiotherapy from 1991 to 2008. First recurrence sites were defined as initial sites of clinically detected recurrence and any subsequent clinically detected recurrence within 3 months. Anatomical recurrence patterns were classified as local (prostate/seminal vesicles only), lymphotropic (lymph nodes only) and osteotropic (bones only) in patients with disease confined only to these respective sites for at least 2 years from the initial clinically detected recurrence.

RESULTS

Prostate was the most common first recurrence site in the low, intermediate and high risk groups with an 8-year cumulative incidence of 3.5%, 9.8% and 14.6%, respectively. The 8-year risk of isolated pelvic lymph node relapse as the first recurrence site was 0%, 1.0% and 3.3%, respectively. In the 474 patients with clinically detected recurrence the most common first recurrence site was local in 55.3%, bone in 33.5%, pelvic lymph nodes in 21.3% and abdominal lymph nodes in 9.1%. Patients showed unique relapse distributions, including a pattern that was local in 41.6%, lymphotropic in 9.7%, osteotropic in 20.3% and multiorgan/visceral in 28.5%. Anatomical recurrence pattern was the strongest predictor of prostate cancer specific mortality on multivariate analysis of patients with clinically detected recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common first recurrence site after dose escalated external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer is in the prostate and seminal vesicles in all risk groups. In contrast, patients treated without elective pelvic lymph node irradiation are at relatively low risk for isolated pelvic lymph node relapse. Recurrence patterns revealed a tropism for specific anatomical distributions with divergent prognoses, suggesting underlying biological differences among tumors.

Trends in initial management of prostate cancer in New Hampshire

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer management strategies are evolving with increased understanding of the disease. Specifically, there is emerging evidence that "low-risk" cancer is best treated with observation, while localized "high-risk" cancer requires aggressive curative therapy. In this study, we evaluated trends in management of prostate cancer in New Hampshire to determine adherence to evidence-based practice.

METHODS

From the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry, cases of clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed in 2004-2011 were identified and classified according to D'Amico criteria. Initial treatment modality was recorded as surgery, radiation therapy, expectant management, or hormone therapy. Temporal trends were assessed by Chi-square for trend.

RESULTS

Of 6,203 clinically localized prostate cancers meeting inclusion criteria, 34, 30, and 28% were low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease, respectively. For low-risk disease, use of expectant management (17-42%, p < 0.001) and surgery (29-39%, p < 0.001) increased, while use of radiation therapy decreased (49-19 %, p < 0.001). For intermediate-risk disease, use of surgery increased (24-50%, p < 0.001), while radiation decreased (58-34%, p < 0.001). Hormonal therapy alone was rarely used for low- and intermediate-risk disease. For high-risk patients, surgery increased (38-47%, p = 0.003) and radiation decreased (41-38%, p = 0.026), while hormonal therapy and expectant management remained stable.

DISCUSSION

There are encouraging trends in the management of clinically localized prostate cancer in New Hampshire, including less aggressive treatment of low-risk cancer and increasing surgical treatment of high-risk disease.

Neoadjuvant luteinizing-hormone-releasing hormone agonist plus low-dose estramustine phosphate improves prostate-specific antigen-free survival in high-risk prostate cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for high-risk prostate cancer (Pca) remains to be established. We previously reported favorable biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) in high-risk Pca patients treated with a neoadjuvant therapy comprising a luteinizing-hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist plus low dose estramustine phosphate (EMP) (LHRH+EMP) followed by radical prostatectomy (RP). In the present study, we used a retrospective design via propensity score matching to elucidate the clinical benefit of neoadjuvant LHRH+EMP for high-risk Pca.

METHODS

The Michinoku Urological Cancer Study Group database contained data for 1,268 consecutive Pca patients treated with RP alone at 4 institutions between April 2000 and March 2011 (RP alone group). In the RP alone group, we identified 386 high-risk Pca patients. The neoadjuvant LHRH+EMP group included 274 patients with high-risk Pca treated between September 2005 and November 2013 at Hirosaki University. Neoadjuvant LHRH+EMP therapy included LHRH and EMP administration at a dose of 280 mg/day for 6 months before RP. The outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and BRFS.

RESULTS

The propensity score-matched analysis indicated 210 matched pairs from both groups. The 5-year BRFS rates were 90.4 and 65.8 % for the neoadjuvant LHRH+EMP and RP alone groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). The 5-year OS rates were 100 and 96.1 % for the neoadjuvant LHRH+EMP and RP alone groups, respectively (P = 0.110).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the present study was not randomized, neoadjuvant LHRH+EMP therapy followed by RP appeared to reduce the risk of biochemical recurrence. A prospective randomized study is warranted to determine the clinical implications of the neoadjuvant therapy described here.

Are biochemical recurrence outcomes similar after radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy? Analysis of prostate cancer-specific mortality by nomogram-predicted risks of biochemical recurrence

BACKGROUND

Due to the protracted natural history of the clinical progression of prostate cancer, biochemical recurrence (BCR) is often used to compare treatment modalities. However, BCR definitions and posttreatment prostate-specific antigen kinetics vary considerably among treatments, calling into the question the validity of such comparisons.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) according to treatment-specific nomogram-predicted risk of BCR for men treated by radical prostatectomy (RP), external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and brachytherapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 13 803 men who underwent RP, EBRT, or brachytherapy at two US high-volume hospitals between 1995 and 2008.

INTERVENTION

RP, EBRT, and brachytherapy.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The 5-yr progression-free probability (5Y-PFP) was calculated for each patient based on the treatment received using a validated treatment-specific nomogram. Fine and Gray competing risk analysis was then used to estimate PCSM by a patient's predicted 5Y-PFP. Multivariable competing risk regression analysis was used to determine the association of treatment with PCSM after adjusting for nomogram-predicted 5Y-PFP.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Men receiving EBRT had higher 10-yr PCSM compared with those treated by RP across the range of nomogram-predicted risks of BCR: 5Y-PFP >75%, 3% versus 0.9%; 5Y-PFP 51-75%, 6.8% versus 5.9%; 5Y-PFP 26-50%, 12.2% versus 10.6%; and 5Y-PFP ≤25%, 26.6% versus 21.2%. After adjusting for nomogram-predicted 5Y-PFP, EBRT was associated with a significantly increased PCSM risk compared with RP (hazard ratio: 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.0; p=0.006). No statistically significant difference in PCSM was observed between patients treated by brachytherapy and RP, although patient selection factors and lack of statistical power limited this analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

EBRT patients with similar nomogram-predicted 5Y-PFP appear to have a significantly increased risk of PCSM compared with those treated by RP. Comparison of treatments using nomogram-predicted BCR end points may not be valid.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) outcomes after external-beam radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy are associated with different risks of subsequent prostate cancer-specific mortality. Physicians and patients should cautiously interpret BCR end points when comparing treatments to make treatment decisions.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the results of performing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC): PSA level of ≥20 ng/mL ± biopsy Gleason ≥8 ± clinical T stage ≥2c.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Of a total of 1975 patients having LRP during a 159-month period from 2000 to 2013, 446 (22.6%) had HRPC; all patients were staged by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography and isotope bone scanning. The median (range) patient age was 64.0 (36-79) years; body mass index 27.0 (18-43) kg/m(2) ; PSA level 8.1 (0.1-93) ng/mL and biopsy Gleason 8 (6-10). All patients had a pelvic lymphadenectomy, which was done using an extended template after April 2008 (53.3%). Neurovascular bundle (NVB) preservation was done in 41.5% (bilateral 26.3%; unilateral 15.2%) of patients; an incremental or partial nerve-sparing technique was used in 99 of the 302 (32.8%) NVBs preserved.

RESULTS

The median (range) gland weight was 58.5 (20-161) g; operating time 180 (92-330) min; blood loss 200 (10-1400) mL; postoperative hospitalisation 3.0 (2-7) nights; catheterisation time 14 (2-35) days; complication rate 7.6%; lymph node (LN) count 16 (2-51); LN positivity 16.2%; LN involvement 2 (1-8); positive surgical margin (PSM) rate 26.0%; up-grading 2.5%; down-grading 4.3%; up-staging from T1/2 to T3, 24.7%; down-staging from T3 to T1/2, 6.1%. No cases were converted to open surgery and three patients were transfused (0.7%) after surgery. At a mean (range) follow-up of 24.9 (3-120) months, 79.2% of patients were free of biochemical recurrence, 91.8% were continent and 64.4% of previously potent non-diabetic men aged <70 years were potent after bilateral nerve preservation.

CONCLUSION

The low morbidity, 55.4% specimen-confinement rate, 26.0% PSM rate, 79.2% biochemical disease-free survival, 91.8% continence rate and 64.4% potency rate, at 35.2 months in the present study serve as evidence firstly that surgery is an effective treatment for patients with HRPC, curing many and representing the first step of multi-modal treatment for others, and that LRP for HRPC appears to be as effective as open RP in this context.

Testing of a novel easy-to-use mortality index in a radical prostatectomy cohort

OBJECTIVE

To test a novel and easy-to-use mortality index developed and validated in a nationally representative US sample of older adults in patients selected for radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

The sample comprised 2205 consecutive patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in the years 1992-2005. The median age was 64 years and the median follow-up was 9.7 years. A slightly modified Lee mortality index was calculated based on information obtained by chart review. The 10-year competing mortality rates were compared with overall mortality rates previously reported in a US population-based cohort using the given confidence intervals with the 2-tailed Wald test. Cox proportional hazard models were calculated to analyze the combined effects of variables using overall mortality as study endpoint.

RESULTS

The modified Lee mortality index provided a clear dose-response pattern in the radical prostatectomy cohort with 10-year competing mortality rates between 2.5% and 50%. Overall, the competing mortality rates reached only narrowly two-thirds of the values predicted by the modified Lee mortality index, reflecting selection for healthy operative candidates (chi-square homogeneity test; P = .0043). In the multivariate analysis considering the modified Lee mortality index, age, and tumor-related variables, the Lee mortality index was identified as an independent predictor of overall survival. Comorbidity measures delivering similar prognostic information as the modified Lee mortality index, however, largely replaced this index in the multivariate models.

CONCLUSION

The modified Lee mortality index could be suited as comorbidity measure in men with prostate cancer. Practical use would require adjustment for selection effects.

Management of low risk prostate cancer-active surveillance and focal therapy

Low-risk prostate cancer, defined as Gleason Score 6 or less with PSA <10 ng/ml, is diagnosed in about half of men undergoing screening. Approximately 30% of men diagnosed with low-risk disease harbour high-grade cancer that is unrepresented on the biopsy. Moreover, a small percentage of low-grade cancers have molecular alterations that result in progression to aggressive disease. Favourable-risk prostate cancer should be managed with close follow up. Active surveillance is appropriate for most patients with low-risk disease, and radical treatment should be reserved for cases in which higher-risk disease is identified. In turn, focal therapy aims to preserve tissue and function in men who have been diagnosed with localized disease, and should be offered to men with higher risk disease at baseline, as an alternative to whole-gland radiation or surgery, or when the patient transitions from low-risk to higher-risk disease. The two strategies should be viewed as complementary elements of care that can be applied in a risk-stratified manner. In this Review, we discuss the rationale and current status of active surveillance-which constitutes a standard of care in most evidence-based guidelines-and comment on whether and when focal therapy should complement it in those men wishing to continue a tissue-preserving strategy.

Comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in prostate cancer: observational study of mortality outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare the survival outcomes of patients treated with surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Sweden, 1996-2010.

PARTICIPANTS

34,515 men primarily treated for prostate cancer with surgery (n=21,533) or radiotherapy (n=12,982). Patients were categorised by risk group (low, intermediate, high, and metastatic), age, and Charlson comorbidity score.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cumulative incidence of mortality from prostate cancer and other causes. Competing risks regression hazard ratios for radiotherapy versus surgery were computed without adjustment and after propensity score and traditional (multivariable) adjustments, as well as after propensity score matching. Several sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Prostate cancer mortality became a larger proportion of overall mortality as risk group increased for both the surgery and the radiotherapy cohorts. Among patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer the adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio for prostate cancer mortality favoured surgery (1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 2.08, for radiotherapy v prostatectomy), whereas there was no discernible difference in treatment effect among men with metastatic disease. Subgroup analyses indicated more clear benefits of surgery among younger and fitter men with intermediate and high risk disease. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the main findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This large observational study with follow-up to 15 years suggests that for most men with non-metastatic prostate cancer, surgery leads to better survival than does radiotherapy. Younger men and those with less comorbidity who have intermediate or high risk localised prostate cancer might have a greater benefit from surgery.