Oncologic outcome of radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy as primary treatment for high and very high risk localized prostate cancer

Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life in High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated by Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy with or Without Adjuvant Treatments

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is used frequently to treat prostate cancer; yet, prospective data on the quality of life and functional outcomes are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of life and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy in different risk groups with or without adjuvant treatments.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Be-RALP database is a prospective multicentre database that covers 9235 RALP cases from 2009 until 2016. Of these 9235 patients, 2336 high-risk prostate cancer patients were matched with low/intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

INTERVENTION

Patients were treated with RALP only or followed by radiotherapy and/or hormone treatment.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We used a mixed-model analysis to longitudinally analyse quality of life, urinary function, and erectile function between risk groups with or without additional treatments.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Risk group was not significant in predicting quality of life, erectile function, or urinary function after RALP. Postoperative treatment (hormone and/or radiotherapy treatment) was significant in predicting International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), sexual activity, and sexual functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk group was not linked with clinically relevant declines in functional outcomes after RALP. The observed functional outcomes and quality of life are in favour of considering RALP for high-risk prostate cancer. Postoperative treatment resulted in lower erectile function measures without clinically relevant changes in quality of life and urinary functions. Hormone therapy seems to have the most prominent negative effects on these outcomes.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This study investigated the quality of life, and urinary and erectile function in patients with aggressive and less aggressive prostate cancer after surgery only or in combination with hormones or radiation. We found that quality of life recovers completely, while erectile and urinary function recovers only partially after surgery. Aggressiveness of the disease had a minimal effect on the outcomes; yet, postoperative treatments lowered erectile function further.

Assessing the Efficacy and Long-Term Outcomes of Surgical Intervention Versus Radiotherapy: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Treatment Modalities

There is controversy regarding the most effective primary treatment of choice for prostate cancer (PCa) in terms of patient outcomes, such as surgery or radiotherapy (RT). This study evaluated the comparative efficacy and long-term outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) and RT for PCa treatment. A thorough literature review of relevant databases was conducted, focusing on academic and clinical studies published from 2019 onwards. The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other observational studies comparing survival outcomes in patients treated with surgery and RT. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to provide an overview of the data. We selected 19 studies based on the inclusion criteria. Of the total 19 studies, 12 advocated RP as the preferred treatment to improve survival outcomes in patients with PCa. The results of our synthesis showed that prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) was lower in patients treated with RT. The total effect size for the analysis was calculated as Z=1.19 (p-value=0.23). The heterogeneity in the studies was as follows: Tau2=0.09, Chi2=20.25, df=4, I2=80%. Moreover, overall survival (OS) was shown to be higher in patients who underwent prostatectomy. The combined effect for the analysis was found to be: HR=0.97 (0.93, 1.01). The total effect was calculated as Z=1.33 (p-value= 0.18). The heterogeneity was found to be Tau2=0.00, Chi2=1.33, df=2, and I2=0%. However, overall mortality (OM) was shown to be independent of the treatment modality. RT is the preferred strategy for PCa treatment, as it balances efficacy and long-term outcomes. Clinical decision-making should consider individual patient characteristics and future research should delve into specific subpopulations and long-term outcomes to further refine the treatment guidelines.

Surgical Management and Considerations for Patients with Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Localized high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogenous disease state with a wide range of presentations and outcomes. Historically, non-surgical management with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy was the treatment option of choice. However, surgical resection with radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is increasingly utilized as a primary treatment modality for patients with HRPCa. Recent studies have demonstrated that surgery is an equivalent treatment option in select patients with the potential to avoid the side effects from androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy combined. Advances in imaging techniques and biomarkers have also improved staging and patient selection for surgical resection. Advances in robotic surgical technology grant surgeons various techniques to perform RP, even in patients with HR disease, which can reduce the morbidity of the procedure without sacrificing oncologic outcomes. Clinical trials are not only being performed to assess the safety and oncologic outcomes of these surgical techniques, but to also evaluate the role of surgical resection as a part of a multimodal treatment plan. Further research is needed to determine the ideal role of surgery to potentially provide a more personalized and tailored treatment plan for patients with localized HR PCa.

A US real-world study of treatment patterns and outcomes in localized or locally advanced prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE

Men with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (LPC/LAPC) are at risk of progression after radiotherapy (RT) or radical prostatectomy (RP). Using real-world data, we evaluated patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes in LPC/LAPC.

METHODS

Optum claims and electronic health records (EHR) data from January 2010 to December 2021 were queried for men with LPC/LAPC who received primary RT, RP, or androgen deprivation therapy alone within 180 days after diagnosis. Survival outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier curves. Real-world overall survival (rwOS) was compared in patients with and without evidence of disease (i.e., disease recurrence, metastasis, diagnosis of castration-resistant PC) at defined time points.

RESULTS

61,772 and 62,361 men in claims and EHR cohorts met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 719 and 901 days, respectively. Most men received primary RT (51.0% claims, 35.0% EHR) or RP (39.4% claims, 53.8% EHR). Survival was greatest among men treated with RP, followed by RT. Adjusted for age and comorbidity, rwOS was shorter among men with evidence of disease within 1, 3, 4, and 5 years after primary treatment than those without at the same time points.

CONCLUSION

Real-world claims and EHR data show that survival among men with LPC/LAPC differs by primary treatment and time point of disease recurrence thereafter. Poor outcomes in men with LPC/LAPC who progress early indicate an unmet medical need for more effective primary treatment. If validated for surrogacy, no evidence of disease at specific time points could represent an intermediate efficacy endpoint in future trials.

Biochemical outcome after curative treatment for localized prostate cancer with external beam radiotherapy: a cross-sectional study

Although many patients who receive definitive radiotherapy (RT) for localised prostate cancer (CaP) experience long-term disease-free survival and better quality of life, some also have biochemical progression during follow-up. Oftentimes this implies additional treatment for patients with the accompanying challenges of cumulative treatment side effects, inconvenience and financial toxicity. This study retrospectively assessed the clinicopathological characteristics and biochemical outcomes of patients treated for localised CaP with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) between 2015 and 2020 at a major cancer treatment centre in Accra, Ghana. Patients' socio-demographic and clinical data were collected from their hospital records and analysed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 26. Biochemical failure (BCF) was defined as an increase in the level of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >2 ng/mL above the nadir after curative therapy based on the Phoenix definition. The mean age was 67.6 years (SD ± 6.2). The majority of the study participants (n = 79, 64.8%) had initial PSA >20 ng/mL, with the highest recorded value of 705 ng/mL. All the patients had biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma of the prostate gland. Some patients received 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) on a cobalt-60 teletherapy machine whereas others were treated with either 3DCRT or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on a 6 MV Linac. In all, 13.1% of the patients experienced BCF after receiving EBRT after an average follow-up of 31.3 months. This study demonstrated a low rate of BCF among patients treated with EBRT for localised CaP in Ghana. Strong prognostic factors of biochemical outcome demonstrated in this study were the percentage of cores positive, grade group, and risk stratification. Diarrhaea and desquamation experienced by treated CaP patients were exclusively attributable to EBRT. RT produced a complete resolution of symptoms in some of the patients.

Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

To summarize recent evidence in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional and oncological outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry on 29 march 2021. Comparative studies, published since 2016, that reported on treatment with RP versus dose-escalated EBRT and ADT for high-risk non-metastatic PCa were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise quality and risk of bias. A qualitative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies, all non-randomized, met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment indicated low (n = 14) to moderate/high (n = 5) risk of bias. Only three studies reported functional outcomes and/or HRQoL using different measurement instruments and methods. A clinically meaningful difference in HRQoL was not observed. All studies reported oncological outcomes and survival was generally good (5-year survival rates > 90%). In the majority of studies, a statistically significant difference between both treatment groups was not observed, or only differences in biochemical recurrence-free survival were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence clearly demonstrating superiority in terms of oncological outcomes of either RP or EBRT combined with ADT is lacking. Studies reporting functional outcomes and HRQoL are very scarce and the magnitude of the effect of RP versus dose-escalated EBRT with ADT on HRQoL and functional outcomes remains largely unknown.

Cancer-specific survival after radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in high-risk and very high-risk African American prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk African American patients, as well as Johns Hopkins University (JHU) high-risk and very high-risk patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 4165 NCCN high-risk patients, of whom 1944 (46.7%) and 2221 (53.3%) patients qualified for JHU high-risk or very high-risk definitions. Of all 4165 patients, 1390 (33.5%) were treated with RP versus 2775 (66.6%) with EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models addressed CSM before and after 1:1 propensity score matching between RP and EBRT NCCN high-risk patients. Subsequently, analyses were repeated separately in JHU high-risk and very high-risk subgroups. Finally, all analyses were repeated after landmark analyses were applied.

RESULTS

In the NCCN high-risk cohort, 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 2.4 versus 5.2%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.84, p = 0.009) favoring RP. In JHU very high-risk patients 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 3.7 versus 8.4%, respectively, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.28-0.95, p = 0.03) favoring RP. Conversely, in JHU high-risk patients, no significant CSM difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (5-year CSM rates: 1.3 vs 1.3%; multivariable hazard ratio: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16-1.90, p = 0.3). Observations were confirmed in propensity score-matched and landmark analyses adjusted cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

In JHU very high-risk African American patients, RP may hold a CSM advantage over EBRT, but not in JHU high-risk African American patients.

Cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy vs external beam radiotherapy in high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients

Purpose

To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates in Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients according to treatment type, radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).

Methods

Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010–2016), we identified 2290 NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) high-risk (HR) Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients. Of those, 893 (39.0%) were treated with RP vs 1397 (61.0%) with EBRT. First, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models tested for CSM differences after adjustment for other cause mortality (OCM). Second, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models were refitted after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, PSA, biopsy Gleason score, cT-stage, cN-stage).

Results

In NCCN HR patients, 5-year CSM rates for RP vs EBRT were 2.4 vs 4.7%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.19–0.73, p = 0.004) favoring RP. However, after propensity score matching, the hazard ratio of 0.54 was no longer statistically significant (95% CI 0.21–1.39, p = 0.2).

Conclusion

Without the use of strictest adjustment for population differences, NCCN high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients appear to benefit more of RP than EBRT. However, after strictest adjustment for baseline patient and tumor characteristics between RP and EBRT cohorts, the apparent CSM benefit of RP is no longer statistically significant. In consequence, in Hispanic/Latino NCCN high-risk patients, either treatment modality results in similar CSM outcome.