1
|
Heesterman BL, Aben KKH, de Jong IJ, Pos FJ, van der Hel OL. Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. BMC Cancer 2023; 23:398. [PMID: 37142955 PMCID: PMC10157926 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-10842-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2022] [Accepted: 04/13/2023] [Indexed: 05/06/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Berdine L Heesterman
- Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Godebaldkwartier 419, 3511 DT, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Katja K H Aben
- Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Godebaldkwartier 419, 3511 DT, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
- Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| | - Igle Jan de Jong
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Floris J Pos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Olga L van der Hel
- Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Godebaldkwartier 419, 3511 DT, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Taguchi S, Shiraishi K, Fukuhara H. Updated evidence on oncological outcomes of surgery versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2020; 50:963-969. [PMID: 32580211 DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyaa105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2020] [Accepted: 05/31/2020] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy are recognized as comparable treatment options for localized prostate cancer. Previous studies of oncological outcomes of surgery versus radiotherapy have reported their comparability or possible superiority of surgery. However, the issue of which treatment is better remains controversial. Several factors make fair comparison of their outcomes difficult: different patient backgrounds caused by selection bias, different definitions of biochemical recurrence and different complication profiles between the treatment modalities. In 2016, the first large randomized controlled trial was published, which compared radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and active monitoring in localized prostate cancer. More recently, another study has reported comparative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and volumetric modulated arc therapy, as the leading surgery and radiotherapy techniques, respectively. Furthermore, there has been a trend toward combining external beam radiotherapy with brachytherapy boost, especially in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. This review summarizes the updated evidence on oncological outcomes of surgery versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Satoru Taguchi
- Department of Urology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kenshiro Shiraishi
- Department of Radiology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Fukuhara
- Department of Urology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Moris L, Cumberbatch MG, Van den Broeck T, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Kelly B, Pal R, Briers E, Cornford P, De Santis M, Fanti S, Gillessen S, Grummet JP, Henry AM, Lam TBL, Lardas M, Liew M, Mason MD, Omar MI, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Tilki D, van den Bergh RCN, van Der Kwast TH, van Der Poel HG, Willemse PPM, Yuan CY, Konety B, Dorff T, Jain S, Mottet N, Wiegel T. Benefits and Risks of Primary Treatments for High-risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: An International Multidisciplinary Systematic Review. Eur Urol 2020; 77:614-627. [PMID: 32146018 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.01.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 97] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2019] [Accepted: 01/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT The optimal treatment for men with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on the effectiveness of the different primary treatment modalities for high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa. The primary oncological outcome is the development of distant metastases at ≥5 yr of follow-up. Secondary oncological outcomes are PCa-specific mortality, overall mortality, biochemical recurrence, and need for salvage treatment with ≥5 yr of follow-up. Nononcological outcomes are quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes, and treatment-related side effects reported. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies published between January 2000 and May 2019 with at least 50 participants in each arm were included. Studies reporting on high-risk localized PCa (International Society of Urologic Pathologists [ISUP] grade 4-5 [Gleason score {GS} 8-10] or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml or ≥ cT2c) and/or locally advanced PCa (any PSA, cT3-4 or cN+, any ISUP grade/GS) or where subanalyses were performed on either group were included. The following primary local treatments were mandated: radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (≥64 Gy), brachytherapy (BT), or multimodality treatment combining any of the local treatments above (±any systemic treatment). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding factors were assessed for each study. A narrative synthesis was performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Overall, 90 studies met the inclusion criteria. RoB and confounding factors revealed high RoB for selection, performance, and detection bias, and low RoB for correction of initial PSA and biopsy GS. When comparing RP with EBRT, retrospective series suggested an advantage for RP, although with a low level of evidence. Both RT and RP should be seen as part of a multimodal treatment plan with possible addition of (postoperative) RT and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), respectively. High levels of evidence exist for EBRT treatment, with several randomized clinical trials showing superior outcome for adding long-term ADT or BT to EBRT. No clear cutoff can be proposed for RT dose, but higher RT doses by means of dose escalation schemes result in an improved biochemical control. Twenty studies reported data on QoL, with RP resulting mainly in genitourinary toxicity and sexual dysfunction, and EBRT in bowel problems. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this systematic review, both RP as part of multimodal treatment and EBRT + long-term ADT can be recommended as primary treatment in high-risk and locally advanced PCa. For high-risk PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite more grade 3 toxicity. Interestingly, for selected patients, for example, those with higher comorbidity, a shorter duration of ADT might be an option. For locally advanced PCa, EBRT + BT shows promising result but still needs further validation. In this setting, it is important that patients are aware that the offered therapy will most likely be in the context a multimodality treatment plan. In particular, if radiation is used, the combination of local with systemic treatment provides the best outcome, provided the patient is fit enough to receive both. Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options, and the likelihood of a multimodal approach including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY We reviewed the literature to see whether the evidence from clinical studies would tell us the best way of curing men with aggressive prostate cancer that had not spread to other parts of the body such as lymph glands or bones. Based on the results of this systematic review, there is good evidence that both surgery and radiation therapy are good treatment options, in terms of prolonging life and preserving quality of life, provided they are combined with other treatments. In the case of surgery this means including radiotherapy (RT), and in the case of RT this means either hormonal therapy or combined RT and brachytherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Moris
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Laboratory of Molecular Endocrinology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
| | | | | | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicola Fossati
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Brian Kelly
- Department of Urology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia
| | - Raj Pal
- Bristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Philip Cornford
- Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
| | - Stefano Fanti
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico S. Orsola, University of Bologna, Italy
| | - Silke Gillessen
- Department of Medical Oncology and Haematology, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester and The Christie, Manchester, UK
| | - Jeremy P Grummet
- Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Australia
| | - Ann M Henry
- Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Thomas B L Lam
- Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK; Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | | | - Matthew Liew
- Department of Urology, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, UK
| | - Malcolm D Mason
- Division of Cancer & Genetics, School of Medicine Cardiff University, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | | | - Olivier Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France; Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Université Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | | | | | - Henk G van Der Poel
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Peter-Paul M Willemse
- Department of Oncological Urology, University Medical Center, Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Cathy Y Yuan
- Department of Medicine, Health Science Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | | - Tanya Dorff
- Department of Medical Oncology and Developmental Therapeutics, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Southern California (USC) Keck School of Medicine and Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCC), Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Suneil Jain
- Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK; Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK
| | - Nicolas Mottet
- Department of Urology, University Hospital, St. Etienne, France
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Wang Z, Ni Y, Chen J, Sun G, Zhang X, Zhao J, Zhu X, Zhang H, Zhu S, Dai J, Shen P, Zeng H. The efficacy and safety of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2020; 18:42. [PMID: 32093688 PMCID: PMC7041271 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-020-01824-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2020] [Accepted: 02/18/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The optimal treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remains a debate and selection of patients to receive proper therapy is still an unsettled question. This systematic review was conducted to compare the effectiveness of prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with high-risk PCa and to select candidates for optimal treatment. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all included studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS); the secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and clinical recurrence-free survival (CRFS). The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to Gleason score (GS), T stage and RT types. Quality of life (QoL) was compared with these two treatments. Results A total of 25 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, RP showed more survival benefits than RT on CSS (P = 0.003) and OS (P = 0.002); while RT was associated with better BRFS (P = 0.002) and MFS (P = 0.004). Subgroup analyses showed RT was associated with similar or even better survival outcomes compared to RP in patients with high GS, high T stage or received external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy (EBRT + BT). As for QoL, RP was associated with poorer urinary and sexual function but better performance in the bowel domain. Conclusion RP could prolong the survival time of patients with high-risk PCa; however, RT could delay the disease progression, and combined RT (EBRT + BT) even brought preferable CSS and similar OS compared to RP. RT might be the prior choice for patients with high T stage or high GS. RP could lead to poorer urinary and sexual function, while bringing better performance in the bowel domain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhipeng Wang
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Yuchao Ni
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Junru Chen
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Guangxi Sun
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Xingming Zhang
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Jinge Zhao
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Xudong Zhu
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Haoran Zhang
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Sha Zhu
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Jindong Dai
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Pengfei Shen
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China.
| | - Hao Zeng
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Greenberger BA, Zaorsky NG, Den RB. Comparison of Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiation and Androgen Deprivation Therapy Strategies as Primary Treatment for High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2019; 6:404-418. [PMID: 31813810 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2019] [Revised: 10/03/2019] [Accepted: 11/03/2019] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT There is little level 1 evidence regarding the relative efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) compared with radiotherapy (RT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing overall and prostate cancer-specific mortality (OM and PCM) among patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with RP or RT/ADT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library through July 2019 covering a period since 2009. We report the results of our systematic search according to recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were extracted for each endpoint. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A total of 23 studies with low to moderate risk of bias were found to meet the inclusion criteria. In keeping with prior studies, external beam radiation therapy (XRT) without specification of ADT was associated with worse OM and PCM (aHR 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-1.91, p < 0.0001: I2 = 53.4%) and (aHR 1.90, 95% CI 1.61-2.23, p < 0.0001: I2 = 50.4%). These associations were weaker although not entirely eliminated when comparing RT/ADT versus RP (PCM aHR 1.54, 95% CI 1.16-2.04, p = 0.002: I2 = 61.5%). Combination of RT and brachytherapy (MaxRT), on the contrary, was associated with improved PCM compared with RP (aHR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.78, p = 0.003: I2 = 23.8%), an effect that was not significant when comparing MaxRT with the combination RP/adjuvant RT (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59-1.11, p = 0.197: I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS Evidence demonstrating definitive superiority of either modality is lacking. Recent studies show improved consideration of ADT, radiation dose, brachytherapy boost, and utilization of postoperative adjuvant radiation. Residual confounding continues to limit the interpretation of observational data. PATIENT SUMMARY In the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer, many observational studies reporting higher mortality for radiotherapy demonstrate potential for confounding. More recent studies with current standard of care radiation regimens using androgen deprivation therapy or brachytherapy boost demonstrate approaching equivalence of prostatectomy and radiation modalities. Prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin A Greenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College & Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - Nicholas G Zaorsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, USA
| | - Robert B Den
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College & Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|