Comparative Effectiveness of Radical Prostatectomy Versus External Beam Radiation Therapy Plus Brachytherapy in Patients with High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer

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.

Effect of type of definitive treatment on race-based differences in prostate cancer-specific survival

BACKGROUND

Racial and ethnic disparities in prostate cancer (PCa) mortality are partially mediated by inequities in quality of care. Intermediate- and high-risk PCa can be treated with either surgery or radiation, therefore we designed a study to assess the magnitude of race-based differences in cancer-specific survival between these two treatment modalities.

METHODS

Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) and non-Hispanic White (NHW) men with localized intermediate- and high-risk PCa, treated with surgery or radiation between 2004 and 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database were included in the study and followed until December 2018. Unadjusted and adjusted survival analyses were employed to compare cancer-specific survival by race and treatment modality. A model with an interaction term between race and treatment was used to assess whether the type of treatment amplified or attenuated the effect of race/ethnicity on prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM).

RESULTS

15,178 (20.1%) NHB and 60,225 (79.9%) NHW men were included in the study. NHB men had a higher cumulative incidence of PCSM (p = 0.005) and were significantly more likely to be treated with radiation than NHW men (aOR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.81-1.97, p < 0.001). In the adjusted models, NHB men were significantly more likely to die from PCa compared with NHW men (aHR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.03-1.35, p = 0.014), and radiation was associated with a significantly higher odds of PCSM (aHR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.85-2.38, p < 0.001) compared with surgery. Finally, the interaction between race and treatment on PCSM was not significant, meaning that no race-based differences in PCSM were found within each treatment modality.

CONCLUSIONS

NHB men with intermediate- and high-risk PCa had a higher rate of PCSM than NWH men in a large national cancer registry, though NHB and NHW men managed with the same treatment achieved similar PCa survival outcomes. The higher tendency for NHB men to receive radiation was similar in magnitude to the difference in cancer survival between racial and ethnic groups.

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.

Migration of High Cardiac Risk Patients from Open to Endovascular Procedures is Evident within the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

BACKGROUND

In this study, pre-operative medical complexity is estimated by the independently validated Vascular Quality Initiative VQI Cardiac Risk Index (CRI). This study aims to identify and correlate trends of CRI for open abdominal aortic aneurysm (OAR) with trends in the CRI for corresponding endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). This assessment of differences in estimated procedural risks will be used to support the theory that, patient migration is an important factor contributing to decreased POMI following open vascular procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective review of VQI data from 2003 to 2020 for all patients undergoing elective aortic repairs (OAR and EVAR) was conducted. The CRI scoring developed for the open repair (oCRI) was applied to both the OAR and EVAR cohorts, with variables specific to EVAR translated from similar open repair factors in the model where feasible. To evaluate for changes across time, patients were grouped into Eras based on year of procedure, subsequently, univariate analysis of post-operative myocardial infarction (POMI) rates and CRI scores were perfomed between each era.

RESULTS

A total of 56,067 elective aortic repairs were identified (83% EVAR, 17% OAR). Within the OAR cohort, the average oCRI estimate was 7.1% with significant decrease across the studied timeframe (8% ± 4.6%→6.9% ± 4.4%, P < 0.001), which corresponded to a significant decrease in observed clinical myocardial infarction (MI) rate (4.1%→1.4%, P < 0.001). Over that same time period, the open CRI was applied to the EVAR cohort, and the average oCRI estimate was 7.2% and showed a significant increase (6.6% ± 2.8%→7.2% ± 4.4%, P < 0.001). Within the EVAR cohort, the eCRI estimate did not show any significant changes over time (average 0.48%), while the actual rate of clinical MI showed a significant decrease (1.1%→0.3%, P = 0.002). Gap analysis was conducted within the EVAR cohort between CRI estimates of procedural risks from an open operation versus an EVAR, which demonstrated that patients within the EVAR cohort would, on an average, has had 6.7% higher risk of POMI had they undergone an open procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Paradigm shifts with regard to patient selection for aortic repair is evident within this large national cohort. Over time, OAR patients had fewer preoperative estimated cardiac comorbidities and there is a corresponding decrease in POMI rates. As high-risk patients migrate from OAR to EVAR, there has been a subsequent increase in EVAR estimated pre-operative risks as the patients become more medically high-risk. Despite increasing complexity, rates of POMI in EVAR significantly decreased, potentially explained by improved operative technique and peri-operative care.

A nomogram for accurately predicting the pathological upgrading of prostate cancer, based on 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT

PURPOSE

To develop and validate a nomogram for preoperative predicting the pathological upgrading of prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

The prediction model was developed in a primary cohort that consisted of 208 PCa patients. All patients included in the study possessed both biopsy pathology specimens and radical prostatectomy pathology specimens, and completed the (⁶⁸ Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) detection. The R function "createDataPartition" was used in a 7:3 ratio to randomly divide the patients into training and validation cohorts. In the training cohort, the independent predictors of pathological upgrading of PCa were determined by univariate analysis, univariate regression analysis and multivariate regression analysis. Based on these independent predictors, a nomogram was developed, and its performance was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, area under the curve (AUC) and calibration curve of training cohort and validation cohort.

RESULTS

The nomogram incorporated five independent predictors including prostate volume (PV), SUV_max of the ⁶⁸ Ga-PSMA PET/CT examination on prostate lesions (SUV_max ), body mass index (BMI); percentage of cancer positive biopsy cores (PPC) and biopsy International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade. The nomogram showed good diagnostic accuracy for the pathological upgrading of both the training cohort and the validation cohort (AUC = 0.818 and 0.806, respectively). The calibration curves for the two cohorts both showed optimal agreement between nomogram prediction and actual observation.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and validated a nomogram to accurately predict the risk of pathological upgrading after radical PCa surgery, which can provide accurate basis for therapeutic schedule and prognostic data of PCa patients.

Radiation therapy compared to radical prostatectomy as first-line definitive therapy for patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To present an update of the available literature on external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without brachytherapy (BT) compared to radical prostatectomy (RP) for patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature assessing the survival outcomes in patients with high-risk PCa who received EBRT with or without BT compared to RP as the first-line therapy with curative intent. We queried PubMed and Web of Science database in January 2021. Moreover, we used random or fixed-effects meta-analytical models in the presence or absence of heterogeneity per the I² statistic, respectively. We performed six meta-analyses for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

Results

A total of 27 studies were selected with 23 studies being eligible for both OS and CSS. EBRT alone had a significantly worse OS and CSS compared to RP (hazard ratio [HR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16–1.65; and HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.25–1.93). However, there was no difference in OS (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.76–1.34) and CSS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45–1.06) between EBRT plus BT compared to RP.

Conclusion

While cancer control affected by EBRT alone seems inferior to RP in patients with high-risk PCa, BT additive to EBRT was not different from RP. These data support the need for BT in addition to EBRT as part of multimodal RT for high-risk PCa.

Abbreviations: ADT: androgen-deprivation therapy; BT: brachytherapy; CSS: cancer-specific survival; HR: hazard ratio; MFS, metastatic-free survival; MOOSE: Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; OR: odds ratio; OS: overall survival; PCa: prostate cancer; RR: relative risk; RP: radical prostatectomy; RCT: randomised controlled trials; (EB)RT: (external beam) radiation therapy

GEC-ESTRO ACROP prostate brachytherapy guidelines

This is an evidence-based guideline for prostate brachytherapy. Throughout levels of evidence quoted are those from the Oxford Centre for Evidence based Medicine (https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/oxford-centre-for-evidence-based-medicine-levels-of-evidence-march-2009). Prostate interstitial brachytherapy using either permanent or temporary implantation is an established and evolving treatment technique for non-metastatic prostate cancer. Permanent brachytherapy uses Low Dose Rate (LDR) sources, most commonly I-125, emitting photon radiation over months. Temporary brachytherapy involves first placing catheters within the prostate and, on confirmation of accurate positioning, temporarily introducing the radioactive source, generally High Dose Rate (HDR) radioactive sources of Ir-192 or less commonly Co-60. Pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy has also been used for prostate cancer [1] but few centres have adopted this approach. Previous GEC ESTRO recommendations have considered LDR and HDR separately [2-4] but as there is considerable overlap, this paper provides updated guidance for both treatment techniques. Prostate brachytherapy allows safe radiation dose escalation beyond that achieved using external beam radiotherapy alone as it has greater conformity around the prostate, sparing surrounding rectum, bladder, and penile bulb. In addition there are fewer issues with changes in prostate position during treatment delivery. Systematic review and randomised trials using both techniques as boost treatments demonstrate improved PSA control when compared to external beam radiotherapy alone [5-7].

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy versus IMRT with Long-Term Hormone Therapy for Relatively Young Patients with High- to Very High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer

Simple Summary

That the definitive optimal treatments for relatively young men (aged ≤ 65 years) with high- or very high-risk localized prostate cancer (HR/VHR-LPC) are radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation plus antiandrogen therapy (RT-ADT) is controversial. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first and largest to examine biochemical failure (BF), all-cause death, locoregional recurrence, and distant metastasis in relatively young men with HR/VHR-LPC as defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk strata. After head-to-head propensity score matching was used to balance the potential confounders, a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to analyze oncologic outcomes. In relatively young men with HR/VHR-LPC, RP and RT-ADT yielded similar oncologic outcomes and RP reduced the risk of BF compared with RT-ADT.

Abstract

That intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plus antiandrogen therapy (IMRT-ADT) and radical prostatectomy (RP) are the definitive optimal treatments for relatively young patients (aged ≤ 65 years) with high- or very high-risk localized prostate cancer (HR/VHR-LPC), but remains controversial. We conducted a national population-based cohort study by using propensity score matching (PSM) to evaluate the clinical outcomes of RP and IMRT-ADT in relatively young patients with HR/VHR-LPC. Methods: We used the Taiwan Cancer Registry database to evaluate clinical outcomes in relatively young (aged ≤ 65 years) patients with HR/VHR-LPC, as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk strata. The patients had received RP or IMRT-ADT (high-dose, ≥72 Gy plus long-term, 1.5–3 years, ADT). Head-to-head PSM was used to balance potential confounders. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to analyze oncologic outcomes. Results: High-dose IMRT-ADT had a higher risk of biochemical failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.56–2.65, p < 0.0001) compared with RP; IMRT-ADT did not have an increased risk of all-cause death (aHR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.65–2.24, p = 0.564), locoregional recurrence (aHR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.67–1.06, p = 0.3524), or distant metastasis (aHR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.56–1.9, p = 0.9176) compared with RP. Conclusion: In relatively young patients with HR/VHR-LPC, RP and IMRT-ADT yielded similar oncologic outcomes and RP reduced the risk of biochemical failure compared with IMRT-ADT.

Noninvasive urine metabolomics of prostate cancer and its therapeutic approaches: a current scenario and future perspective

INTRODUCTION

The sensitive, specific, fast, robust and noninvasive biomarkers for the evaluation of prostate cancer (PC) remain elusive in medical research. However, efforts are in full sway to investigate and resolve these puzzles for clinical practice. Advances in modern analytical techniques, sample processing, and the emergence of multiple omics approaches have created a great hope for the development of better detection modalities for PC. The objective of the present review is to provide a concise overview of the PC metabolomics-based potential discriminating molecules in urine samples using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and mass spectrometry.

AREA COVERED

A literature search was executed to find the studies reporting the noninvasive urine-based biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of underlying disease. Most studies have extensivelyreported PC discriminating molecules with their respective controls. Additionally, pathophysiology and the treatment paradigm of PC are summarized and related to the insights underpinning the therapeutic intervention of PC.

EXPERT OPINION

With multi-centric, global, comprehensive omics approaches via either a non- or least-invasive bio-matrix may open new avenues of research for PC biomarker discovery, backed by a molecular mechanistic outline.

The Prognosis of Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy plus Brachytherapy, and External Beam Radiotherapy Alone for Patients above 70 Years with Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Population-Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy (EBRT + BT), and EBRT alone among elderly men (aged 70 years and above) with very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We identified elderly men diagnosed with VHR PCa between 2004 and 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The propensity score-matching method was adopted to balance the covariates and generate new cohorts. -Kaplan-Meier and Cox analyses were conducted to build up survival curves and evaluate the overall survival (OS) and PCa-specific survival (PCSS) outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 9,818 patients were identified. Of them, 5,839 were in the EBRT group, 725 in the EBRT + BT group, and 3,254 in the RP group. The survival curves of the overall cohort showed that RP was associated with the best OS, followed by EBRT + BT and EBRT (p < 0.001). As for the PCSS, RP shared similar outcomes with EBRT + BT (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.25 [0.93-1.69], p = 0.175). EBRT was associated with significantly worse PCSS than both RP (HR: 1.88, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] [1.64-2.15], p < 0.001) and EBRT + BT (HR: 1.48, 95% CI [1.19-1.85], p = 0.002). In the matched cohorts, RP presented better OS (HR: 1.41, 95% CI [1.07-1.86], p = 0.041) and similar PCSS with EBRT + BT (HR: 1.50, 95% CI [0.91-2.47], p = 0.12). RP was associated with significantly better OS and PCSS outcomes than EBRT alone (OS HR: 1.58, 95% CI [1.59-2.12], p < 0.001; PCSS HR: 2.08 [1.60-2.72], p < 0.001). EBRT + BT also had significantly better OS and PCSS outcomes than EBRT alone (OS HR: 1.33, 95% CI [1.11-1.60], p < 0.001; PCSS HR: 1.57 [1.13-2.19], p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients above 70 years with VHR PCa, RP was associated with better OS and similar PCSS than EBRT + BT. Both RP and EBRT + BT have better OS and PCSS than EBRT alone.

Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiation therapy for high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer: Emulation of a target clinical trial

PURPOSE

The comparative effectiveness of surgery and radiation therapy for high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer remains a seminal, open question in urologic oncology, with no randomized controlled trials to inform management. We therefore emulated a hypothetical target clinical trial of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted observational analyses using the National Cancer Database from 2006-2015 to emulate a target clinical trial in men 55-69 years with cT1-3cN0cM0, PSA<20 ng/mL, Gleason 8 to 10 prostate adenocarcinoma treated with RP or 75 to 81 Gy EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy (EBRT+ADT). The associations of treatment type with overall survival (OS) were estimated using Cox regression with stabilized inverse probability weights (IPW).

RESULTS

A total of 26,806 men formed the study cohort (RP: 23,990; EBRT+ADT: 2,816). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced after IPW-adjustment. Median follow-up was 48.4 (IQR 25.5-76.2) months. After IPW-reweighting, RP was associated with improved OS compared to EBRT+ADT (HR 0.54;95% CI 0.48-0.62; P<0.001), with 5- and 10-year OS of 93% vs 87%, and 76% vs 60%, respectively. RP was associated with improved OS across all categories of Gleason score, PSA, cT stage, age, and Charlson comorbidity index examined. In sensitivity analyses adjusting for biopsy tumor volume and a biopsy-specific Gleason score, RP remained associated with improved OS compared to EBRT+ADT (HR 0.62;95% CI 0.49-0.78; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In observational analyses designed to emulate a target clinical trial of men with high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer, RP was associated with improved OS compared with EBRT+ADT.

High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Very Challenging Disease in the Field of Uro-Oncology

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in males and affects 16% of men during their lifetime [...].

Surgery associated with increased survival compared to radiation in clinically localized Gleason 9-10 prostate cancer: a SEER analysis

PURPOSE

Men with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer have worse outcomes compared to those with Gleason 8 disease. Upfront treatments remain controversial for these patients. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we evaluated the impact of initial treatment with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), external beam radiation therapy with brachytherapy (EBRT + BT), or surgery on prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall mortality (OM) in Gleason 9-10 disease.

METHODS

The SEER database was queried for men diagnosed with biopsy Gleason 9-10 prostate cancer from 2005 to 2014. Gathered data included demographic, pathologic, therapy received, and survival outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and crude and multivariate analyses were generated for initial therapy with EBRT, EBRT + BT, or surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 7877 men were included, 4465 (56.7%) who underwent upfront treatment with EBRT alone, 623 (7.9%) with EBRT + BT, and 2789 (35.4%) with surgery. The 7 year PCSM rates were 29.2, 15.0, and 14.6% for EBRT, EBRT + BT, and surgery respectively (p < 0.001). The 7 year OM rates were 43.8, 27.2, and 20.0% for EBRT, EBRT + BT, and surgery, respectively (p < 0.001).When controlling for age, year of diagnosis, Gleason score, clinical T stage, and PSA level on multivariate analysis, EBRT had greater PCSM and OM than surgery (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28-0.61, p < 0.001 and HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34-0.57, p < 0.001 respectively), but the mortality differences was not statistically significant between EBRT and EBRT + BT.

CONCLUSION

Among men with localized Gleason 9-10 disease, surgery was associated with statistically significant improved survival outcomes compared to EBRT alone.

Survival Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy + Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection and Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer Patients With a Risk of Lymph Node Invasion Over 5%: A Population-Based Analysis

Purpose

We aimed to compare the efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) + extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) and radiotherapy (RT) in localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients with a risk of lymph node invasion (LNI) over 5%.

Methods

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases were used to identify patients with PCa from 2010 to 2014. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance baseline characteristics between patients in different treatment groups. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were used to assess the effects of treatments on cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

Overall 20584 patients were included in this study, with 4,057 and 16,527 patients receiving RP + ePLND and RT, respectively. After PSM, patients with RP + ePLND had similar CSS (5-year CSS rate: 97.8% vs. 97.2%, P=0.310) but longer OS (5-year OS rate: 96.0% vs. 90.8%, P<0.001) compared to those receiving RT. When separating RT cohort into external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) group and EBRT+ brachytherapy (BT) group, treatments with RP + ePLND and EBRT+ BT achieved equivalent OS and were both superior to EBRT alone (5-year OS rate: 96.0% vs. 94.4% vs. 90.0%, P<0.001). Subgroup analyses and multivariate analyses further confirmed the superiority of RP + ePLND and EBRT+ BT.

Conclusion

RP + ePLND and EBRT + BT were associated with better survival outcomes compared to EBRT alone in PCa patients with a probability of LNI over 5%. However, no survival difference was observed between RP + ePLND and EBRT + BT.

The role of surgery in high risk and advanced prostate cancer: A narrative review

Patients with high-risk and advanced prostate cancer require safe and efficacious therapies likely to offer a survival advantage while minimizing the treatment-related toxicities. Improvements in the surgical technology, diagnostic modalities, radiological staging, and risk stratification have made surgery for high-risk and advanced prostate cancer a safe and feasible option. In this review, we outline the role of radical prostatectomy in high-risk localized, locally advanced, and metastatic prostate cancer. We overview available data evaluating the use of surgery in the context of a multi-modal approach and highlight ongoing trials in this area. Furthermore, the role of surgery as a non-systemic modality for metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) is also described. Emerging imaging modalities enabling more accurate staging and longer follow-up of clinical trials for prognostic endpoints are anticipated to help identify patient cohorts and treatment strategies, where the use of surgical treatments is likely to provide oncological benefits and acceptable toxicity.

Surgical management of high-risk, localized prostate cancer

High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease that lacks clear consensus on its ideal management. Historically, non-surgical treatment was the preferred strategy, and several studies demonstrated improved survival among men with high-risk disease managed with the combination of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared with ADT alone. However, practice trends in the past 10-15 years have shown increased use of radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection for primary management of high-risk, localized disease. Radical prostatectomy, as a primary monotherapy, offers the potential benefits of avoiding ADT, reducing rates of symptomatic local recurrence, enabling full pathological tumour staging and potentially reducing late adverse effects such as secondary malignancy compared with radiation therapy. Retrospective studies have reported wide variability in short-term (pathological) and long-term (oncological) outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Surgical monotherapy continues to be appropriate for selected patients, whereas in others the best treatment strategy probably involves a multimodal approach. Appropriate risk stratification utilizing clinical, pathological and potentially also genomic risk data is imperative in the initial management of men with prostate cancer. However, data from ongoing and planned prospective trials are needed to identify the optimal management strategy for men with high-risk, localized prostate cancer.

Trends in prostatectomy utilization: Increasing upfront prostatectomy and postprostatectomy radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer

We aimed to determine patterns in frequency of radiotherapy for prostate cancer and definitive surgical management. There is prospective evidence indicating benefits of radiotherapy for some patients after radical prostatectomy (prostatectomy), with recent evidence suggesting benefit of early salvage radiotherapy. Trends in postoperative radiotherapy have not been elucidated. We analyzed the National Cancer Database for prostate cancer patients treated with curative‐intent therapy between 2004 and 2016. Patients were risk stratified according to NCCN treatment guidelines. Linear regression was utilized to examine trends in treatment with initial prostatectomy and trends in postoperative radiotherapy among treatment risk groups. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to examine clinical‐demographic variables associated with prostatectomy and postoperative radiotherapy. From 2004 to 2016, 508,450 patients received prostatectomy and 370,314 received radiotherapy. Median age was 63.6 years. There was increased utilization of prostatectomy from 47.9% in 2004 to 61.3% in 2016 (p_trend <0.001). 24,466 cases received postoperative radiotherapy. Similarly, postoperative radiotherapy utilization increased from 2.2% in 2004 to 4.0% in 2016 (p_trend <0.001). The subgroup with the largest increase in postoperative radiotherapy was clinically high‐risk disease (5.3% in 2004 to 7.8% in 2016 (p_trend <0.001). Clinical high‐risk disease (OR 1.751), Gleason 9‐10 (OR 2.973), and PSA >20 ng/ml (OR 1.489) were factors predictive for postoperative radiotherapy. The proportion of prostate cancer patients who undergo definitive prostatectomy and postoperative radiotherapy is increasing. This increase is greatest in high‐risk cases. Overall, the proportion of patients who receive any radiotherapy is decreasing. Association with preclinical factors suggests optimization of patient selection should be considered.

Updated evidence on oncological outcomes of surgery versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

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.

Quantifying treatment selection bias effect on survival in comparative effectiveness research: findings from low-risk prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) using national registries influences cancer clinical trial design, treatment guidelines, and patient management. However, the extent to which treatment selection bias (TSB) affects overall survival (OS) in cancer CER remains poorly defined. We sought to quantify the TSB effect on OS in the setting of low-risk prostate cancer, where 10-year prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) approaches 100% regardless of treatment modality.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was queried for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (cT1-T2a, PSA < 10, and Gleason 6) who received radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy (BT), or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) from 2005 to 2015. The TSB effect was defined as the unadjusted 10-year OS difference between modalities that was not due to differences in PCSS. Propensity score matching was used to estimate the TSB effect on OS due to measured confounders (variables present in the database and associated with OS) and unmeasured confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 50,804 patients were included (8845 RP; 18,252 BT; 23,707 EBRT) with a median follow-up of 7.4 years. The 10-year PCSS for the entire cohort was 99%. The 10-year OS was 92.9% for RP, 83.6% for BT, and 76.9% for EBRT (p < 0.001). OS differences persisted after propensity score matching of RP vs. EBRT (7.4%), RP vs. BT (4.6%), and BT vs. EBRT (3.7%) (all p < 0.001). The TSB effect on 10-year OS was estimated to be 15.0% for RP vs. EBRT (8.6% measured, 6.4% unmeasured), 8.5% for RP vs. BT (4.8% measured, 3.7% unmeasured), and 6.5% for BT vs. EBRT (3.1% measured, 3.4% unmeasured).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with low-risk prostate cancer selected for RP exhibited large OS differences despite similar PCSS compared to radiotherapy, suggesting OS differences are almost entirely driven by TSB. The quantities of these effects are important to consider when interpreting prostate cancer CER using national registries.

Benefits and Risks of Primary Treatments for High-risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: An International Multidisciplinary Systematic Review

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.

The efficacy and safety of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Overview of potential determinants of radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy in management of clinically localized prostate cancer: results from an Italian, prospective, observational study (the Pros-IT CNR study)

BACKGROUND

We assessed patients and tumor characteristics, as well as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) items, associated with curative intent treatment decision-making in clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

METHODS

Clinically localized PCa treated with either radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation therapy (RT) within 12 months from diagnosis were abstracted from The PROState cancer monitoring in ITaly, from the National Research Council (Pros-IT CNR) database. Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) models predicting RT vs. RP were fitted, after adjustment for HRQoL items, patients and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 1041 patients, 631 (60.2%) were treated with RP and 410 (39.8%) with RT. Relative to RT, RP patients were younger age (mean age 64.5±6.6 vs. 71.4±4.9, P<0.001) and had higher rates of D'Amico low-intermediate risk groups (31.8 vs. 21.9% low, 46.3% vs. 43.5% intermediate and 21.9% vs. 34.6% high risk, P<0.001). Overall, 93.2% of RP patients were enrolled by urologists and 82.7% of RT patients by radiation oncologists. RP patients had generally higher means values of HRQoL items. In MLR models, higher RT rates were independently associated with more advanced age (odds ratio [OR] 6.14, P<0.001) and BMI≥30 kg/m² (OR 1.78, P<0.001). Conversely, lower rates of RT were independently associated with married (OR 0.55, P=0.01) and worker status (OR 0.52, P=0.004), enrollment in academic centers (OR 0.59, P=0.005) and higher physical composite score (OR 0.88, P=0.03) and baseline sexual function items (OR 0.92, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with clinically localized prostate cancer undergoing definitive treatment at Italian institutions receive RP instead of RT. Moreover, those who are younger, married, working, as well as those with better physical and sexual function are more likely to undergo surgery.

Combined Modality Therapies for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Narrative Review of Current Understanding and New Directions

Despite the many prospective randomized trials that have been available in the past decade regarding the optimization of radiation, hormonal, and surgical therapies for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), many questions remain. There is currently a lack of level I evidence regarding the relative efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) followed by adjuvant radiation compared to radiation therapy (RT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk PCa. Current retrospective series have also described an improvement in biochemical outcomes and PCa-specific mortality through the use of augmented radiation strategies incorporating brachytherapy. The relative efficacy of modern augmented RT compared to RP is still incompletely understood. We present a narrative review regarding recent advances in understanding regarding comparisons of overall and PCa-specific mortality measures among patients with high-risk PCa treated with either an RP/adjuvant RT or an RT/ADT approach. We give special consideration to recent trends toward the assembly of multi-institutional series targeted at providing high-quality data to minimize the effects of residual confounding. We also provide a narrative review of recent studies examining brachytherapy boost and systemic therapies, as well as an overview of currently planned and ongoing studies that will further elucidate strategies for treatment optimization over the next decade.

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

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.

Comparative effectiveness of surgery versus external beam radiation with/without brachytherapy in high-risk localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial if radical prostatectomy or definitive radiation therapy produces equivalent outcomes in high-risk localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

We queried The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for those who received upfront surgery or who were recommended for surgery but instead received radiation. Inverse probability of treatment weighing was used to adjust for covariate imbalance and the weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the effects of treatment groups on survival. A meta-analysis was performed to pool estimates from published studies.

RESULTS

Among eligible 62 533 patients, 59 540 had upfront surgery and 2993 patients had upfront radiotherapy. EBRT + BT was associated with a superior cancer-specific survival (CSS) compared with surgery or EBRT alone (HR, 0.55, 95% CI, 0.3-1.0; HR, 0.49, 95% CI, 0.24-0.98, respectively), whereas EBRT was associated with an inferior overall survival (OS) compared with surgery (HR, 1.46, 95% CI, 1.16-1.8). Radiotherapy (EBRT ± BT) was inferior to surgery by OS (HR, 1.63, 95% CI, 1.13-2.34) in patients ≤ 65 years, and was superior to surgery by CSS in patients > 65 years (HR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.49-0.97). The meta-analysis showed consistent results.

CONCLUSION

EBRT + BT was associated with a significantly better prostate CSS compared with surgery or EBRT. EBRT alone was inferior to surgery by OS.

SURGICAL TREATMENT OF HIGH-RISK PROSTATIC CARCINOMA AND OLIGOMETASTATIC DISEASE

Prostate cancer is responsible for the largest number of cancer-related deaths in male population in many countries of the world. Aggressive forms of the disease are associated with an increased risk of local recurrence and death. Treatment of high-risk local prostate cancer most commonly involves radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without the addition of brachytherapy (BT). The use of surgery for high risk prostatic carcinoma (HRPC) is on the rise, because of its advantages including the possibility of cure with surgery alone without the risk of toxicities from prolonged ADT, accurate staging, and avoiding the influence of PSA originating from benign prostatic hyperplasia on future therapy. Oligometastatic prostate cancer may be considered as the last border of possibly curable disease. Radical prostatectomy in oligometastatic prostate cancer can significantly decrease the risk of local complications but only multimodal approach in selected group of patients may offer opportunities to eradicate tumor or delay its progression. Surgery for oligometastatic disease most commonly targets lymphatic disease with salvage pelvic lymph node dissection, whereas it rarely targets distant metastases. Further prospective, randomized studies are necessary to define the role and value of therapies in oligometastatic prostate cancer.

[Current controversies in the treatment of localized prostate cancer]

In the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era, most prostate cancers (PCa) are diagnosed in a localized stage and a plethora of therapeutic options are warranted in different clinical settings and disease stages of localized PCa. In the current narrative review, we give an overview of the current controversies in the therapeutic landscape of localized PCa and focus on organ-sparing approaches, percutaneous radiotherapy, brachytherapy as well as retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy by summarizing studies that have been published within the last two years.