Surgery Versus Radiation for High-risk Prostate Cancer: The Fight Continues. But Is It Time To Call a Draw and Reach Consensus?

Long-Term Oncological Outcomes after Nerve-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Single-Center, Two-Arm Prospective Study

AIMS

To compare the oncological outcomes of patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer undergoing nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS

Between November 2002 and December 2018, we prospectively recorded the data of patients undergoing RARP for high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) at our tertiary referral center. NSS (nerve-sparing surgery) was carefully offered on the basis of the preoperative clinical characteristics of the patients and an intraoperative assessment. The patients were stratified into two groups: nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing groups (yes/no). Radical prostatectomies were performed by 10 surgeons with a robot-assisted technique using a daVinci® surgical system. The primary oncological outcome evaluated was biochemical recurrence (BCR). The secondary oncological outcomes assessed were positive surgical margins (PSMs) and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

RESULTS

A total of 779 patients were included in the study: 429 (55.1%) underwent NSS while 350 (44.9%) underwent non-NSS. After a mean (±SD) follow-up of 192 (±14) months, 328 (42.1%) patients developed BCR; no significant difference was found between the NSS and non-NSS groups (156 vs. 172; p = 0.09). Both our univariable and multivariable analyses found that the nerve-sparing approach was not a predictor of BCR (p > 0.05). Kaplan-Mayer survival curves for BCR showed no significant difference among the non-NSS, unilateral NSS, and bilateral NSS groups (log rank test = 0.6). PSMs were reported after RARPs for 254 (32.6%) patients, with no significant difference between the NSS and non-NSS group (143 vs. 111; p = 0.5). In the subgroup of 15 patients who died during the follow-up period, mean (±SD) CSS was 70.5 (±26.1) months, with no significant difference between the NSS and non-NSS groups (mean CSS: 70.3 vs. 70.7 months).

CONCLUSIONS

NSS does not appear to negatively impact the oncological outcomes of patients with high-risk PCa. Randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm our promising findings.

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.

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.

Surgery for pathological T3a, T3b and lymph node positive, prostate cancer: surgical, functional and oncological outcomes

Objective:

To investigate and document the surgical, functional and oncological outcomes following surgery for high-risk prostate cancer patients.

Patients and methods:

Patients with pathological T3a, T3b and N1 disease were extracted from our prospectively updated institutional database. Data include demographics, preoperative cancer parameters, short and long-term complications and functional results. Details of biochemical recurrence, type and oncological outcome of salvage treatments, cancer-specific and overall survival were also obtained.

Results:

A total of 669 patients were included; 58.9% had T3a disease, 35.9% had pT3b and 11.4% N1 disease. With a median follow-up of 66 months (8–129), overall survival was 94.3%, cancer-specific survival was 98.7% and biochemical recurrence was 45.6%. Average inpatient stay was 1 day and the overall complication rate was 9.1%; 54.2% experienced a biochemical recurrence and 90.3% went on to have one or more salvage treatments, which were varied. Significant predictors of biochemical recurrence included pathological stage, any positive margin and patient age ( P<0.005). A total of 44.9% had an immediate biochemical recurrence, with 90% receiving subsequent treatment and 20.5% having a durable response. None of the patients receiving prostate bed radiotherapy alone had a durable response. 54% had a delayed biochemical recurrence, with 63.5% receiving subsequent treatment and 44% having a durable response.

Conclusions:

Surgery is associated with encouraging surgical and functional outcomes, cancer-specific survival and overall survival rates in these patients. Pathological stage is a significant predictor of biochemical recurrence. The present analysis shows that long-term observation for certain patients with biochemical recurrence is appropriate and questions the effectiveness of further local salvage treatments in patients with an immediate biochemical recurrence postoperatively.

Level of evidence:

II