Long-term results of a randomized trial for the treatment of Stages B2 and C prostate cancer: radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiation therapy with a common endocrine therapy in both modalities

A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials Comparing Radiation Therapy Versus Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer

The treatment landscape for localized and regional prostate cancer includes active surveillance, radiation therapy (RT), and radical prostatectomy (RP). Population-based studies comparing RP to radiation reveal conflicting results due to methodological flaws. This systematic review and pooled analysis of studies aim to compare cause-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and toxicity outcomes, comparing RP to RT in the management of prostate cancer. This systematic review search included the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries according to the PRISMA statement with the inception of each database up to June 24, 2023. Randomized phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that compared RP to RT in prostate cancer were included. The forest plot for the Odds ratio (OR) was plotted using the Mantel-Haenszel method, and the Z test was used to assess significance. A fixed effects model was used for meta-analysis. The search yielded seven completed randomized clinical trials and four ongoing trials. The majority of complete trials had low to intermediate-risk patient populations. OR for OS was 1.00 with 95% CI, 0.71-1.41 (P-value: 0.98), CSS OR was 0.99 with 95% CI, 0.45-2.18 (P-value 0.11), OR for DFS was 1.26 with 95% CI, 0.89-1.78 (P-value 0.19) when comparing RP to RT. The rate of distant metastatic disease was 2.3% in the RP versus 2.9% in the RT at 10 years. The rate of second malignant neoplasms was 4.5% in the RP compared to 4.2% in the RT arm at 10 years. RP caused more urinary symptoms, with a predominance of the need for urinary pads and a higher incidence of sexual dysfunction, and RT caused a higher incidence of bowel symptoms, such as blood in stools and fecal incontinence. This study provides evidence that the treatment-related outcomes are similar in patients with low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer when comparing RP to RT. Multidisciplinary treatment approaches and factoring patients' values and preferences should form the cornerstone of the ideal treatment option for each patient with localized prostate cancer. Patients with prostate cancer have an equal chance of being cancer-free and alive at 10 years with either RP or RT. In terms of side effects, RP causes more urine leakage and loss of erections, whereas RT tends to cause more bowel side effects, such as blood in stools and fecal leakage.

The role of radical prostatectomy and definitive external beam radiotherapy in combined treatment for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The first-line treatment options for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are definitive external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without adjuvant therapies. However, few randomized trials have compared the survival outcomes of these two treatments. To systematically evaluate the survival outcomes of high-risk PCa patients treated with EBRT- or RP-based therapy, a comprehensive and up-to-date meta-analysis was performed. A systematic online search was conducted for randomized or observational studies that investigated biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and/or overall survival (OS), in relation to the use of RP or EBRT in patients with high-risk PCa. The summary hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated under the random effects models. We identified heterogeneity between studies using Q tests and measured it using I2 statistics. We evaluated publication bias using funnel plots and Egger's regression asymmetry tests. Seventeen studies (including one randomized controlled trial [RCT]) of low risk of bias were selected and up to 9504 patients were pooled. When comparing EBRT-based treatment with RP-based treatment, the pooled HRs for bRFS, CSS, and OS were 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-0.67), 1.36 (95% CI: 0.94-1.97), and 1.39 (95% CI: 1.18-1.62), respectively. Better OS for RP-based treatment and better bRFS for EBRT-based treatment have been identified, and there was no significant difference in CSS between the two treatments. RP-based treatment is recommended for high-risk PCa patients who value long-term survival, and EBRT-based treatment might be a promising alternative for elderly patients.

Health Related Quality of Life in Japanese Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer: Comparative Retrospective Study of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiation Therapy

Background

Radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy are standard treatments for localized prostate cancer. When making decisions about treatment, it is important to not only consider medical information such as the patient's age, performance status, and complications, but also the impact on quality of life (QOL) after treatment.

Our purpose was to compare health related quality of life (HRQOL) after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus radiation therapy in Japanese patients with localized prostate cancer retrospectively.

Methods

Patients with localized prostate cancer receiving RARP or radiotherapy at Tottori University Hospital between October 2010 and December 2014 were enrolled in a retrospective observational study with follow-up for 24 months to December 2016. The Medical Outcome Study 8-Item Short-Form Health Survey was performed before treatment and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-treatment.

Results

Complete responses to the questionnaire were obtained from 154/227 patients receiving RARP, 41/67 patients receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy, 35/82 patients receiving low dose rate brachytherapy, and 18/28 patients given low dose rate brachytherapy plus external beam radiation therapy. The median physical component summary score of the Medical Outcome Study 8-Item Short-Form Health Survey was significantly lower at 1 month after prostatectomy than radiotherapy, but was similar for both treatments at 3 months, and was significantly higher at 6, 12 and 24 months after prostatectomy. The median mental component summary score was also significantly lower in the prostatectomy group at 1 month, but not from 3 months onwards.

Conclusion

Our study suggested that HRQOL was inferior at 1 month after RARP, however, recovered at 3 months after RARP and was better than after radiotherapy at 6, 12, and 24 months.

Treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer (Stage T3)

Objective

Formerly, locally advanced prostate cancer exhibited poorly prognosis. In the late 1990s, new surgical and radiation technologies were introduced in combination with androgen deprivation. To evaluate respective strategies, outcomes were examined.

Patients and methods

Between 2001 and 2010, 224 patients with T3N0M0 (10.9% of all prostate cancer cases) were treated with prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with/without androgen deprivation or hormone alone. Complete records were obtained by the end of 2015.

Results

Operation group first started without adjuvant treatment and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse occurred in 39% of cases. Radiation therapy group was alternatively divided into two subgroups, that received either monotherapy or combination with androgen deprivation, and PSA relapse rates were 65 and 16%, respectively. High rates of PSA relapse in both the operation and radiation therapy groups were observed in patients without adjuvant therapy, but after relapse androgen deprivation proceeded favorable outcomes. In the radiation subgroups, PSA relapse rates were different, but both subsequent survival rates were the same. This may be due to the effect of androgen deprivation after relapse, indicating effect of delayed therapy. PSA relapse rate in the hormone therapy group was 25% and after relapse, patients applied to treatment with other hormonal and anticancer drugs. Overall survival rates were 91, 88 and 67% in the operation, radiation therapy and hormone therapy groups, respectively.

Conclusion

Aggressive treatment with short-term androgen deprivation for locally advanced prostate cancer could be beneficial and not harmful when suitable candidates are selected. Delayed androgen deprivation was effective for no adjuvant patients after PSA relapse.

A critical analysis of the long-term impact of radical prostatectomy on cancer control and function outcomes

CONTEXT

The optimal management strategy for men with newly diagnosed clinically localized prostate cancer remains a matter of debate. Numerous series have reported cancer control and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes following treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP).

OBJECTIVE

Critically review published oncologic and functional outcomes after RP, and evaluate factors associated with these outcome measures.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A review of the literature was performed using the Medline and Web of Sciences databases. Relevant reports published between 1980 and 2011 identified using the keywords prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, prostate-specific antigen, biochemical recurrence, incontinence, and erectile dysfunction were reviewed and summarized.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Cancer control rates following RP largely depend on the definition of treatment efficacy. While up to 40% of men have been reported to experience postoperative biochemical recurrence on long-term follow-up, death from prostate cancer has been noted in <10% of men at 15 yr after surgery in contemporary series. For men with high-risk disease, surgery affords pathologic staging, thereby facilitating the selective application of secondary therapies, and has been associated with decreased mortality risk versus radiation in retrospective series. Reported functional outcomes after surgery, particularly urinary continence and erectile dysfunction, have varied greatly to date. These assessments have been limited by nonstandardized reporting methodology. The use of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has increased in recent years, and while follow-up is thus far short, available data do not suggest the superiority of either approach in terms of functional or oncologic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

RP is associated with excellent long-term cancer control. Continued efforts to conduct prospective assessments of postoperative functional outcomes are necessary using validated QoL instruments. The importance of surgical approach will also require further study, incorporating comparative oncologic, functional, and economic data.

Health-related quality of life in treatment for prostate cancer: looking beyond survival

Improvements in detecting and treating prostate cancer account for the need to evaluate strategies for optimizing quality of life (QOL) among survivors of prostate cancer. Several management options are available when prostate cancer is diagnosed at an early stage. However, the optimal treatment for localized prostate cancer is unknown, and reports in the literature are controversial regarding the best treatment modality. In this article, the authors will review the standard therapies used to treat localized prostate cancer and the effects of these therapies on a patient's QOL. Ultimately, the decision of which treatment modality to choose will be a decision based largely on individual patient preferences in concert with his physician and family members, in view of a thorough understanding of the available treatments and the full range of possible treatment-related side effects.

Long-term outcomes of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy combined with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy in Japanese patients with locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) combined with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NAHT) in Japanese patients with locally advanced prostate cancer who initiated salvage hormonal therapy (SHT) at a relatively early phase were evaluated.

METHODS

Between April 1998 and April 2003, 70 Japanese patients with T3N0M0 prostate cancer who received radical 3D-CRT treatment were evaluated. The median age, initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and duration of NAHT were 73 years old, 26.3 ng/ml, and 4 months, respectively. Seventy grays were given in 35 fractions that were confined to the prostate and seminal vesicles. Adjuvant hormonal therapy was not administered after 3D-CRT in any of the cases.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 64.9 months. The median PSA value at the time of initiation of SHT was 5.0 ng/ml (range 0.1-21.6 ng/ml). Overall, disease-specific, PSA failure-free (based on the Phoenix definition) and SHT-free survival rates at 5 years were 90.3% (95% CI 86.5-94.0), 96.5% (94.0-98.9), 60.5% (48.2-72.7), and 63.5% (57.2-69.8), respectively. Therefore, two-thirds of the patients were still hormone-free at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

PSA control rates in our series of Japanese patients with stage T3N0M0 prostate cancer treated with the standard dose of 3D-CRT combined with NAHT seemed higher than expected. This approach involving 3D-CRT combined with NAHT with the initiation of SHT at PSA values of around 5 ng/ml may be one option for Japanese patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, although further prospective study is required to confirm the validity.

A randomized trial of external beam radiotherapy versus cryoablation in patients with localized prostate cancer: quality of life outcomes

BACKGROUND

A recent randomized trial to compare external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to cryoablation for localized disease showed cryoablation to be noninferior to external beam EBRT in disease progression and overall and disease-specific survival. We report on the quality of life (QOL) outcomes for this trial.

METHODS

From December 1997 through February 2003, 244 men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to cryoablation or EBRT (median dose 68 Gy). All patients received neoadjuvant antiandrogen therapy. Patients completed the EORTC QLQ C30 and the Prostate Cancer Index (PCI) before treatment and at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months post-treatment.

RESULTS

Regardless of treatment arm, participants reported high levels of QOL with few exceptions. cryoablation was associated with more acute urinary dysfunction (mean PCI urinary function cryoablation=69.4; mean EBRT=90.7; P<.001), which resolved over time. No late arising QOL issues were observed. Both EBRT and cryoablation participants reported decreases in sexual function at 3 months with the cryoablation patients reporting poorer functioning (mean cryoablation=7.2: mean EBRT=32.9; P<.001). Mean sexual function score was 15 points lower at 3 years for the cryoablation group and 13% more of the cryoablation men said that sexuality was a moderate or big problem.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized trial, no long-term QOL advantage for either treatment was apparent with the exception of poorer sexual function reported by those treated with cryoablation. Men who wish to increase their odds of retaining sexual function might be counseled to choose EBRT over cryoablation.

Prognostic factors for and outcome of locally advanced prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To present the outcomes of cT3N0M0 prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP) and determine the prognostic factors in biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS), clinical progression-free survival (CPFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) after long-term follow-up of 10 years.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 164 patients who were assessed as clinical T3 prostate cancer by digital rectal examination (DRE), underwent RP and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy at Erasmus MC between 1977 and 2004 without neoadjuvant treatment. Preoperative staging computed tomography showed no signs of metastasis. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to show BPFS, CPFS, CSS and OS. Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to determine prognostic indicators of disease progression.

RESULTS

The mean (range) follow-up was 100 (1-291) months. At 5, 10 and 15 years, BPFS was 50.4%, 43.0% and 38.3%, respectively, CPFS was 79.7%, 68.7% and 63.5%, CSS was 93.4%, 80.3% and 66.3%, and OS was 87.1%, 67.2% and 37.4%. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that surgical tumour grade, margin and node status were significant factors in CPFS and CSS. Surgical tumour grade, node status and preoperative PSA level were significant factors in BPFS CONCLUSION: RP for clinically locally advanced prostate cancer may produce acceptable long-term BPFS, which is comparable with published results of radiotherapy with adjuvant endocrine therapy. Pathological tumour grade and node status were significant predicting factors in BPFS and CPFS, as well as tumour-specific survival after 100 months follow-up.

[The role of surgery in locally advanced prostate cancer]

Recent retrospective monocentric studies have demonstrated favorable 15-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates of up to 86% using radical prostatectomy as part of multimodal treatment in locally advanced prostate cancer (T3-4, N0, M0). Patients most likely to benefit from surgery include those with a biopsy Gleason score < or =8, a prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/ml, and cT3a cancer. Patients must be informed that additional treatment after prostatectomy might be necessary (30-70%; radiotherapy, hormonal therapy). Urinary incontinence may occur in up to 20%, and severe incontinence (more than two pads per day) is observed in up to 6%.Adjuvant radiotherapy should be considered individually and is not routinely recommended. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy should be performed, although it has only a minor impact on survival. However, even in patients with lymph node micrometastasis, 10-year CSS can be achieved in 85.6% with the use of additional hormonal therapy. Cancer progression can possibly be delayed by surgical excision of the primary tumor, even in patients with metastasis. The existing data must be checked in prospective randomized trials.

Long-term outcomes of radical prostatectomy with multimodal adjuvant therapy in men with a preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level > or =50 ng/mL

BACKGROUND

The authors evaluated the long-term outcomes of men with prostate cancer and very high (> or =50 ng/mL) preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values that were treated with radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

This study included 236 men with preoperative serum PSA values > or =50 ng/mL who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy between 1987 and 2004. For comparison, the study cohort was divided into 2 groups: patients with PSA levels between 50 and 99 ng/mL and patients with PSA levels > or =100 ng/mL. Biochemical recurrence was defined as a single postoperative serum PSA value of 0.4 ng/mL or greater. Systemic disease progression was defined as the development of a local recurrence or systemic metastases, and any death resulting from prostate cancer or its treatment was defined as a cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS

Biochemical recurrence-free survival rates in the groups of patients with a PSA level 50 to 99 ng/mL and > or =100 ng/mL were 43% and 36% at 10 years, respectively. Systemic progression-free survival rates in the PSA 50 to 99 ng/mL and PSA > or =100 ng/mL groups were 83% and 74% at 10 years, respectively. Estimated overall cancer-specific survival was 87% at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with prostate cancer and a serum PSA level > or =50 ng/mL have very high-risk prostate cancer that carries a high likelihood of being pathologically advanced. Although the probability of realizing long-term survival in these high-risk patients is less than in patients with more favorable disease, 10-year survival outcomes remain excellent and argue for aggressive management of these cases.

Bowel, urinary, and sexual problems among long-term prostate cancer survivors: a population-based study

PURPOSE

To obtain insight into the long-term (5- to 10-year) effects of prostate cancer and treatment on bowel, urinary, and sexual function, we performed a population-based study. Prostate-specific function was compared with an age-matched normative population without prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Through the population-based Eindhoven Cancer Registry, we selected all men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1994 and 1998 in the southern Netherlands. In total, 964 patients, alive in November 2004, received questionnaire; 780 (81%) responded.

RESULTS

Urinary problems were most common after a prostatectomy; bowel problems were most common after radiotherapy. Compared with an age-matched normative population both urinary and bowel functioning and bother were significantly worse among survivors. Urinary incontinence was reported by 23-48% of survivors compared with 4% of the normative population. Bowel leakage occurred in 5-14% of patients compared with 2% of norms. Erection problems occurred in 40-74% of patients compared with 18% of norms.

CONCLUSIONS

These results form an important contribution to the limited information available on prostate-specific problems in the growing group of long-term prostate cancer survivors. Bowel, urinary, and sexual problems occur more often among long-term survivors compared with a reference group and cannot be explained merely by age. Because these problems persist for many years, urologists should provide patients with adequate information before treatment. After treatment, there should be an appropriate focus on these problems.

Quality of life after therapy for localized prostate cancer

Given the lack of unequivocal survival data clearly favoring one treatment over another for localized prostate cancer, patients strongly consider quality-of-life effects when choosing treatment for this common malignancy. In the past 15 years, a sizeable body of literature assessing health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes in localized prostate cancer has emerged. The goal of this article is to review the quality-of-life experience after treatment for localized prostate cancer. Specifically, I will briefly discuss how quality of life is measured and then review the quality of life effects of each of the commonly used treatment strategies in localized prostate cancer. Finally, I attempt to directly compare the quality-of-life effects of the various treatments to assist clinicians in advising patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer.

Prevalence, severity, and chronicity of pain and general health-related quality of life in patients with localized prostate cancer

AIMS

To analyze the prevalence and the severity spectrum of pain and its relationships to health-related quality of life and the bio-psycho-social consequences of pain among patients scheduled for radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

Urological inpatients completed an epidemiological pain questionnaire extensively exploring pre-operative acute and chronic pains in 21 body regions. The severity of pain was determined using von Korff's Pain Grading (CPGQ). Pain chronicity was estimated employing the Mainz Pain Staging System (MPSS). Anxiety and depressive symptoms were identified with the HADS and the Habitual Well-Being Questionnaire (FW-7). Health-related quality of life was measured using the SF-12. Comorbidities and comorbidity-related interferences with daily activities were ascertained with the Weighted Illness Checklist (WICL).

RESULTS

Eighty of 115 patients (69.6%) reported about pain during the last 3 months pre-operatively. 28.7% of the pain patients had pain related to urological disease. Severe dysfunctional pain was identified by pain Grades 3 and 4 of the CPGQ in 20% and 13.8%, respectively. Advanced pain chronicity characterized by pain Stages II and III of the MPSS was present in 38.8% and 11.3%. Patients with localized prostate cancer without pain complaints had significantly better health-related quality of life and habitual well-being and lower anxiety and depression scores and fewer comorbidities. Patients with cancer-related and non-cancer pain did not differ in pain chronicity, pain severity, pain intensities, anxiety, comorbidities and physical health (SF12-PCS).

CONCLUSIONS

The high prevalence of severe and chronic pain in cancer patients before scheduled radical prostatectomy--combined with considerable disability effects and markedly reduced quality of life necessitate a short routine screening-analysis of the severity spectrum of pain and psychopathology. Patient self-rated pain chronicity staging and psychological distress analysis will allow a disorder severity-guided treatment and the prevention of suffering and additional new chronic post-surgical pain.

Evidence-based radiation oncology: Definitive, adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer

The standard treatment options based on the risk category (stage, Gleason score, PSA) for localized prostate cancer include surgery, radiotherapy and watchful waiting. The literature does not provide clear-cut evidence for the superiority of surgery over radiotherapy, whereas both approaches differ in their side effects. The definitive external beam irradiation is frequently employed in stage T1b-T1c, T2 and T3 tumors. There is a pretty strong evidence that intermediate- and high-risk patients benefit from dose escalation. The latter requires reduction of the irradiated normal tissue (using 3-dimensional conformal approach, intensity modulated radiotherapy, image-guided radiotherapy, etc.). Recent data suggest that prostate cancer may benefit from hypofractionation due to relatively low alpha/beta ratio; these findings warrant confirmation though. The role of whole pelvis irradiation is still controversial. Numerous randomized trials demonstrated a clinical benefit in terms of biochemical control, local and distant control, and overall survival from the addition of androgen suppression to external beam radiotherapy in intermediate- and high-risk patients. These studies typically included locally advanced (T3-T4) and poor-prognosis (Gleason score >7 and/or PSA >20 ng/mL) tumors and employed neoadjuvant/concomitant/adjuvant androgen suppression rather than only adjuvant setting. The ongoing trials will hopefully further define the role of endocrine treatment in more favorable risk patients and in the setting of the dose escalated radiotherapy. Brachytherapy (BRT) with permanent implants may be offered to low-risk patients (cT1-T2a, Gleason score <7, or 3+4, PSA <or=10 ng/mL), with prostate volume of <or=50 ml, no previous transurethral prostate resection and a good urinary function. Some recent data suggest a benefit from combining external beam irradiation and BRT for intermediate-risk patients. EBRT after radical prostatectomy improves disease-free survival and biochemical and local control rates in patients with positive surgical margins or pT3 tumors. Salvage radiotherapy may be considered at the time of biochemical failure in previously non-irradiated patients.

Results of radiation therapy combined with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for stage III prostate cancer: comparison of two different definitions of PSA failure

BACKGROUND

We herein report the clinical outcome of radical radiation therapy combined with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) for stage III (International Union Against Cancer [UICC] 1997: UICC 97) prostate cancer. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure-free survival was assessed according to two different definitions, and the appropriateness of each definition is discussed.

METHODS

Between October 1997 and December 2000, 27 patients with stage III prostate cancer were enrolled in this study. The median pretreatment PSA level was 29 ng/ml (range, 7.4-430 ng/ml). The Gleason score (GS) was 7 or more in 22 patients (81%). All patients received 3 months of NHT with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) analogue, in combination with an antiandrogen (flutamide), given during the first 2 weeks, followed by 70-Gy external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in 35 fractions. The initial 46 Gy was given with a four-field technique, while the remainder was given with a dynamic conformal technique. No adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT) was given.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 63 months. PSA levels decreased to the normal range (<4 ng/ml) after irradiation in all but one patient. The 5-year PSA failure-free survival was 34.8% according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) definition and it was 43.0% according to the "nadir plus 2" definition. Discordance of the results between the two definitions was seen in two patients. The 5-year overall and cause-specific survivals were 83.0% and 93.3%, respectively. No severe acute or late adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSION

Seventy Gy of EBRT following 3 months of NHT produced therapeutic results comparable to those reported in other studies which used long-term AHT. The value of long-term AHT for Japanese men should be tested in a clinical trial.

Neoadjuvant therapy before radical prostatectomy: Where have we been? Where are we going?

Prostate cancer is curable only when treated at an early stage, when the tumor is still localized to the prostate gland. However, even in apparent cases of clinically localized disease, unsuspected extracapsular disease may significantly increase the risk of primary treatment failure. This risk is especially high if the patient has > or =1 of the following risk factors: a serum prostate-specific antigen level of >20 ng/ml, a Gleason score of >7, locally advanced disease (clinical stage T3/T4), and extensive disease on prostate biopsy. Various regimens of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, or both have produced mixed results and, in general, have not significantly influenced the rate of disease relapse (as defined by prostate-specific antigen level) in high-risk patients with localized prostate cancer. In addition, anti-angiogenic agents, gene therapy, molecular targeting agents, and other promising new therapies have been investigated in a neoadjuvant setting with limited results. Therefore, this patient population continues to pose a therapeutic dilemma for physicians.

Outcome of Surgery for Clinical Unilateral T3a Prostate Cancer: A Single-Institution Experience

OBJECTIVES

The optimal management of locally advanced prostate cancer (cT3) is still a matter of debate. The objective of this study is to present 10-year outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) in unilateral cT3a disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1987 and 2004, 2273 patients underwent RP at our institution. Two hundred and thirty-five (10.3%) patients were assessed as unilateral cT3a disease by digital rectal examination. Thirty-five patients who received neoadjuvant treatment before surgery were excluded from further analysis. Mean follow-up was 70.6 months. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate the biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS), clinical progression-free survival (CPFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) rates. Cox uni- and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify predictive factors in BPFS and CPFS.

RESULTS

Clinical overstaging (pT2) occurred in 23.5%. One hundred and twelve (56%) patients received adjuvant or salvage therapy. OS at 5 and 10 years was 95.9% and 77.0%, respectively, and CSS was 98.7% and 91.6%. BPFS at 5 and 10 years was 59.5% and 51.1%, respectively, and CPFS was 95.9% and 85.4%. Margin status was a significant independent predictor in BPFS; cancer volume was a significant independent predictor in CPFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically advanced prostate cancer is still frequently overstaged. In a well-selected patient group with locally advanced prostate cancer, RP--with adjuvant or salvage treatment when needed--can yield very high long-term cancer control and survival rates. Margin status and cancer volume are significant predictors of outcome after RP.

Quality of life assessment in surgical oncology trials

Integrating health-related quality of life (HRQOL) as an endpoint for randomized surgical trials provides valuable insight into the patients' perspective on treatment outcome. Health related quality of life data also play a role in ensuring fully informed consent, determining treatment options and informing treatment decision making. However, few randomized surgical trials have been conducted that meet the minimum requirements for rigorous HRQL assessment and, despite increasing efforts to improve the reporting of randomized trials, many are still not adequately performed. Such methodologic limitations may influence trial findings for HRQL outcomes and undermine the ability of the data collected to inform clinical practice. This review describes key methodological aspects of HRQL assessment that are required in randomized trials to ensure that data are robust. This includes choice of HRQL instrument, the method and timing of assessments and data analysis and presentation. The review also makes recommendations for future research in this area.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Prostatectomy Plus Endocrine Therapy versus External Beam Radiotherapy Plus Endocrine Therapy for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Results at Median Follow-up of 102 Months

BACKGROUND

To investigate the optimal treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer, a prospective randomized trial was conducted to compare radical prostatectomy plus endocrine therapy versus external beam radiotherapy plus endocrine therapy.

METHODS

One hundred patients with T2b-3N0M0 prostate cancer were enrolled and 95 were evaluated. Of 95 cases, 46 underwent radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection and 49 were treated with external beam radiation by linear accelerator with 40-50 Gy to the whole pelvis and 20-Gy boost to the prostatic area. For all patients, endocrine therapy was initiated 8 weeks before surgery or radiotherapy and continued thereafter. The long-term outcome and morbidity were examined.

RESULTS

Median follow-up period was 102 months. At 10 years overall survival rates in the surgery group were better than the radiation group (76.2% versus 71.1% for biochemical progression-free rates; P=0.25, 83.5% versus 66.1% for clinical progression-free rates; P=0.14, 85.7% versus 77.1% for cause-specific survival rates; P=0.06, and 67.9% versus 60.9% for overall survival rates; P=0.30), although none of them reached statistical significance. Erectile dysfunction was recognized in almost all patients as a result of continuous endocrine therapy. Incontinence requiring more than one pad per day was observed more frequently in the surgery group than the radiation group (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, when combined with endocrine therapy, either radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy demonstrated favorable long-term outcomes. The radiation dose of 60-70 Gy might not be enough for the local treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer.

Case-Matched comparison of contemporary radiation therapy to surgery in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Few studies critically compare current radiotherapy techniques to surgery for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, despite an urgent need to determine which approach offers superior cancer control. Our objective was to compare rates of biochemical relapse-free survival (BFS) and surrogates of disease specific survival among men with high risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate as a function of treatment modality.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Retrospective data from 409 men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > or =10 or Gleason 7-10 or Stage > or =T2b cancer treated uniformly at one university between March 1988 and December 2000 were analyzed. Patients had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy implant alone (BTM), or external beam radiotherapy with brachytherapy boost with short-term neoadjuvant and adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (BTC). From the total study population a 1:1 matched-cohort analysis (208 patients matched via prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score) comparing RP with BTC was performed as well.

RESULTS

Estimated 4-year BFS rates were superior for patients treated with BTC (BTC 72%, BTM 25%, RP 53%; p < 0.001). Matched analysis of BTC vs. RP confirmed these results (BTC 73%, BTM 55%; p = 0.010). Relative risk (RR) of biochemical relapse for BTM and BTC compared with RP were 2.92 (1.95-4.36) and 0.56 (0.36-0.87), (p < 0.001, p = 0.010). RR for BTC from the matched cohort analysis was 0.44 (0.26-0.74; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

High-risk prostate cancer patients receiving multimodality radiation therapy (BTC) display apparently superior BFS compared with those receiving surgery (RP) or brachytherapy alone (BTM).

Outcomes of locally advanced prostate cancer: a single institution study of 209 patients in Japan

AIM

To investigate the outcomes for Asian populations with locally advanced/clinical stage III prostate cancer (PCa) treated with currently prevailing modalities.

METHODS

We reviewed the record of 209 patients with clinical stage III PCa, who were treated at Niigata Cancer Center Hospital between 1992 and 2003. Treatment options included hormone therapy-combined radical prostatectomy (RP+HT), hormone therapy-combined external beam irradiation (EBRT+HT) and primary hormone therapy (PHT).

RESULTS

The 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were 80.3% and 46.1% in all cohorts, respectively. The survival rates were 87.3% and 66.5% in the RP+HT group, 94.9% and 70.0% in the EBRT+HT group and 66.1% and 17.2% in the PHT group, respectively. A significant survival advantage was found in the EBRT+HT group compared with that in the PHT group (P < 0.0001). Also, the RP+HT group had better survival than the PHT group (P = 0.0107). The 5- and 10-year disease-specific survival rates for all cases were 92.5% and 80.0%, respectively. They were 93.8% and 71.4% in the RP+HT group, 96.6% and 93.6% in the EBRT+HT group and 88.6% and 62.3% in the PHT group, respectively. A survival advantage was found in the EBRT+HT group compared with the PHT group (P = 0.029). No significant difference was found in disease-specific survival between the EBRT+HT and RP+HT groups or between the RP+HT and PHT groups.

CONCLUSION

Although our findings indicate that radiotherapy plus HT has a survival advantage in this stage of PCa, we recommend therapies that take into account the patients'social and medical conditions for Asian men with clinical stage III PCa.

Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Hormone therapy for early prostate cancer has demonstrated an improvement in clinical and pathological variables, but not always an improvement in overall survival. We performed a systematic review of both adjuvant and neo-adjuvant hormone therapy combined with surgery or radiotherapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to undertake a systematic review and, if possible, a meta-analysis of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, LILACS, and SIGLE for relevant randomised trials. Handsearching of appropriate publications was also undertaken.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, that is, stages T1-T4, any N, M0, comparing neo-adjuvant or adjuvant hormonal deprivation in combination with primary therapy (radical radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy) versus primary therapy alone were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from eligible studies and assessed for quality, and included information on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Comparable data were pooled together for meta-analysis with intention-to treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS

Men with prostate cancer have different clinical outcomes based on their risk (T1-T2, T3-T4, PSA levels and Gleason score). However, the majority of studies included in this review did not report results by risk groups; therefore, it was not possible to perform sub-group analysis. Neo-adjuvant hormonal therapy prior to prostatectomy did not improve overall survival (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.85, P = 0.69). However, there was a significant reduction in the positive surgical margin rate (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.42, P < 0.00001) and a significant improvement in other pathological variables such as lymph node involvement, pathological staging and organ confined rates. There was a borderline significant reduction of disease recurrence rates (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.0, P = 0.05), in favour of treatment. The use of longer duration of neo-adjuvant hormones, that is either 6 or 8 months prior to prostatectomy, was associated with a significant reduction in positive surgical margins (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80, P = 0.002). In one study, neo-adjuvant hormones prior to radiotherapy significantly improved overall survival for Gleason 2 to 6 patients; although, in two studies, there was no improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.32, P = 0.97). However, there was a significant improvement in both clinical disease-free survival (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.40, P < 0.00001) and biochemical disease-free survival (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.56, P < 0.00001). Adjuvant androgen deprivation following prostatectomy did not significantly improve overall survival at 5 years (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.85, P = 0.2); although one study reported a significant disease-specific survival advantage with adjuvant therapy (P = 0.001). In addition, there was a significant improvement in disease-free survival at both 5 years (OR 3.73, 95%CI 2.30 to 6.03, P < 0.00001) and 10 years (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.15, P = 0.0009). Adjuvant therapy following radiotherapy resulted in a significant overall survival gain apparent at 5 (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.83, P = 0.0009) and 10 years (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.84, P = 0.003); although there was significant heterogeneity (P = 0.09 and P = 0.07, respectively). There was also a significant improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.88, P = 0.00001) and disease-free survival (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.05 to 3.12, P < 0.00001) at 5 years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hormone therapy combined with either prostatectomy or radiotherapy is associated with significant clinical benefits in patients with local or locally advanced prostate cancer. Significant local control may be achieved when given prior to prostatectomy or radiotherapy, which may improve patient's quality of life. When given adjuvant to these primary therapies, hormone therapy, not only provides a method for local control, but there is also evidence for a significant survival advantage. However, hormone therapy is associated with significant side effects, such as hot flushes and gynaecomastia, as well as cost implications. The decision to use hormone therapy should, therefore, be taken at a local level, between the patient, clinician and policy maker, taking into account the clinical benefits, toxicity and cost. More research is needed to guide the choice, the duration, and the schedule of hormonal deprivation therapy, and the impact of long-term hormone therapy with regard to toxicity and the patient's quality of life.

Outcomes of gleason score 10 prostate carcinoma treated by radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the outcome of radical prostatectomy for the rarest and most poorly differentiated prostate tumors of all: those with Gleason score 10. Controversy exists as to which form of therapy is most effective for high-grade prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients with pathologic Gleason score 10 PCa treated at our institution with radical prostatectomy from 1977 to 1999. All pathology specimens were reviewed by a urologic pathologist, and 13 cases with true Gleason score 10 PCa were identified. The preoperative covariables (prostate-specific antigen level, biopsy Gleason score, and clinical stage), perioperative covariables (pathologic stage, margin status, and tumor ploidy), and postoperative covariables (prostate-specific antigen level and adjuvant and salvage treatments) were assessed with respect to the oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 4.2 years. Preoperatively, only 4 of the 13 cases were correctly identified at biopsy, and the median preoperative prostate-specific antigen level was 4.5 ng/mL (interquartile range 0.3 to 12.5). Pathologic examination showed a small cell component in 7 cases, seminal vesicle invasion in 11, and positive lymph nodes in 3. Six patients developed recurrent PCa: three local, two systemic, and one biochemical recurrence. The biochemical recurrence-free and cancer-specific survival rate at 5 years was 53.8% and 76.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Gleason score 10 PCa is a highly aggressive disease that is usually lethal if managed conservatively. The results of the present study have provided some evidence that radical prostatectomy may be of benefit to patients with Gleason score 10 PCa.

Trends and predictors of aggressive therapy for clinical locally advanced prostate carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To determine the patterns and predictors of aggressive local therapies for patients with clinically advanced (cT3) prostate carcinoma, as the USA National Cancer Institute considers external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to be the most appropriate treatment for these patients, and currently there is less evidence supporting the use of radical prostatectomy (RP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registries to identify patients diagnosed with cT3 disease between 1995 and 2001. Sociodemographic and clinical data included patient age, race/ethnicity, marital status, SEER registry, year of diagnosis, tumour stage and grade, and treatment. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify significant predictors of receiving (i) RP vs EBRT, (ii) any aggressive local treatment (RP or EBRT) or no treatment.

RESULTS

Between 1995 and 2001, the proportion of men receiving aggressive local therapy for cT3 disease increased by 11% (58.4% to 69.4%), with a 20% increase in EBRT (40.3% to 60.2%) but a decline by half in RP (18.1% to 9.3%). Younger age was the strongest predictor of receiving RP rather than EBRT, and younger age with being married being a predictor of receiving aggressive local therapy (adjusted relative risk for marriage 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.18-1.87). Black men were significantly less likely than non-Hispanic white men to receive aggressive therapy, with a relative risk of 0.56 (0.45-0.69).

CONCLUSION

By 2001, 70% of patients with cT3 disease were receiving aggressive local therapy, with EBRT 6.5 times more common than RP. Clinical trials are needed to rigorously assess the effects of different local treatment strategies on clinical outcomes in men with cT3 prostate carcinoma.

Health-related quality of life measurement in randomized clinical trials in surgical oncology

PURPOSE

There is debate about the value of measuring health-related quality of life (HRQL) in clinical trials in oncology because of evidence suggesting that HRQL does not influence clinical decisions. Analysis of HRQL in surgical trials, however, may inform decision making because it provides detailed assessment of the immediate detrimental short-term impact of surgery on HRQL that needs to be considered against the long-term survival benefits and functional outcomes of surgery. This study evaluated whether HRQL in randomized trials in surgical oncology contributes to clinical decision making.

METHODS

A systematic review identified randomized trials in surgical oncology with HRQL. Trials were evaluated independently by two reviewers and the value of HRQL in clinical decision making was categorized in three ways: whether trial investigators reported that HRQL influenced final treatment recommendations, whether trial investigators reported that HRQL would be useful for informed consent, and whether HRQL was assessed robustly according to predefined criteria.

RESULTS

Thirty-three randomized trials with valid HRQL questionnaires were identified; 22 (67%) concluded that HRQL outcomes influenced treatment decisions or provided valuable data for informed consent, and seven of these trials had robust HRQL design. Another five trials had robust HRQL design but investigators reported that HRQL outcomes were not clinically important enough to influence treatment recommendations.

CONCLUSION

In surgical trials in oncology, HRQL informed clinical decision making. It is recommended that HRQL be included in relevant surgical trials, and that information be used to inform clinicians and patients about the impact of surgery on short- and long-term HRQL.

Radical versus postoperative radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a 10-year experience of an academic hospital

This study is a presentation of our department's experience in the treatment of localized prostate cancer with either radical or postoperative radiotherapy (RT). Fifty-five patients with clinical localized prostate cancer were reviewed. Thirty-three patients (T1-T2AN0M0 stage) were treated with radical RT and 22 (T2B-T3N0M0 stage) with postoperative RT. All patients received hormonal therapy. Primary end points of the study were the incidence of clinical and biochemical recurrences and death in the whole group and according to treatment modality. Within a median follow-up of 18 months the overall incidence of clinical relapse was 16.9%, of biochemical relapse 12.7% and of death 10.9%. Both treatment options achieved similar outcomes despite the fact that the patients in the postoperative RT group were of higher stage. Radical RT group tended to have better overall and disease-free survival compared to postoperative RT group, but there was no statistically significant evidence. Long-term toxicity was negligible.

Evolving Role of Surgery, Radiation, Hormone Therapy, and Chemotherapy in High-Risk Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

Locally advanced prostate cancer encompasses several disease states that vary in the risk for progression and recurrence after initial treatment. Further, the optimal treatment strategies for locally advanced prostate cancer are continuing to evolve, reflecting the complex nature of this disease state. For many patients, clinical experience demonstrates that a combined approach of locally directed therapy and systemic therapy is likely to provide better long-term outcome than single-modality therapy. Randomized studies have established hormone ablation with external-beam radiation as an important form of treatment for this group of patients. However, additional progress needs to be made, particularly in the subgroup of patients with very high-risk disease features. As the optimal integration of local and systemic treatments becomes more clearly defined, the long-term prognosis for patients with high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer will improve.

Surgery for locally advanced disease

Locally advanced prostate cancer is diagnosed in approximately one in four new cases of prostate cancer. The estimated disease-specific mortality rate resulting from monotherapy with either surgery or radiotherapy is a disappointing 75%. A multimodality treatment approach could offer more promising results. In addition, several key factors related to surgical treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer may optimize the oncologic results and minimize patient morbidity. In this report, we summarize some of the anatomic features and technical concepts associated with the surgical management of this disease and review recently published results of the outcomes of surgery and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemohormonal therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer.

Four year clinical statistics of iridium-192 high dose rate brachytherapy

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the efficacy and complications of high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy using iridium-192 (192Ir) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS

Ninety-seven patients underwent 192Ir HDR brachytherapy combined with EBRT at our institution between February 1999 and December 2003. Of these, 84 patients were analysed in the present study. 192Ir was delivered three times over a period of 2 days, 6 Gy per time, for a total dose of 18 Gy. Interstitial application was followed by EBRT at a dose of 44 Gy. Progression was defined as three consecutive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rises after a nadir according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology criteria. The results were classified into those for all patients and for patients who did not undergo adjuvant hormone therapy.

RESULTS

The 4-year overall survival of all patients, the nonadjuvant hormone therapy group (NAHT) and the adjuvant hormone therapy group (AHT) was 87.2%, 100%, and 70.1%, respectively. The PSA progression-free survival rate of all patients, NAHT, and AHT was 82.6%, 92.0%, and 66.6%, respectively. Of all patients, the 4-year PSA progression-free survival rates of PSA<20 and PSA>or=20 groups were 100%, and 46.8%, respectively. According to the T stage classification, PSA progression-free survival rates of T1c, T2, T3, and T4 were 100%, 82.8%, 100%, and 12.1%, respectively. Prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival rates of groups with Gleason scores (GS)<7 and GS>or=7 were 92.8% and 60.1%, respectively. Of NAHT, PSA progression-free survival of PSA<20 was 100% vs 46.8% for PSA>or=20, that of T1c was 100% vs 75% for T2, and that of GS<7 was 100% vs 75% for GS>or=7. No significant intraoperative or postoperative complications requiring urgent treatment occurred except cerebellum infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

192Ir HDR brachytherapy combined with EBRT was as effective as radical prostatectomy and had few associated complications.

Management Strategies for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

Locally advanced prostate cancer represents a subpopulation of prostate cancer diagnosed in patients who are either untouched by screening efforts or whose disease has an unusually rapidly progressive natural history. The diagnostic work-up for the locally advanced patient is distinct from that of early stage disease in several respects in that it is related principally to ruling out metastases. The typical metastatic work-up consists of a serum alkaline phosphatase, bone scan, CT of the abdomen/pelvis, and chest x-ray. Once metastatic disease has been ruled out, individual components of the management of locally advanced prostate cancer patients may include surgery (palliative or curative), external beam radiation therapy (with photons or particles) or brachytherapy (with low-dose rate/permanent or high-dose rate/temporary radiation sources), and hormone therapy. Unlike in early stage disease, observation/watchful waiting is typically not a treatment option in locally advanced prostate cancer. Of the curative local control modalities, the one most commonly used, and the one which has emerged as the clinical standard, is photon external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Numerous randomised studies have shown that androgen ablation has an established role in conjunction with radiotherapy for locally advanced disease--the current standard of care is thus photon EBRT plus neoadjuvant and adjuvant androgen ablation. Long-term androgen ablation appears to be better than short-term ablation, even when hormone complications are considered. EBRT is typically delivered to the prostate, seminal vesicles and pelvic lymph nodes, although in some circumstances local fields to the prostate and seminal vesicles may be adequate. New treatment planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy and organ motion tracking, are being developed to reduce the morbidity of radiotherapy while permitting a higher delivered dose. Further work is necessary to determine the precise sequencing and duration of hormone therapy in conjunction with radiotherapy and the optimum radiotherapy treatment volume. Additional work is also needed to determine the precise groups benefiting from other local control modalities such as surgery and brachytherapy. Finally, novel investigational strategies such as chemotherapy and gene therapy are being applied in an attempt to improve outcomes of locally advanced prostate cancer patients.

Long-term outcomes of 60 Gy conventional radiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation for localized or locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Until 1998 in Japan, very few institutions were treating prostate cancer solely with radiotherapy (RT) >70 Gy and most were using < or =65 Gy in combination with hormone therapy. The present study reports the long-term results of RT combined with hormone therapy for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.

METHODS

We investigated 57 patients who were treated by external beam RT plus hormone therapy (median age 79 years, median prostate-specific antigen concentration 15.0 ng/ml) between 1992 and 1998. Patients received 40 Gy of radiation to the pelvis and an additional 20 Gy as a prostatic boost. Hormone therapy was begun on the first day of irradiation and continued thereafter.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 93.3 months and the 5 and 10 year actual overall survival rates were 67.8 and 32.6%, respectively, with 5 and 10 year cause-specific survival rates of 97.9 and 95.0%, respectively. The expected survival rate was 66.2% at 5 years, and overall survival was above expected survival. Only one patient developed severe proctitis (Grade 3). The 5 year occurrence of Grade 1/2 genitourinary toxicity was 23.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined RT and hormone therapy has a good long-term outcome without severe adverse events. The overall survival rate compares well with the expected survival rate.

Quality of life in patients with localized prostate cancer

To date, there are no studies conclusively documenting that one treatment for localized prostate cancer is superior to another in terms of overall survival. Therefore, patients must consider other outcomes when choosing primary therapy for localized disease. One of the most important factors patients consider when choosing their treatment is the effect of therapy on their quality of life (QOL). Over the past decade, there have been an increasing number of studies assessing health related QOL (HRQOL) outcomes in localized prostate cancer. The goal of this article is to review our current understanding of HRQOL in this disease. We will begin by examining the established HRQOL instruments for use in localized prostate cancer. We will then discuss the effect of various treatments on QOL and review the literature comparing HRQOL outcomes between therapies.

Quality of life in prostate cancer

Little more than a decade ago, measurements of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of prostate cancer patients began to enter the medical literature. Initially controversial and of little apparent relevance to clinical care, HRQOL has grown in importance in prostate cancer to the point that providing it in treatment discussions is now considered a core element of clinical care. The United States (US) Food and Drug Administration has used it to make approval decisions for prostate cancer drugs, and Europeans have endorsed its central role in prostate cancer as well [Altwein J, Ekman P, Barry M, et al. How is quality of life in prostate cancer patients influenced by modern treatment? The Wallenberg symposium. Urology 1997, 49(Suppl 4A), 66-76.]. We propose to characterise the treatment dilemmas facing patients with prostate cancer, the clinical relevance of HRQOL research, its central conceptual elements, the characteristics of some available instruments to measure it, the use of HRQOL in clinical studies, and some of the remaining challenges we have identified during our 13 years in the field.

A retrospective study of the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer by six institutions in eastern and north-eastern Japan

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated at six academic institutions in eastern and north-eastern Japan from 1988 to 2000, to facilitate the establishment of Japanese guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 391 eligible patients with locally advanced prostate cancer who were treated by radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy and/or primary hormone therapy. Disease-specific survival rates for these patients were assessed in relation to their clinicopathological characteristics and the types of treatment they received. The Mann-Whitney U-test, Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square and log-rank test were used for statistical analysis, as appropriate.

RESULTS

In all, 128 patient with lower prostate-specific antigen levels (P = 0.023) and/or better performance status (P = 0.001) had RP. Neoadjuvant hormone therapy before RP was the treatment in 68 (53%) of these 128 patients; 66 (52%) received immediate adjuvant hormone therapy. Of 87 patients treated with radiotherapy, 75 (86%) had external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) as the primary treatment with no brachytherapy, and 12 (14%) had brachytherapy as the primary method. Neoadjuvant hormone therapy was given to 56 of the 87 patients (64%); 48 (55%) received immediate adjuvant hormone therapy. Of the 176 patients treated with primary hormone therapy alone, combined androgen blockade and surgical or medical castration was the treatment in 76 (43%) and 85 (48%), respectively. Disease-specific survival rates at 5 years for patients treated with RP, EBRT and primary hormone therapy were 90%, 98%, and 89%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The treatments provided by the participating institutions did not differ significantly from those set out in European and American guidelines, and short-term disease-specific survival rates for each treatment did not differ significantly from those of historical controls. Further investigation may facilitate the establishment of Japanese guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer.

Beyond the development of health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures: a checklist for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in cancer clinical trials--does HRQOL evaluation in prostate cancer research inform clinical decision making?

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the inclusion of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), as a part of the trial design in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) setting, has supported clinical decision making for the planning of future medical treatments in prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A minimum standard checklist for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in cancer clinical trials was devised to assess the quality of the HRQOL reporting and to classify the studies on the grounds of their robustness. It comprises 11 key HRQOL issues grouped into four broader sections: conceptual, measurement, methodology, and interpretation. Relevant studies were identified in a number of databases, including MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Both their HRQOL and traditional clinical reported outcomes were systematically analyzed to evaluate their consistency and their relevance for supporting clinical decision making.

RESULTS

Although 54% of the identified studies did not show any differences in traditional clinical end points between treatment arms and 17% showed a difference in overall survival, 74% of the studies showed some difference in terms of HRQOL outcomes. One third of the RCTs provided a comprehensive picture of the whole treatment including HRQOL outcomes to support their conclusions.

CONCLUSION

A minimum set of criteria for assessing the reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials is necessary to make informed decisions in clinical practice. Using a checklist developed for this study, it was found that HRQOL is a valuable source of information in RCTs of treatment in metastatic prostate cancer.

Quality of life after treatment for prostate cancer

Quality of life is a major concern of patients when they are choosing treatment for prostate cancer. Health-related quality of life is a patient-centered variable from the field of health services research that can be measured in a valid and reliable manner. Using standardized questionnaires specifically developed to capture health-related quality of life data in men with prostate cancer, the effect of treatments on patients' quality of life can be studied. Patients with localized disease who are undergoing radical prostatectomy tend to have more sexual and urinary dysfunction than men undergoing external beam radiation therapy, although both groups have more impairment in these areas than age-matched controls. Men undergoing external beam radiation therapy have worse bowel function and more urinary distress from irritative voiding symptoms than men undergoing radical prostatectomy or age-matched controls. Recent studies of men undergoing interstitial brachytherapy indicate that these patients have less urinary leakage than those who undergo radical prostatectomy, but experience considerably more irritating voiding symptoms, which often profoundly affect their quality of life. Better information regarding the potential impact of prostate cancer treatment on quality of life will improve medical decision-making.

Health related quality of life in men with prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Quality of life is of great concern to patients considering treatment options for prostate cancer. In the absence of clinical trial data clearly demonstrating that a particular treatment is superior to another for localized prostate cancer, in terms of cause specific survival, patients may value quality of life as much as quantity of life. The goal of this review is to familiarize the reader with the methodology of quality of life research and to review the recent literature on quality of life outcomes in prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A structured MEDLINE review of literature on health related quality of life in prostate cancer for the years 1995 to 2001 was performed, and was augmented with highly relevant articles from additional selected journals.

RESULTS

In the case of advanced or metastatic disease, where the goal of treatment is palliation and symptom-free survival, quality of life often becomes the primary desired outcome. In localized disease all treatments affect health related quality of life, although the impact of each therapy on sexual, urinary and bowel function is unique.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a highly personal and subjective entity, health related quality of life can be assessed using rigorous and scientifically stringent methods from the field of psychometric test theory. A substantial amount of literature exists regarding the use of established and validated instruments for assessing the impact of prostate cancer and its treatment on health related quality of life. This information is of critical importance when counseling men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer regarding treatment choices and is also helpful in setting appropriate expectations for men with metastatic disease.

Early prostate cancer: clinical decision-making

Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignant diseases for which health-care intervention is sought worldwide, and in many developed countries it is the most common. Some patients with early-stage prostate cancer, especially those who are elderly and have comorbidities, can be observed without treatment. Surgery (radical prostatectomy) and radiotherapy (external-beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or both) are the most widely accepted curative options for patients with early-stage disease who need intervention. All these local treatments have been refined, resulting in comparable cure rates; however, they all have different side-effect profiles. Adjuvant systemic treatments (hormones or chemotherapy), which are effective for advanced-stage disease, might have a greater role in early-stage disease. Selecting the best option for individuals from the available options is challenging--the decision on whether and how to treat is based on many disease and patient factors. Here, we review the major treatment options, discuss their relative advantages and disadvantages, and provide a general approach to management of patients with early-stage prostate cancer.

General quality of life 2 years following treatment for prostate cancer: what influences outcomes? Results from the prostate cancer outcomes study

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to determine the relationship between primary treatment, urinary dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, and general health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in prostate cancer.

METHODS

A sample of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer between 1994 and 1995 was randomly selected from six population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. A baseline survey was completed by 2,306 men within 6 to 12 months of diagnosis, and these men also completed a follow-up HRQOL survey 2 years after diagnosis. Logistic regression models were used to determine whether primary treatment, urinary dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction were independently associated with general HRQOL outcomes approximately 2 years after diagnosis as measured by the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey. The magnitude of this effect was estimated using least square means models.

RESULTS

After adjustment for potential confounders, primary treatment was not associated with 2-year general HRQOL outcomes in men with prostate cancer. Urinary function and bother were independently associated with worse general HRQOL in all domains. Sexual function and bother were also independently associated with worse general HRQOL, although the relationship was not as strong as in the urinary domains.

CONCLUSION

Primary treatment is not associated with 2-year general HRQOL outcomes in prostate cancer. Although both sexual and urinary function and bother are associated with quality of life, men who are more bothered by their urination or impotence are more likely to report worse quality of life. This implies that future research should be directed toward finding ways to improve treatment-related outcomes or help patients better cope with their posttreatment urinary or sexual dysfunction.

Health related quality of life in prostate carcinoma patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Health related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly reported as an important endpoint in cancer clinical trials. However, evidence suggests that HRQOL reporting is often inadequate. Given this, the authors undertook a systematic review to evaluate HRQOL assessment methodology and reported outcomes of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with prostate carcinoma patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the literature from 1980 to 2001, mainly on the following databases, was undertaken: MedLine, Cancerlit, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Studies were identified according to a predefined coding scheme, including HRQOL measure, cultural validity, compliance data reported and the clinical significance of the results.

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs were identified, involving 8015 patients primarily with metastatic cancer. Bicalutamide was the medical treatment against which most treatment comparisons were made. Limitations identified included the fact that only 44% of the studies gave a rationale for selecting a specific HRQOL measure, 64% of the studies failed to report information about the administration of the HRQOL measure, and 56% failed to report compliance at baseline. The measure most often used was the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Care 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), although some studies used non-validated HRQOL tools.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study revealed a lack of a uniform approach to HRQOL assessment and several methodologic limitations. It is possible that such methodologic limitations have influenced trial findings for HRQOL outcomes.