Mortality after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Prostate cancer treatment recommendation study based on machine learning and SHAP interpreter

This study utilized data from 140,294 prostate cancer cases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Here, 10 different machine learning algorithms were applied to develop treatment options for predicting patients with prostate cancer, differentiating between surgical and non-surgical treatments. The performances of the algorithms were measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value. The Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) method was employed to investigate the key factors influencing the prediction process. Survival analysis methods were used to compare the survival rates of different treatment options. The CatBoost model yielded the best results (AUC = 0.939, sensitivity = 0.877, accuracy = 0.877). SHAP interpreters revealed that the T stage, cancer stage, age, cores positive percentage, prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score were the most critical factors in predicting treatment options. The study found that surgery significantly improved survival rates, with patients undergoing surgery experiencing a 20.36% increase in 10-year survival rates compared with those receiving non-surgical treatments. Among surgical options, radical prostatectomy had the highest 10-year survival rate at 89.2%. This study successfully developed a predictive model to guide treatment decisions for prostate cancer. Moreover, the model enhanced the transparency of the decision-making process, providing clinicians with a reference for formulating personalized treatment plans.

The Impact of Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiation Therapy on Cancer-Specific Mortality for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Analysis of an Other-Cause Mortality Matched Cohort

INTRODUCTION

Studies comparing radical prostatectomy (RP) to radiation therapy (RT) have consistently shown that patients undergoing RT have a higher risk of other-cause mortality (OCM) compared to RP, signifying poor health status of the former patients. We aimed to evaluate the impact of RP versus RT on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) over a cohort with equivalent OCM risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The SEER database was queried to identify patients with nonmetastatic PCa between 2004 and 2009. Patients were matched based on their calculated 10-year OCM risk and further stratified for D'Amico Risk Score and Gleason Grade. A Cox-regression model was used to calculate the 10-year OCM risk. Propensity-score based on the calculated OCM risk were used to match RP and RT patients. Cumulative incidence curves and Competing-risk regression analyses were used to examine the impact of treatment on CSM in the matched cohort.

RESULTS

We identified 55,106 PCa patients treated with RP and 36,674 treated with RT. After match, 6,506 patients were equally distributed for RT versus RP, with no difference in OCM rates (P = .2). The 10-year CSM rates were 8.8% versus 0.6% (P = .01) for RT versus RP in patients with unfavorable-intermediate-risk (Gleason Score 4 + 3) and 7.9% versus 3.9% (P = .003) for high-risk disease. There was no difference in CSM among RT and RP patients for favorable-intermediate-risk (Gleason Score 3 + 4) and low-risk disease.

CONCLUSIONS

In a matched cohort of PCa patients with comparable OCM between the 2 arms, RP yielded a more favorable CSM rate compared to RT only for unfavorable-intermediate- and high-risk groups.

Six-year outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Although robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy are the leading respective techniques of prostatectomy and radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer, almost no study has directly compared their outcomes; none have compared mortality outcomes.

METHODS

We compared 6‑year outcomes of RARP (n = 500) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT, a rotational intensity-modulated radiotherapy, n = 360) in patients with cT1-4N0M0 prostate cancer. We assessed oncological outcomes, namely overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), radiological recurrence-free survival (rRFS), and biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), using propensity score matching (PSM). We also assessed treatment-related complication outcomes of prostatectomy and radiotherapy.

RESULTS

The median follow-up duration was 79 months (> 6 years). PSM generated a matched cohort of 260 patients (130 per treatment group). In the matched cohort, RARP and VMAT showed equivalent results for OS, CSS, and rRFS: both achieved excellent 6‑year outcomes for OS (> 96%), CSS (> 98%), and rRFS (> 91%). VMAT had significantly longer bRFS than RARP, albeit based on different definitions of biochemical recurrence. Regarding complication outcomes, patients who underwent RARP had minimal (2.6%) severe perioperative complications and achieved excellent continence recovery (91.6 and 68.8% of the patients achieved ≤ 1 pad/day and pad-free, respectively). Patients who underwent VMAT had an acceptable rate (20.0%) of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary complications and a very low rate (4.4%) of grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal complications.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of PSM after a 6-year follow-up, RARP and VMAT showed equivalent and excellent oncological outcomes, as well as acceptable complication profiles.

Localized prostate cancer in older patients: Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy versus observation

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the effects of radical prostatectomy (RP) or irradiation on overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in older patients with localized prostate cancer (PC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature review across PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception up to December 2023 to identify studies comparing the outcomes of surgery or radiotherapy (RT) versus observation in patients aged 65 and older with localized PC. We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PCSM using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies involving 284,066 patients were analyzed. Three were large randomized trials (RCTs) and 10 were retrospective studies. Overall survival with surgery was greater in observational studies (HR = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.59; P < 0.001) than in RCTs (HR = 0.84, 95%CI 0.72-0.98; P = 0.03). Data on PCSM from seven studies also indicated a significant benefit for RP in RCTs (HR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.3-0.73; P < 0.001) and observational studies (HR = 0.41, 95%CI 0.27-0.62; P < 0.001). Both analyses presented high heterogeneity (I2 = 90%, P < 0.001 and I2 = 65%, P = 0.01). An analysis of patients receiving RT indicated a significant, albeit smaller, OS (n = 7 studies) and PCSM (n = 5 studies) advantage (HR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.59-0.79; P < 0.001; and HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.82; P = 0.001) compared to observation (1 RCT and 8 observational studies).

DISCUSSION

The evidence suggests that patients with PC might consider opting for surgery as the main treatment option or, alternatively, for RT, as an alternative to observation, based on their individual medical history, life expectancy, and preferences.

Long-term Prostate Cancer-specific Mortality After Prostatectomy, Brachytherapy, External Beam Radiation Therapy, Hormonal Therapy, or Monitoring for Localized Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term survival among men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy (BT), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), primary androgen deprivation therapy (PADT), or monitoring (active surveillance [AS]/watchful waiting [WW]) for PCa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This is a cohort study with long-term follow-up from the multicenter, prospective, largely community-based Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry. Men with biopsy-proven, clinical T1-3aN0M0, localized PCa were consecutively accrued within 6 mo of diagnosis and had clinical risk data and at least 12 mo of follow-up after diagnosis available.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

PCa risk was assessed, and multivariable analyses were performed to compare PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality by primary treatment, with extensive adjustment for age and case mix using the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score and a well-validated nomogram.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among 11 864 men, 6227 (53%) underwent RP, 1645 (14%) received BT, 1462 (12%) received EBRT, 1510 (13%) received PADT, and 1020 (9%) were managed with AS/WW. At a median of 9.4 yr (interquartile range 5.8-13.7) after treatment, 764 men had died from PCa. After adjusting for CAPRA score, the hazard ratios for PCSM with RP as the reference were 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.98; p < 0.001) for BT, 1.55 (95% CI 1.26-1.91; p < 0.001) for EBRT, 2.36 (95% CI 1.94-2.87; p < 0.001) for PADT, and 1.76 (95% CI 1.30-2.40; p < 0.001) for AS/WW. In models for long-term outcomes, PCSM differences were negligible for low-risk disease and increased progressively with risk. Limitations include the evolution of diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for PCa over time. In this nonrandomized study, the possibility of residual confounding remains salient.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, prospective cohort of men with localized PCa, after adjustment for age and comorbidity, PCSM was lower after local therapy for those with higher-risk disease, and in particular after RP. Confirmation of these results via long-term follow-up of ongoing trials is awaited.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We evaluated different treatment options for localized prostate cancer in a large group of patients who were treated mostly in nonacademic medical centers. Results from nonrandomized trials should be interpret with caution, but even after careful risk adjustment, survival rates for men with higher-risk cancer appeared to be highest for patients whose first treatment was surgery rather than radiotherapy, hormones, or monitoring.

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

PARP inhibitors as a radiosensitizer: a future promising approach in prostate cancer?

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (iPARPs) have shown efficacy in homologous recombination (HR) deficiency patients with advanced castration resistant prostate cancer and have shown a radiosensitizing effect in preclinical and early clinical trials. Preclinical data in prostate cancer cells suggest a similar cytotoxic effect with half the radiation dose under the effect of Olaparib or Rucaparib irrespective of HR status. Due to the biologic synergy of radiotherapy (RT) and iPARPs, the risk of recurrence of high-risk prostate cancer and the morbidity associated with prostate cancer local treatment, this interesting strategy seems promising, and a better understanding of the clinical implications remains to be elucidated.

Comparison of radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer

Purpose

We evaluated clinical outcomes of high-risk prostate cancer patients receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or radical prostatectomy (RP).

Materials and Methods

Patients were classified as high-risk prostate cancer and received definitive treatment between 2005 and 2015. Patients with previous pelvic radiotherapy, positive lymph node or distant metastasis were excluded. The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS).

Results

Of 583 patients met the inclusion criteria (77 EBRT and 506 RP), the estimated 10-year PCSS was 97.0% in the RP and 95.9% in the EBRT (p = 0.770). No significant difference was seen in the DMFS (p = 0.540), whereas there was a trend in favor of RP over EBRT in overall survival (OS) (p = 0.068). Propensity score matching analysis with confounding variables was done, with 183 patients (66 EBRT and 117 RP) were included. No significant difference in DMFS, PCSS or OS was found.

Conclusion

Our data demonstrated similar oncologic PCSS, OS, and DMFS outcomes between EBRT and RP patients.

Can patients with low-risk prostate cancer really benefit from radical treatment?: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active surveillance are three widely used treatment options for patients with low-risk prostate cancer, but the relative effects are controversial. We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science until June 2020, focusing on the studies comparing the effect of radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Through the random-effects model, dichotomous data were extracted and summarised by odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. Twenty-two studies containing 185,363 participants were pooled for the comprehensive comparison. The Bayesian mixed network estimate demonstrated the cancer-specific mortality of radical prostatectomy was significantly lower than active surveillance (OR, 0.46; 95% CI 0.34-0.64) and external beam radiation therapy (OR, 0.66; 95% CI 0.46-0.96), but not brachytherapy (OR, 0.63; 95% CI 0.41-1.03). The brachytherapy demonstrated the best treatment ranking probability results in terms of all-cause mortality, while no significant difference was observed when compared with other three treatment modalities. Brachytherapy and radical prostatectomy were associated with a similar risk of cancer-specific mortality, and both of them were significantly superior to active surveillance and external beam radiation therapy; nevertheless, there was no significant difference among the aforementioned treatment methods in all-cause mortality.

Characterizing Surgical and Radiotherapy Outcomes in Non-metastatic High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Identifying the optimal management of high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is an important public health concern, given the large burden of this disease. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing PCa-specific mortality (CSM) among men diagnosed with high-risk non-metastatic PCa who were treated with primary radiotherapy (RT) and radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods Medline and Embase were searched for articles between January 1, 2005, and February 11, 2020. After title and abstract screening, two authors independently reviewed full-text articles for inclusion. Data were abstracted, and a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, involving a comprehensive list of confounding variables, was used to assess the risk of bias. Results Fifteen studies involving 131,392 patients were included. No difference in adjusted CSM in RT relative to RP was shown (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% confidence interval: 0.84, 1.25]). Increased CSM was found in a subgroup analysis comparing external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with RP (1.35 [1.10, 1.68]), whereas EBRT combined with brachytherapy (BT) versus RP showed lower CSM (0.68 [0.48, 0.95]). All studies demonstrated a high risk of bias as none fully adjusted for all confounding variables. Conclusion We found no difference in CSM between men diagnosed with non-metastatic high-risk PCa and treated with RP or RT; however, this is likely explained by increased CSM in men treated with EBRT and decreased CSM in men treated with EBRT + BT studies relative to RP. High risk of bias in all studies identifies the need for better data collection and confounding control in the PCa research.

Prognostic comparison between radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients at different stages and ages

Radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) are both evidence-based nonconservative treatments for prostate cancer (PCa). However, which treatment is better remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the prognostic difference between radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) in PCa patients at different stages and ages. Two independent PCa cohorts (the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, SEER; and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian, PLCO) were employed. Cox regression was used to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In both cohorts, patients who received RT exhibited a worse prognostic outcome than those who underwent RP. When stratified analysis was performed by tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage and age at diagnosis in the SEER cohort, the HR of RT versus RP for overall survival increased with TNM stage but decreased with age. Specifically, PCa patients in stage I in the age range of 55–84 years, stage IIA at 70–85+ years, and stage IIB at 75–85+ years had better survival with RT than RP patients (p < 0.05). In contrast, patients in stages IIA, IIB, III and IV with respective age ranges of 55–64 years; 50–74 years; 55–59, 65–74 years; and 45–74 years showed worse survival with RT compared with RP (p < 0.05). These findings were partially validated in the PLCO dataset. Our results indicated that the choice between RT and RP should be guided by TNM stage and age. These findings may facilitate counseling regarding the prognostic effect of RT and RP for PCa patients.

Demographic Factors Associated With Non-Guideline-Based Treatment of Kidney Cancer in the United States

Importance

Significant demographic disparities have been found to exist in the delivery of health care. Demographic factors associated with clinical decision-making in kidney cancer have not been thoroughly studied.

Objective

To determine whether demographic factors, including sex and race/ethnicity, are associated with receipt of non-guideline-based treatment for kidney cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the National Cancer Database for the years 2010 through 2017. Included patients were individuals aged 30 to 70 years with localized (ie, cT1-2, N0, M0) kidney cancer and no major medical comorbidities (ie, Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index score of 0 or 1) treated at Commission on Cancer-accredited health care institutions in the United States. Data were analyzed from November 2020 through March 2021.

Exposures

Demographic factors, including sex, race/ethnicity, and insurance status.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Receipt of non-guideline-based treatment (undertreatment or overtreatment) for kidney cancer, as defined by accepted clinical guidelines, was determined.

Results

Among 158 445 patients treated for localized kidney cancer, 99 563 (62.8%) were men, 120 001 individuals (75.7%) were White, and 91 218 individuals (57.6%) had private insurance. The median (interquartile range) age was 58 (50-64) years. Of the study population, 48 544 individuals (30.6%) received non-guideline-based treatment. Female sex was associated with lower adjusted odds of undertreatment (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88; P < .001) and higher adjusted odds of overtreatment (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.24-1.30; P < .001) compared with male sex. Compared with White patients, Black and Hispanic patients had higher adjusted odds of undertreatment (Black patients: OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.29-1.55; P < .001; Hispanic patients: OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.36; P = .004) and overtreatment (Black patients: OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.13; P < .001; Hispanic patients: OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11, P = .01). Individuals who were uninsured, compared with those who had insurance, had statistically significantly higher adjusted odds of undertreatment (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 2.29-3.01; P < .001) and lower adjusted odds of overtreatment (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that there were significant disparities in treatment decision-making for patients with kidney cancer, with increased rates of non-guideline-based treatment for women and Black and Hispanic patients. These findings suggest that further research into the mechanisms underlying these disparities is warranted and that clinical and policy decision-making should take these disparities into account.

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.

Comparing effectiveness of radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: A population-based analysis

Currently, the standard management for locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) is still controversial. In our study, we aimed to compare the survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).We conducted analyses with a large cohort of 38,544 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2016). Propensity score matching, Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazard regression were used to reduce the influence of bias and compare the overall survival (OS) and cancer specific survival (CSS). Several different sensitivity analyses including inverse probability of treatment weighting and standardized mortality ratio weighting were used to verify the robustness of the results.Totally, 33,388 men received RP and 5,156 men received EBRT with cT3-4N0M0 PCa were included in this study. According to the Kaplan-Meier curves, RP performed better in both OS and CSS compared with EBRT (P < .0001). In the adjusted multivariate Cox regression, RP also showed better OS and CSS benefits (OS: HR=0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.54; P < .0001 and CSS: HR=0.43; 95% CI: 0.38-0.49; P < .0001). After propensity score matching, RP is still the management that can bring more survival benefits to patients. (OS: HR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.41-0.51; P < .0001 and CSS: HR = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.34-0.48; P < .0001).Our research demonstrated the significantly better survival benefits of RP over EBRT in patients with locally advanced PCa. The results of this study will provide more evidence to help clinicians choose appropriate treatment strategies.

Superior survival benefits of Radical Prostatectomy than External Beam Radiotherapy in aging 75 and older men with high-risk or very high-risk Prostate Cancer: a population-matched study

Objective: To evaluate the survival difference of radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in elderly men (75 years and older) with high-risk (HR) or very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Elderly men diagnosed with HR/VHR PCa from 2004-2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database were identified. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance the covariates; Kaplan-Meier and Cox analysis were performed to evaluate the overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS). Results: 11698 patients with HR PCa and 4415 patients with VHR PCa were identified and divided into RP and EBRT group. After PSM, 964 patients with HR PCa and 538 patients with VHR PCa were included in each group. The 10-year OS and PCSS of men with HR PCa were 60.1% vs 40.9% and 90.6% vs 83.4%, respectively. The 10-year rate of OS and PCSS in men with VHR PCa were 55.9% vs 33.3% and 82.4% vs 75.6%, respectively. The OS curve of patients with HR PCa revealed that RP was significantly better than EBRT in both overall cohort [HR: 0.533, 95%CI (0.485~0.586), p<0.001] and the matched cohort [HR: 0.703, 95%CI (0.595~0.832), p<0.001]. However, the PCSS curve of patients with HR PCa showed that RP was significantly better than EBRT in overall cohort [HR: 0.453, 95%CI (0.368~0.559), p<0.001] but was similar to EBRT in matched cohort [HR: 0.820, 95%CI (0.552~1.218), p=0.327]. As for patients with VHR PCa, RP was associated with better OS than EBRT whether in overall cohort [HR: 0.520, 95%CI (0.457~0.592), p<0.001] or matched cohort [0.695, 95%CI (0.551~0.876), p=0.002]. The PCSS of RP was significantly better than that of EBRT in overall cohort [HR: 0.538, 95%CI (0.422~ 0.685), p<0.001], but was similar in matched cohort [HR: 0.787, 95%CI (0.510 ~1.214), p=0.281]. Conclusions: RP has more survival benefits than EBRT in men aged 75 years and older with HR or VHR PCa.

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.

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.

Predictors of Response Outcomes for Research Recruitment Through a Central Cancer Registry: Evidence From 17 Recruitment Efforts for Population-Based Studies

When recruiting research participants through central cancer registries, high response fractions help ensure population-based representation. We conducted multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to identify case and study characteristics associated with making contact with and obtaining cooperation of Utah cancer cases using data from 17 unique recruitment efforts undertaken by the Utah Cancer Registry (2007-2016) on behalf of the following studies: A Population-Based Childhood Cancer Survivors Cohort Study in Utah, Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation for Prostate Cancer (CEASAR Study), Costs and Benefits of Follow-up Care for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancers, Study of Exome Sequencing for Head and Neck Cancer Susceptibility Genes, Genetic Epidemiology of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Impact of Remote Familial Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling (Family CARE Project), Massively Parallel Sequencing for Familial Colon Cancer Genes, Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma (MTC) Surveillance Study, Osteosarcoma Surveillance Study, Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study, Risk Education and Assessment for Cancer Heredity Project (REACH Project), Study of Shared Genomic Segment Analysis and Tumor Subtyping in High-Risk Breast-Cancer Gene Pedigrees, Study of Shared Genomic Segment Analysis for Localizing Multiple Myeloma Genes. Characteristics associated with lower odds of contact included Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio (OR) = 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27, 0.41), nonwhite race (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.60), and younger age at contact. Years since diagnosis was inversely associated with making contact. Nonwhite race and age ≥60 years had lower odds of cooperation. Study features with lower odds of cooperation included longitudinal design (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.61) and study brochures (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.90). Increased odds of cooperation were associated with including a questionnaire (OR = 3.19, 95% CI: 1.54, 6.59), postage stamps (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.12), and incentives (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.57). Among cases not responding after the first contact, odds of eventual response were lower when >10 days elapsed before subsequent contact (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59, 0.85). Obtaining high response is challenging, but study features identified in this analysis support better results when recruiting through central cancer registries.

Predictors of Response Outcomes for Research Recruitment Through a Central Cancer Registry: Evidence From 17 Recruitment Efforts for Population-Based Studies

When recruiting research participants through central cancer registries, high response fractions help ensure population-based representation. We conducted multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to identify case and study characteristics associated with making contact with and obtaining cooperation of Utah cancer cases using data from 17 unique recruitment efforts undertaken by the Utah Cancer Registry (2007-2016) on behalf of the following studies: A Population-Based Childhood Cancer Survivors Cohort Study in Utah, Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation for Prostate Cancer (CEASAR Study), Costs and Benefits of Follow-up Care for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancers, Study of Exome Sequencing for Head and Neck Cancer Susceptibility Genes, Genetic Epidemiology of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Impact of Remote Familial Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling (Family CARE Project), Massively Parallel Sequencing for Familial Colon Cancer Genes, Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma (MTC) Surveillance Study, Osteosarcoma Surveillance Study, Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study, Risk Education and Assessment for Cancer Heredity Project (REACH Project), Study of Shared Genomic Segment Analysis and Tumor Subtyping in High-Risk Breast-Cancer Gene Pedigrees, Study of Shared Genomic Segment Analysis for Localizing Multiple Myeloma Genes. Characteristics associated with lower odds of contact included Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio (OR) = 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27, 0.41), nonwhite race (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.60), and younger age at contact. Years since diagnosis was inversely associated with making contact. Nonwhite race and age ≥60 years had lower odds of cooperation. Study features with lower odds of cooperation included longitudinal design (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.61) and study brochures (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.90). Increased odds of cooperation were associated with including a questionnaire (OR = 3.19, 95% CI: 1.54, 6.59), postage stamps (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.12), and incentives (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.57). Among cases not responding after the first contact, odds of eventual response were lower when >10 days elapsed before subsequent contact (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59, 0.85). Obtaining high response is challenging, but study features identified in this analysis support better results when recruiting through central cancer registries.

Radiopotentiation of enzalutamide over human prostate cancer cells as assessed by real-time cell monitoring

Aim

To evaluate the radiopotentiation of enzalutamide in human prostate cancer cells.

Background

While radiotherapy is the first line of treatment for prostate cancer, androgen blockade therapies are demonstrating significant survival benefit as monotherapies. As androgen blockade can cause cell death by apoptosis, it is likely that androgen blockade will potentiate the cytotoxic activities of radiotherapy.

Materials and methods

Here, we tested the potential synergistic effects of these two treatments over two human metastatic prostate cancer cells by real-time cell analysis (RTCA), androgen-sensitive LNCaP cells (Lymph Node Carcinoma of the Prostate) and androgen-independent PC-3. Both cell lines were highly resistant to high doses of radiotherapy.

Results

A pre-treatment of LNCaP cells with IC50 concentrations of enzalutamide significantly sensitized them to radiotherapy through enhanced apoptosis. In contrast, enzalutamide resistant PC-3 cells were not sensitized to radiotherapy by androgen blockade.

Conclusions

These results provide evidence that the enzalutamide/radiotherapy combination could maximize therapeutic responses in patients with enzalutamide-sensitive prostate cancer.

Differences in overall survival and cancer-specific survival in high-risk prostate cancer patients according to the primary treatment

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

There is no high-level evidence as to which primary treatment provides an overall survival (OS) or cancer-specific survival (CSS) advantage in high-risk localised prostate cancer (HRLPC). Our aim was to analyse the differences in survival and predictive factors in this group of patients, according to their primary treatment (radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy and androgen blockade (RT+HT)).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study of 286 HRLPC patients diagnosed between 1996-2008, treated by RP (n=145) or RT+HT(n=141). Survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Significant differences between the different variables were analysed using the log-rank test. A uni and multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors.

RESULTS

the median follow-up was 117.5 (IQR 87-158) months. The OS was longer (p=.04) in the RP patients, while there were no differences (P=.44) in CSS between either group. The type of primary treatment was not related to OS or CSS. Age (P=.002), the onset during follow-up of a 2nd tumour (P=.0001), and stage cT3a (P=.009) behaved as independent predictive variables of OS. None of the variables behaved as an independent predictive variable of CSS, although biochemical recurrence after rescue treatment (P=.058), and the onset of a 2nd tumour during follow-up showed a significant trend to statistical significance, the latter reducing specific cancer mortality (HR .16, 95%CI .02-1.18, P=.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary treatment did not relate to OS or CSS in patients with HRPC.

Individual and Population Comparisons of Surgery and Radiotherapy Outcomes in Prostate Cancer Using Bayesian Multistate Models

IMPORTANCE

Whether surgery or radiotherapy is the preferred treatment for patients with localized prostate cancer continues to be debated, and randomized clinical trials cannot yet fully address this question. Furthermore, there may be heterogeneity in responses, and the optimal treatment for a patient will depend on his clinical and tumor characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

To use a unified statistical approach to compare the association of surgery and radiotherapy with both metastatic clinical failure (CF) and survival in localized prostate cancer and to develop an online calculator for individualized, treatment-specific outcome prediction.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cohort study for statistical analysis and development of individualized predictions using Bayesian multistate models that jointly consider both CF and survival and adjust for confounding factors. This study used data from patients treated at the University of Michigan between January 1, 1996, and July 1, 2013, with detailed information on treatment, patient and tumor characteristics, and outcomes. Primary analyses were performed in 2017 and 2018. Participants were a cohort of 4544 patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing primary treatment.

EXPOSURES

Radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The clinical outcomes were metastatic CF, death after CF, and death from other causes. The adjustment factors were age, prostate gland volume, prostate-specific antigen level, comorbidities, Gleason score, perineural invasion, cT category, race, and treatment year. An online calculator was developed to estimate risks for multiple outcomes for any patient based on 2 treatment choices and on his clinical and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 4544 men (mean [SD] age, 61.2 [8.0] years), 3769 underwent radical prostatectomy, 775 received external beam radiotherapy, 157 (3.5%) had CF, 90 (2.0%) died after CF, and 378 (8.3%) died of other causes. Across all patients, there was no significant difference in risk of CF for surgery vs radiotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52-1.23). However, using multistate models, in some cases individualized predictions resulted in different expected outcomes between surgery and radiotherapy for a given patient.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, after adjustment for measured confounders, the hazard of CF was similar between treatments on average. However, these data indicate a greater oncologic benefit for some individual patients if treated with surgery and for other patients if treated with radiotherapy. Individualized predictions provide a novel approach to facilitate treatment decision making.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options

PURPOSE

This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The summary presented represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).

RESULTS

The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.

Review of the comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or expectant management of localized prostate cancer in registry data

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of treatment for prostate cancer is primarily based on randomized controlled trials. Long-term outcomes are generally difficult to evaluate within experimental studies and may benefit from large pools of observational data. We conducted a systematic review of administrative and registry studies to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer on overall and prostate-cancer specific mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P, 2015), we conducted a systematic search of Ovid Medline and Embase (1946-February 2017) and identified studies that evaluated the relationship between types of treatment for localized prostate cancer and mortality. Additional articles were identified through manual search. Randomized, prospective, and single institution studies were excluded. The risk of bias for each study was evaluated with the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios were reported to evaluate overall and cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS

We screened 4,721 studies and included for review, 19 that were published between 2001 and 2015. The pooled population included 228,444 patients. Countries of origin included the United States, Canada, China, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Sweden, and the sources included administrative (n = 6) and cancer registry or prostate databases (n = 11). Overall and cancer-specific mortality were lowest among definitive treatment arms as compared to conservative therapy with no treatment, observation, or active surveillance. Radiotherapy was associated with worse overall and cancer-specific mortality than radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSION

Although observational studies using large, population-based cohorts have the potential for bias, we found consistent evidence that high-quality observational studies may be used to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatment. Methodologic limitations of observational data should be considered.

Effect of Comorbidity on Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality: A Prospective Observational Study

Purpose To determine the effect of comorbidity on prostate cancer (PCa)-specific mortality across treatment types. Patients and Methods These are the results of a population-based observational study in Sweden from 1998 to 2012 of 118,543 men who were diagnosed with PCa with a median follow-up of 8.3 years (interquartile range, 5.2 to 11.5 years) until death from PCa or other causes. Patients were categorized by patient characteristics (marital status, educational level) and tumor characteristics (serum prostate-specific antigen, tumor grade and clinical stage) and by treatment type (radical prostatectomy, radical radiotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, and watchful waiting). Data were stratified by Charlson comorbidity index (0, 1, 2, or ≥ 3). Mortality from PCa and other causes and after stabilized inverse probability weighting adjustments for clinical patient and tumor characteristics and treatment type was determined. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios. Results In the complete unadjusted data set, we observed an effect of increased comorbidity on PCa-specific and other-cause mortality. After adjustments for patient and tumor characteristics, the effect of comorbidity on PCa-specific mortality was lost but maintained for other-cause mortality. After additional adjustment for treatment type, we again failed to observe an effect for comorbidity on PCa-specific mortality, although it was maintained for other-cause mortality. Conclusion This large observational study suggests that comorbidity affects other cause-mortality but not PCa-specific- mortality after accounting for patient and tumor characteristics and treatment type. Regardless of radical treatment type (radical prostatectomy or radical radiotherapy), increasing comorbidity does not seem to significantly affect the risk of dying from PCa. Consequently, differences in oncologic outcomes that were observed in population-based comparative effectiveness studies of PCa treatments may not be a result of the varying distribution of comorbidity among treatment groups.

Oncologic Outcomes of Definitive Treatments for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer After a Period of Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND

To compare oncologic outcomes of different definitive treatment (DT) modalities in a cohort of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) after active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

We identified 237 patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed from 1990 to 2012 who did not undergo immediate DT within 12 months of diagnosis (ie, AS patients as well as watchful waiting and those refusing DT). Charts were examined for clinical/pathologic data and type of DT: surgery (RP), radiation including brachytherapy (XRT), cryotherapy, and androgen deprivation therapy monotherapy (ADT). The impact of DT on oncologic outcomes of biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis, disease-specific (DSS), and overall survival (OS) was examined with the Cox proportional hazards model, along with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.

RESULTS

After median time on AS of 63.4 months, 40% of patients underwent DT: 47% XRT, 28% RP, 14% ADT, and 11% cryotherapy. On multivariable analysis, the use of XRT predicted higher BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 6.1, P = .001) and worse overall mortality (HR 2.1, P = .03) compared with other treatments, controlling for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), stage, Gleason score, and NCCN risk category. Median follow-up was 71.7 months. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, 10-year OS was superior for RP versus XRT among patients with prostatic specific antigen (PSA) velocity >2.0 ng/mL/y.

CONCLUSIONS

Low- and intermediate-risk patients with PCa who progress to DT after AS may be inadequately treated with radiation therapy compared with other DT modalities, especially when pretreatment PSA velocity is > 2 ng/mL/y.

Survival Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiotherapy in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A NCDB Study

BACKGROUND

Studies of various prostate cancer patient cohorts found men receiving external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) had higher mortality than men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). Conversely, a recent clinical trial showed no survival differences between treatment groups. We used the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) to evaluate overall survival in intermediate-risk (T2b-T2c or Gleason 7 [grade group II or III] or prostate-specific antigen 10-20 ng/mL) prostate cancer patients undergoing EBRT with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), RP, or no initial treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed 268,378 men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from 2004 to 2012. Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare survival between treatments.

RESULTS

After adjusting for patient and facility covariables, men receiving no initial treatment averaged greater adjusted mortality risk than men receiving EBRT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-1.80; P < .001), EBRT + ADT (HR, 1.73; 95% CI 1.64-1.81; P < .001), or RP (HR, 4.18; 95% CI 3.94-4.43; P < .001). Men undergoing RP had significantly lower adjusted mortality risk than men receiving either EBRT (HR, 0.41; 95% CI 0.39-0.43; P < .001) or EBRT + ADT (HR, 0.41; 95% CI 0.39-0.43; P < .001). No difference was observed between men receiving EBRT or EBRT + ADT (HR, 1.01; 95% CI 0.97-1.05; P = .624).

CONCLUSION

Men treated with RP experienced significantly lower overall mortality risk than EBRT with or without ADT and no treatment patients, regardless of patient, demographic, or facility characteristics. The results are limited by the lack of cancer-specific mortality in this database.

Treatment Decision Regret Among Long-Term Survivors of Localized Prostate Cancer: Results From the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study

Purpose To determine the demographic, clinical, decision-making, and quality-of-life factors that are associated with treatment decision regret among long-term survivors of localized prostate cancer. Patients and Methods We evaluated men who were age ≤ 75 years when diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between October 1994 and October 1995 in one of six SEER tumor registries and who completed a 15-year follow-up survey. The survey obtained demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical data and measured treatment decision regret, informed decision making, general- and disease-specific quality of life, health worry, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concern, and outlook on life. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify factors associated with regret. Results We surveyed 934 participants, 69.3% of known survivors. Among the cohort, 59.1% had low-risk tumor characteristics (PSA < 10 ng/mL and Gleason score < 7), and 89.2% underwent active treatment. Overall, 14.6% expressed treatment decision regret: 8.2% of those whose disease was managed conservatively, 15.0% of those who received surgery, and 16.6% of those who underwent radiotherapy. Factors associated with regret on multivariable analysis included reporting moderate or big sexual function bother (reported by 39.0%; OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.51 to 5.0), moderate or big bowel function bother (reported by 7.7%; OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.04 to 5.15), and PSA concern (mean score 52.8; OR, 1.01 per point change; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02). Increasing age at diagnosis and report of having made an informed treatment decision were inversely associated with regret. Conclusion Regret was a relatively infrequently reported outcome among long-term survivors of localized prostate cancer; however, our results suggest that better informing men about treatment options, in particular, conservative treatment, might help mitigate long-term regret. These findings are timely for men with low-risk cancers who are being encouraged to consider active surveillance.

Morbidity and Mortality of Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Population Based Analysis Comparing Radical Prostatectomy versus External Beam Radiation

PURPOSE

The management of locally advanced prostate cancer remains controversial. We compared the effect of primary external beam radiation therapy vs radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 2,935 elderly men 65 years old or older in the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare linked database who underwent external beam radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer. Propensity adjusted Cox proportional hazard and regression models were fit to examine urinary and gastrointestinal toxicities, the use of androgen deprivation therapy, and overall and prostate cancer specific mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1,429 men (48.69%) underwent radical prostatectomy and had a median followup of 11.47 years (IQR 6.17-17.17) years. A total of 1,506 men (51.31%) received external beam radiation therapy and had a median followup of 7.04 years (IQR 4.11-10.51, p <0.001). Patients treated with radical prostatectomy were at significantly higher risk for urinary and sexual toxicities (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.66-2.24 and HR 5.50, 95% CI 3.59-8.42, respectively). However, they were at lower risk for gastrointestinal toxicities (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86) than those treated with external beam radiation therapy. Radical prostatectomy was associated with lower odds of androgen deprivation therapy 5 years after primary treatment (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41-0.69, p <0.001). External beam radiation therapy was associated with higher overall and prostate specific mortality (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09-1.82 and HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.85-2.98, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We found significant toxicity and survival differences in elderly men who underwent primary external beam radiation therapy vs radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer. While our findings must be interpreted within the limitations of studies that rely on administrative claims, they may yet help tailor individual therapies for elderly men who present with locally advanced prostate cancer.

Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments for patient-centered outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA Compliant)

BACKGROUND

In the context of prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by the multiple alternative treatment strategies, comparative effectiveness analysis is essential for informed decision-making. We analyzed the comparative effectiveness of PCa treatments through systematic review and meta-analysis with a focus on outcomes that matter most to newly diagnosed localized PCa patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of literature published in English from 1995 to October 2016. A search strategy was employed using terms "prostate cancer," "localized," "outcomes," "mortality," "health related quality of life," and "complications" to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, and retrospective studies. For observational studies, only those adjusting for selection bias using propensity-score or instrumental-variables approaches were included. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratio was used to assess all-cause and disease-specific mortality. Funnel plots were used to assess the level of bias.

RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded 58 articles, of which 29 were RCTs, 6 were prospective studies, and 23 were retrospective studies. The studies provided moderate data for the patient-centered outcome of mortality. Radical prostatectomy demonstrated mortality benefit compared to watchful waiting (all-cause HR = 0.63 CI = 0.45, 0.87; disease-specific HR = 0.48 CI = 0.40, 0.58), and radiation therapy (all-cause HR = 0.65 CI = 0.57, 0.74; disease-specific HR = 0.51 CI = 0.40, 0.65). However, we had minimal comparative information about tradeoffs between and within treatment for other patient-centered outcomes in the short and long-term.

CONCLUSION

Lack of patient-centered outcomes in comparative effectiveness research in localized PCa is a major hurdle to informed and shared decision-making. More rigorous studies that can integrate patient-centered and intermediate outcomes in addition to mortality are needed.

Direct Administration of Nerve-Specific Contrast to Improve Nerve Sparing Radical Prostatectomy

Nerve damage remains a major morbidity following nerve sparing radical prostatectomy, significantly affecting quality of life post-surgery. Nerve-specific fluorescence guided surgery offers a potential solution by enhancing nerve visualization intraoperatively. However, the prostate is highly innervated and only the cavernous nerve structures require preservation to maintain continence and potency. Systemic administration of a nerve-specific fluorophore would lower nerve signal to background ratio (SBR) in vital nerve structures, making them difficult to distinguish from all nervous tissue in the pelvic region. A direct administration methodology to enable selective nerve highlighting for enhanced nerve SBR in a specific nerve structure has been developed herein. The direct administration methodology demonstrated equivalent nerve-specific contrast to systemic administration at optimal exposure times. However, the direct administration methodology provided a brighter fluorescent nerve signal, facilitating nerve-specific fluorescence imaging at video rate, which was not possible following systemic administration. Additionally, the direct administration methodology required a significantly lower fluorophore dose than systemic administration, that when scaled to a human dose falls within the microdosing range. Furthermore, a dual fluorophore tissue staining method was developed that alleviates fluorescence background signal from adipose tissue accumulation using a spectrally distinct adipose tissue specific fluorophore. These results validate the use of the direct administration methodology for specific nerve visualization with fluorescence image-guided surgery, which would improve vital nerve structure identification and visualization during nerve sparing radical prostatectomy.

American Brachytherapy Society Task Group Report: Combination of brachytherapy and external beam radiation for high-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To review outcomes for high-risk prostate cancer treated with combined modality radiation therapy (CMRT) utilizing external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with a brachytherapy boost.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The available literature for high-risk prostate cancer treated with combined modality radiation therapy was reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

At this time, the literature suggests that the majority of high-risk cancers are curable with multimodal treatment. Several large retrospective studies and three prospective randomized trials comparing CMRT to dose-escalated EBRT have demonstrated superior biochemical control with CMRT. Longer followup of the randomized trials will be required to determine if this will translate to a benefit in metastasis-free survival, disease-specific survival, and overall survival. Although greater toxicity has been associated with CMRT compared to EBRT, recent studies suggest that technological advances that allow better definition and sparing of critical adjacent structures as well as increasing experience with brachytherapy have improved implant quality and the toxicity profile of brachytherapy. The role of androgen deprivation therapy is well established in the external beam literature for high-risk disease, but there is controversy regarding the applicability of these data in the setting of dose escalation. At this time, there is not sufficient evidence for the omission of androgen deprivation therapy with dose escalation in this population. Comparisons with surgery remain limited by differences in patient selection, but the evidence would suggest better disease control with CMRT compared to surgery alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to a series of technological advances, modern combination series have demonstrated unparalleled rates of disease control in the high-risk population. Given the evidence from recent randomized trials, combination therapy may become the standard of care for high-risk cancers.

Overall Survival in Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer in the US Veterans Health Administration: Is PIVOT Generalizable?

A better understanding of overall survival among patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is critical to inform PCa treatment decisions, especially in light of data from the Prostate Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT). We sought to describe patterns of survival for all patients with clinically localized PCa treated by the VHA. We created an analytic cohort of 35 954 patients with clinically localized PCa diagnosed from 1995 to 2001, approximating the PIVOT inclusion criteria (age of diagnosis ≤75 yr and clinical stage T2 or lower). Mean patient age was 65.9 yr, and median follow-up was 161 mo. Overall, 22.5% of patients were treated with surgery, 16.6% were treated with radiotherapy, and 23.1% were treated with androgen deprivation. Median survival of the entire cohort was 14 yr (25th, 75th percentiles, range: 7.9-20 yr). Among patients who received treatment with curative intent, median survival was 17.9 yr following surgery and 12.9 yr following radiotherapy. One-third of patients died within 10 yr of diagnosis compared with nearly half of the participants in PIVOT. This finding sounds a note of caution when generalizing the mortality data from PIVOT to VHA patients and those in the community.

PATIENT SUMMARY

More than one-third of patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer treated through the US Veterans Health Administration from 1995 to 2001 died within 10 yr of their diagnosis. Caution should be used when generalizing the estimates of competing mortality data from PIVOT.

The role of radical prostatectomy as an initial approach for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer

CONTEXT

The treatment of high-risk prostate cancer requires a multimodal approach to improve control of the disease. There is still no consensus as to the initial strategy of choice. The aim of this study is to review the results of radical prostatectomy as first step in management of patients with high-risk disease.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

A search was conducted on PubMed of English and Spanish texts. We included those studies that reported the results of radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk prostate cancer, as well as those that compared radical prostatectomy with other treatment alternatives. The last search was conducted in November 2015.

SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE

The advantages of radical prostatectomy include a better pathological analysis, more accurate staging, better local control of the disease and better follow-up and adjuvant therapy strategies. When compared with external radiation therapy plus hormonal blockade, the patients who underwent prostatectomy had greater chances of healing and longer cancer-specific survival. The patients who most benefit from this approach are younger, have fewer comorbidities and no evidence of organ metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

The available scientific evidence to date is not without bias and confounders; however, they appear to favour radical prostatectomy as the initial approach of choice for high-risk prostate cancer.

Long-term adverse effects after curative radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy: population-based nationwide register study

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the risk of serious adverse effects after radiotherapy (RT) with curative intention and radical prostatectomy (RP).

Materials and methods: Men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1997 and 2012 and underwent curative treatment were selected from the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden. For each included man, five prostate cancer-free controls, matched for birth year and county of residency, were randomly selected. In total, 12,534 men underwent RT, 24,886 underwent RP and 186,624 were controls. Adverse effects were defined according to surgical and diagnostic codes in the National Patient Registry. The relative risk (RR) of adverse effects up to 12 years after treatment was compared to controls and the risk was subsequently compared between RT and RP in multivariable analyses.

Results: Men with intermediate- and localized high-risk cancer who underwent curative treatment had an increased risk of adverse effects during the full study period compared to controls: the RR of undergoing a procedures after RT was 2.64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56–2.73] and after RP 2.05 (95% CI 2.00–2.10). The risk remained elevated 10–12 years after treatment. For all risk categories of prostate cancer, the risk of surgical procedures for urinary incontinence was higher after RP (RR 23.64, 95% CI 11.71–47.74), whereas risk of other procedures on the lower urinary tract and gastrointestinal tract or abdominal wall was higher after RT (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.44–1.94, and RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.70–2.02, respectively).

Conclusion: The risk of serious adverse effects after curative treatment for prostate cancer remained significantly elevated up to 12 years after treatment.

Prostate Cancer Registries: Current Status and Future Directions

CONTEXT

Disease-specific registries that enroll a considerable number of patients play a major role in prostate cancer (PCa) research.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate available registries, describe their strengths and limitations, and discuss the potential future role of PCa registries in outcomes research.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a literature review of the Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The search strategy included the terms prostate cancer, outcomes, statistical approaches, population-based cohorts, registries of outcomes, and epidemiological studies, alone or in combination. We limited our search to studies published between January 2005 and January 2015.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Several population-based and prospective disease-specific registries are currently available for prostate cancer. Studies performed using these data sources provide important information on incidence and mortality, disease characteristics at presentation, risk factors, trends in utilization of health care services, disparities in access to treatment, quality of care, long-term oncologic and health-related quality of life outcomes, and costs associated with management of the disease. Although data from these registries have some limitations, statistical methods are available that can address certain biases and increase the internal and external validity of such analyses. In the future, improvements in data quality, collection of tissue samples, and the availability of data feedback to health care providers will increase the relevance of studies built on population-based and disease-specific registries.

CONCLUSIONS

The strengths and limitations of PCa registries should be carefully considered when planning studies using these databases. Although randomized controlled trials still provide the highest level of evidence, large registries play an important and growing role in advancing PCa research and care.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Several population-based and prospective disease-specific registries for prostate cancer are currently available. Analyses of data from these registries yield information that is clinically relevant for the management of patients with prostate cancer.

The comparative oncologic effectiveness of available management strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer

The primary goal of modern prostate cancer treatment paradigms is to optimize the balance of predicted benefits associated with prostate cancer treatment against the predicted harms of therapy. However, given the limitations in the existing evidence as well as the significant tradeoffs posed by each treatment, there remain myriad challenges associated with individualized prostate cancer treatment decision-making. In this review, we summarize the existing comparative effectiveness evidence of treatments for localized prostate cancer with an emphasis on oncologic control. While we focus on the major treatment categories of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and observation, we also provide a review of emerging therapies such as cryotherapy and high-intensity frequency ultrasound (HIFU).

Clinical and Demographic Factors Associated With Receipt of Non Guideline-concordant Initial Therapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To determine the extent to which initial therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer was concordant with nationally recognized guidelines using supplemented cancer registry data and what factors were associated with receipt of nonguideline-concordant care.

METHODS

Initial therapy for 8229 nonmetastatic prostate cancer cases diagnosed in 2004 from cancer registries in 7 states was abstracted as part of the Centers for Disease Control's Patterns of Care Breast and Prostate Cancer study conducted during 2007 to 2009. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines version 1.2002 was used as the standard of care based on recurrence risk group and life expectancy (LE). A multivariable model was used to determine risk factors associated with receipt of nonguideline-concordant care.

RESULTS

Nearly 80% with nonmetastatic prostate cancer received guideline-concordant care for initial therapy. Receipt of nonguideline-concordant care (including receiving either less aggressive therapy or more aggressive therapy than indicated) was related to older age, African American race/ethnicity, being unmarried, rural residence, and especially to being in the high recurrence risk group where receiving less aggressive therapy than indicated occurred more often than receiving more aggressive therapy (adjusted OR=4.2; 95% CL, 3.5-5.2 vs. low-risk group). Compared with life table estimates adjusted for comorbidity, physicians tended to underestimate LE.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of less aggressive therapy than indicated among high-risk group men with >5-year LE based on life table estimates adjusted for comorbidity was a concern. Physicians may tend to underestimate 5-year survival among this group and should be alerted to the importance of recommending aggressive therapy when warranted. However, based on more recent guidelines, among those with low-risk disease, the proportion considered to be receiving less aggressive therapy than indicated may now be lower because active surveillance is now considered appropriate.

High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Role of Radical Prostatectomy and Radiation Therapy

Up to 12% of European men aged 55-69 years diagnosed with prostate cancer have high-risk disease and thus are at increased risk of mortality. There remains a lack of consensus on definitive treatment for prostate cancer, although both radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy are frequently utilized. Furthermore, the different types of radiation and surgical options also increase the complexity of deciding on a single treatment, as does the use of multimodal treatment plans. Here, we provide an overview of radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy in treating high-risk prostate cancer.