Cancer-Specific Mortality Among Korean Men with Localized or Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer Treated with Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiotherapy: A Multi-Center Study Using Propensity Scoring and Competing Risk Regression Analyses

Risk factors for prostate-specific antigen persistence in pT3aN0 prostate cancer after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence in pathological stage T3aN0 prostate cancer (PCa) after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP).

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on 326 patients with pT3aN0 PCa who underwent RALP between March 2020 and February 2022. PSA persistence was defined as nadir PSA of >0.1 ng/mL after RALP, and the risk factors for PSA persistence were evaluated using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Among 326 patients, 61 (18.71%) had PSA persistence and 265 (81.29%) had PSA of <0.1 ng/mL after RALP (successful radical prostatectomy [RP] group). In the PSA persistence group, 51 patients (83.61%) received adjuvant treatment. Biochemical recurrence occurred in 27 patients (10.19%) in the successful RP group during the mean follow-up period of 15.22 months. Multivariate analysis showed that the risk factors for PSA persistence were large prostate volume (hazard ratio [HR], 1.017; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.002-1.036; p=0.046), lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (HR, 2.605; 95% CI, 1.022-6.643; p=0.045), and surgical margin involvement (HR, 2.220; 95% CI, 1.110-4.438; p=0.024).

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant treatment may be needed for improved prognosis in patients with pT3aN0 PCa after RALP with a large prostate size, LVI, or surgical margin involvement.

Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

To summarize recent evidence in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional and oncological outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry on 29 march 2021. Comparative studies, published since 2016, that reported on treatment with RP versus dose-escalated EBRT and ADT for high-risk non-metastatic PCa were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise quality and risk of bias. A qualitative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies, all non-randomized, met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment indicated low (n = 14) to moderate/high (n = 5) risk of bias. Only three studies reported functional outcomes and/or HRQoL using different measurement instruments and methods. A clinically meaningful difference in HRQoL was not observed. All studies reported oncological outcomes and survival was generally good (5-year survival rates > 90%). In the majority of studies, a statistically significant difference between both treatment groups was not observed, or only differences in biochemical recurrence-free survival were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence clearly demonstrating superiority in terms of oncological outcomes of either RP or EBRT combined with ADT is lacking. Studies reporting functional outcomes and HRQoL are very scarce and the magnitude of the effect of RP versus dose-escalated EBRT with ADT on HRQoL and functional outcomes remains largely unknown.

Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound targeted biopsies versus standard systematic biopsies for prostate cancer correction in different PSA value groups in rural China

OBJECTIVE

To investigate prostate cancer detection rate of different biopsy protocols in different PSA value groups in rural China.

METHODS

A total of 186 patients underwent contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in order to determine the puncture target prior to biopsy were enrolled in this retrospective study. All patients underwent 12-core SB combined with CEUS-TB. The biopsy results of different biopsy protocols were compared in patients with stratification by PSA value.

RESULTS

Among the 186 patients underwent prostate biopsy, the histopathologic results revealed prostate cancer (PCa) in 117 cases (62.9%) and benign lesions in 69 cases (37.1%). The PCa detection rate between 8-core SB and 12-core SB showed no significant difference in PSA 4-10 ng/ml group, while the 12-core SB was significantly higher than CEUS-TB (44.9% versus 32.7%, P = 0.01). In PSA 10-20 ng/ml group, the significant difference was not seen between SB and CEUS-TB (50.0% versus 45.7%, P = 0.15). As for PSA greater than 20 ng/ml group, the PCa detection rate by SB was higher than CEUS-TB, but showed no statistically significance (79.1% versus 76.9%, P = 0.15). In the overall patients, the biopsy core positive rate of CEUS-TB was significantly higher than SB (97% versus 55.5% and 28.5%, P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The flexible use of SB combined with CEUS-TB can reduce the number of biopsy cores in higher PSA groups. It has clinical importance in the detection of PCa in different PSA value groups in rural China.

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.

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.

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

CONTEXT

The optimal treatment for men with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on the effectiveness of the different primary treatment modalities for high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa. The primary oncological outcome is the development of distant metastases at ≥5 yr of follow-up. Secondary oncological outcomes are PCa-specific mortality, overall mortality, biochemical recurrence, and need for salvage treatment with ≥5 yr of follow-up. Nononcological outcomes are quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes, and treatment-related side effects reported.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies published between January 2000 and May 2019 with at least 50 participants in each arm were included. Studies reporting on high-risk localized PCa (International Society of Urologic Pathologists [ISUP] grade 4-5 [Gleason score {GS} 8-10] or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml or ≥ cT2c) and/or locally advanced PCa (any PSA, cT3-4 or cN+, any ISUP grade/GS) or where subanalyses were performed on either group were included. The following primary local treatments were mandated: radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (≥64 Gy), brachytherapy (BT), or multimodality treatment combining any of the local treatments above (±any systemic treatment). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding factors were assessed for each study. A narrative synthesis was performed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 90 studies met the inclusion criteria. RoB and confounding factors revealed high RoB for selection, performance, and detection bias, and low RoB for correction of initial PSA and biopsy GS. When comparing RP with EBRT, retrospective series suggested an advantage for RP, although with a low level of evidence. Both RT and RP should be seen as part of a multimodal treatment plan with possible addition of (postoperative) RT and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), respectively. High levels of evidence exist for EBRT treatment, with several randomized clinical trials showing superior outcome for adding long-term ADT or BT to EBRT. No clear cutoff can be proposed for RT dose, but higher RT doses by means of dose escalation schemes result in an improved biochemical control. Twenty studies reported data on QoL, with RP resulting mainly in genitourinary toxicity and sexual dysfunction, and EBRT in bowel problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this systematic review, both RP as part of multimodal treatment and EBRT + long-term ADT can be recommended as primary treatment in high-risk and locally advanced PCa. For high-risk PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite more grade 3 toxicity. Interestingly, for selected patients, for example, those with higher comorbidity, a shorter duration of ADT might be an option. For locally advanced PCa, EBRT + BT shows promising result but still needs further validation. In this setting, it is important that patients are aware that the offered therapy will most likely be in the context a multimodality treatment plan. In particular, if radiation is used, the combination of local with systemic treatment provides the best outcome, provided the patient is fit enough to receive both. Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options, and the likelihood of a multimodal approach including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the literature to see whether the evidence from clinical studies would tell us the best way of curing men with aggressive prostate cancer that had not spread to other parts of the body such as lymph glands or bones. Based on the results of this systematic review, there is good evidence that both surgery and radiation therapy are good treatment options, in terms of prolonging life and preserving quality of life, provided they are combined with other treatments. In the case of surgery this means including radiotherapy (RT), and in the case of RT this means either hormonal therapy or combined RT and brachytherapy.

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.

Robot or radiation? A qualitative study of the decision support needs of men with localised prostate cancer choosing between robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy treatment

OBJECTIVE

To understand how best to support men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer to decide which treatment option best suits their needs, when robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy are equally appropriate to offer them.

METHODS

Twenty-five men recently diagnosed with localised prostate cancer completed semi-structured interviews asking about information/decision-making needs before and/or after attending a combined clinic in which they consulted a urologist and a radiation oncologist regarding treatment options. Data was transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Most men preferred robotic prostatectomy pre-combined clinic and chose it afterwards. The thematic analysis revealed four themes: 1) trust in clinicians and the information they provide is critical for treatment choice, 2) perceived fit between treatment characteristics and personal circumstances, 3) additional considerations: specific side effects, socio-emotional and financial factors, and 4) need for tailored information delivery. Robotic prostatectomy was mistakenly believed to provide a more definitive cure than radiotherapy, which was seen as having a lesser lifestyle impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment choice is largely dependent on clinicians' (mainly urologists') recommendations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patients need more balanced information about alternatives to robotic prostatectomy earlier in the treatment decision-making process. Referral to a radiation oncologist or combined clinic shortly after diagnosis is recommended.

125I low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy and radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer

Radical prostatectomy (RP) and low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR) are two widely used treatment options for patients with T1c-T3a prostate cancer. In the present study, the efficacy of the two treatments was compared. A total of 429 patients who underwent either LDR (n=218) or RP (n=211) between January 2010 and June 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Biochemical relapse-free survival time (bRFS) and clinical relapse-free survival time (cRFS) were assessed. The log-rank test compared bRFS between the two modalities, and Cox regression identified factors associated with bRFS. The median follow-up time and patient age were 46.6 months and 71 years, respectively. The bRFS at 1, 2 and 5 years was 89.4, 87.2 and 79.9% for LDR, respectively, and 91.0, 82.8 and 72.2% for RP, respectively (P=0.077). The cRFS at 1, 2 and 5 years was 99.1, 97.7 and 94.9% for LDR, respectively, and 99.0, 96.2 and 94.5% for RP, respectively (P=0.630). It was indicated that LDR produced equivalent bRFS and cRFS rates compared with RP. The risk of biochemical failure (bF) was higher for the RP group compared with the LDR group in patients with a Gleason score ≤3+4 (P=0.022) or initial prostate specific antigen ≤10 ng/ml (P=0.002). Based on the univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of all 429 patients, T stage ≥T2b was an independent predictor for bF.

Elective pelvic irradiation in prostate cancer patients with biochemical failure following radical prostatectomy: A propensity score matching analysis

Purpose

To investigate whether whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) improves biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) vs. prostate bed radiotherapy (PBRT) in prostate cancer patients receiving salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after radical prostatectomy.

Methods

Data from patients with prostate cancer who underwent SRT for biochemical recurrence between 2005 and 2012 in two academic institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Patients treated with WPRT in one hospital were compared with patients treated with PBRT in the other. Propensity scoring was performed to balance the characteristics of the different treatment groups, and bRFS was compared.

Results

Data from a total of 191 patients were included in the analysis (WPRT, n = 108; PBRT, n = 83). The median follow-up period was 66 months. Prior to matching, patients who received WPRT had higher pathologic Gleason scores as well as a higher incidence of pre-SRT PSA levels >0.5 ng/mL and lower rates of concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy. Propensity score matching balanced these characteristics and generated a cohort comprising 56 patients from each group. In the matched cohort, the 5 year bRFS of the WPRT group was significantly higher than that of the PBRT group (65.9 vs. 42.2%, p = 0.017). Multivariate analysis revealed that WPRT was an independent prognostic factor for bRFS (hazard ratio: 0.45, 95% confidence interval: 0.26–0.75, p = 0.002). This benefit of WPRT on bRFS was maintained in subgroup analyses, especially in patients with preoperative PSA level ≤20 ng/mL or pre-SRT PSA level ≥0.4 ng/mL.

Conclusions

These data suggest that, following radical prostatectomy, elective WPRT during SRT may improve bRFS compared with PBRT in selected patients. Patients with preoperative PSA level ≤20 ng/mL or pre-SRT PSA level ≥0.4 ng/mL represent a potential subgroup who benefit most from receiving WPRT. Results of prospective randomized trials are awaited to confirm this finding.

Time to Disease Recurrence Is a Predictor of Metastasis and Mortality in Patients with High-risk Prostate Cancer Who Achieved Undetectable Prostate-specific Antigen Following Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a feasible treatment option for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). While patients may achieve undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after RARP, the risk of disease progression is relatively high. We investigated metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) outcomes and prognosticators in such patients.

METHODS

In a single-center cohort of 342 patients with high-risk PCa (clinical stage ≥ T3, biopsy Gleason score ≥ 8, and/or PSA levels ≥ 20 ng/mL) treated with RARP and pelvic lymph node dissection between August 2005 and June 2011, we identified 251 (73.4%) patients (median age, 66.5 years; interquartile range [IQR], 63.0-71.0 years) who achieved undetectable PSA levels (< 0.01 ng/mL) postoperatively. Survival outcomes were evaluated for the entire study sample and in groups stratified according to the time to biochemical recurrence dichotomized at 60 months.

RESULTS

During the median follow-up of 75.9 months (IQR, 59.4-85.8 months), metastasis occurred in 38 (15.1%) patients, most often to the bones, followed by the lymph nodes, lungs, and liver. The 5-year metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and OS rates were 87.1%, 94.8%, and 94.3%, respectively. Multivariate Cox-regression analysis revealed time to recurrence as an independent predictor of metastasis (P < 0.001). Time to metastasis was an independent predictor of OS (P = 0.003). Metastasis-free and CSS rates were significantly lower among patients with recurrence within 60 months of RARP (log-rank P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RARP confers acceptable oncological outcomes for high-risk PCa. Close monitoring beyond 5 years is warranted for early detection of disease progression and for timely adjuvant therapy.