Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Vernooij RW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7270852 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer.
Vernooij Robin Wm RW Lancee Michelle M Cleves Anne A Dahm Philipp P Bangma Chris H CH Aben Katja Kh KK
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20200604
<h4>Background</h4>Prostate cancer is a common cancer but is oftentimes slow growing. When confined to the prostate, radical prostatectomy (RP), which involves removal of the prostate, offers potential cure that may come at the price of adverse events. Deferred treatment, involving observation and palliative treatment only (watchful waiting (WW)) or close monitoring and delayed local treatment with curative intent as needed in the setting of disease progression (active monitoring (AM)/surveillan ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8738893 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of surgery versus observation for men with localized prostate cancer detected by means of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is not known.MethodsFrom November 1994 through January 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer (mean age, 67 years; median PSA value, 7.8 ng per milliliter) to radical prostatectomy or observation and followed them through January 2010. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; the secondary outcome was prostate-cancer mortality.ResultsDuring the median follow-up of 10.0 years, 171 of 364 men (47.0%) assigned to radical prostatectomy died, as compared with 183 of 367 (49.9%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.08; P=0.22; absolute risk reduction, 2.9 percentage points). Among men assigned to radical prostatectomy, 21 (5.8%) died from prostate cancer or treatment, as compared with 31 men (8.4%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.09; P=0.09; absolute risk reduction, 2.6 percentage points). The effect of treatment on all-cause and prostate-cancer mortality did not differ according to age, race, coexisting conditions, self-reported performance status, or histologic features of the tumor. Radical prostatectomy was associated with reduced all-cause mortality among men with a PSA value greater than 10 ng per milliliter (P=0.04 for interaction) and possibly among those with intermediate-risk or high-risk tumors (P=0.07 for interaction). Adverse events within 30 days after surgery occurred in 21.4% of men, including one death.ConclusionsAmong men with localized prostate cancer detected during the early era of PSA testing, radical prostatectomy did not significantly reduce all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality, as compared with observation, through at least 12 years of follow-up. Absolute differences were less than 3 percentage points. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and others; PIVOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007644.).
| S-EPMC3429335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesReview and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).DesignSystematic review.SettingPubMed, Embase, Scopus, International HTA database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and various HTA websites were searched (January 2005 to March 2021) to identify the eligible cost-effectiveness studies.ParticipantsCost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review.InterventionsDifferent surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP.Primary and secondary outcome measuresA structured narrative synthesis was developed to summarize results of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness results (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Extended checklist. Application of medical device features were evaluated.ResultsTwelve studies met inclusion criteria, 11 of which were cost-utility analyses. Higher quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs were observed with RARP compared with ORP or LRP in 11 studies (91%). Among four studies comparing RARP with LRP, three reported RARP was dominant or cost-effective. Among ten studies comparing RARP with ORP, RARP was more cost-effective in five, not cost-effective in two, and inconclusive in three studies. Studies with longer time horizons tended to report favorable cost-effectiveness results for RARP. Nine studies (75%) were rated of moderate or good quality. Recommended medical device features were addressed to varying degrees within the literature as follows: capital investment included in most studies, dynamic pricing considered in about half, and learning curve and incremental innovation were poorly addressed.ConclusionsDespite study heterogeneity, RARP was more costly and effective compared with ORP and LRP in most studies and likely to be more cost-effective, particularly over a multiple year or lifetime time horizon. Further cost-effectiveness analyses for RARP that more thoroughly consider medical device features and use an appropriate time horizon are needed.Prospero registration numberCRD42021246811.
| S-EPMC9490571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.
| S-EPMC8268689 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo compare overall mortality (OM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM), and other cause mortality (OCM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) versus radiotherapy (RT) in clinical node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer (PCa).Materials and methodsWithin Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER) (2004-2016), we identified 4685 cN1 PCa patients, of whom 3589 (76.6%) versus 1096 (24.4%) were treated with RP versus RT. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression models tested the effect of RP versus RT on OM, while cumulative incidence plots and competing-risks regression (CRR) models addressed CSM and OCM between RP and RT patients. All analyses were repeated after the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). For CSM and OCM analyses, the propensity score was used as a covariate in the regression model.ResultsOverall, RT patients were older, harbored higher prostate-specific antigen values, higher clinical T and higher Gleason grade groups. PSM resulted in two equally sized groups of 894 RP versus 894 RT patients. After PSM, 5-year OM, CSM, and OCM rates were, respectively, 15.4% versus 25%, 9.3% versus 17%, and 6.1% versus 8% for RP versus RT (all p < 0.001) and yielded respective multivariate hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.63 (0.52-0.78, p < 0.001), 0.66 (0.52-0.86, p < 0.001), 0.71 (0.5-1.0, p = 0.05), all favoring RP. After IPTW, Cox regression models yielded HR of 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.66) for OM, and CRR yielded HRs of 0.49 (0.34-0.70) and 0.54 (0.36-0.79) for, respectively, CSM and OCM, all favoring RP (all p < 0.001).ConclusionsRP may hold a CSM advantage over RT in cN1 PCa patients.
| S-EPMC9311819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer (LPC) wanting curative treatment face a highly preference-sensitive choice between prostatectomy and radiotherapy, which offer similar cure rates but different side effects. This study aims to determine the information, decision-making needs and preferences of men with LPC choosing between robotic prostatectomy and standard external beam or stereotactic radiotherapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This study will be conducted at a large public teaching hospital in Australia offering the choice between robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy from early 2017. Men (20-30) diagnosed with LPC who want curative treatment and meet criteria for either treatment will be invited to participate. In this mixed-methods study, patients will complete semistructured interviews before and after attending a combined clinic in which they consult a urologist and a radiation oncologist regarding treatment and four questionnaires (one before treatment decision-making and three after) assessing demographic and clinical characteristics, involvement in decision-making, decisional conflict, satisfaction and regret. Combined clinic consultations will also be audio-recorded and clinicians will report their perceptions regarding patients' suitability for, openness to and preferences for each treatment. Qualitative data will be transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed and descriptive statistical analyses will explore quantitative decision-making outcomes, with comparison according to treatment choice. DISCUSSION:Results from this study will inform how to best support men diagnosed with LPC deciding which curative treatment option best suits their needs and may identify the need for and content required in a decision aid to support these men. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:All participants will provide written informed consent. Data will be rigorously managed in accordance with national legislation. Results will be disseminated via presentations to both scientific and layperson audiences and publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
| S-EPMC5722081 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundTreatment decisions in prostate cancer (PCa) rely on disease stratification between localised and metastatic stages, but current imaging staging technologies are not sensitive to micro-metastatic disease. Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) status is a promising tool in this regard. The Parsortix® CTC isolation system employs an epitope-independent approach based on cell size and deformability to increase the capture rate of CTCs. Here, we present a protocol for prospective evaluation of this method to predict post radical prostatectomy (RP) PCa cancer recurrence.MethodsWe plan to recruit 294 patients diagnosed with unfavourable intermediate, to high and very high-risk localised PCa. Exclusion criteria include synchronous cancer diagnosis or prior PCa treatment, including hormone therapy. RP is performed according to the standard of care. Two blood samples (20 ml) are collected before and again 3-months after RP. The clinical team are blinded to CTC results and the laboratory researchers are blinded to clinical information. Treatment failure is defined as a PSA ≥ 0.2 mg/ml, start of salvage treatment or imaging-proven metastatic lesions. The CTC analysis entails enumeration and RNA analysis of gene expression in captured CTCs. The primary outcome is the accuracy of CTC status to predict post-RP treatment failure at 4.5 years. Observed sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values will be reported. Specificity will be presented over time.DiscussionCTC status may reflect the true potential for PCa metastasis and may predict clinical outcomes better than the current PCa progression risk grading systems. Therefore establishing a robust biomarker for predicting treatment failure in localized high-risk PCa would significantly enhance guidance in treatment decision-making, optimizing cure rates while minimizing unnecessary harm from overtreatment.Trial registrationISRCTN17332543.
| S-EPMC10288675 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Radical prostatectomy is the most common treatment for localised prostate cancer in New Zealand. Active surveillance was introduced to prevent overtreatment and reduce costs while preserving the option of radical prostatectomy. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy.Markov models were constructed to estimate the life-time cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer patients aged 45-70 years, using national datasets in New Zealand and published studies including the SPCG-4 study. This study was from the perspective of the Ministry of Health in New Zealand.Radical prostatectomy is less costly than active surveillance in men aged 45-55 years with low risk localised prostate cancer, but more costly for men aged 60-70 years. Scenario analyses demonstrated significant uncertainty as to the most cost-effective option in all age groups because of the unavailability of good quality of life data for men under active surveillance. Uncertainties around the likelihood of having radical prostatectomy when managed with active surveillance also affect the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance against radical prostatectomy.Active surveillance is less likely to be cost-effective compared to radical prostatectomy for younger men diagnosed with low risk localised prostate cancer. The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to radical prostatectomy is critically dependent on the 'trigger' for radical prostatectomy and the quality of life in men on active surveillance. Research on the latter would be beneficial.
| S-EPMC5549326 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background and objectiveChanges in diagnostic work-up, histopathological assessment, and treatment of men with prostate cancer during the last 20 years have affected the prognosis. The objective was to investigate the risk of prostate cancer death in men with clinically localised prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in Sweden in 2000-2010.MethodsPopulation-based, nationwide, study on men with clinically localised prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in the period 2000-2010. Cox regression analyses were used to assess differences in risk of prostate cancer death according to calendar period for diagnosis and stratified on risk category.ResultsThe study included 19 330 men with a median follow-up of 12.4 years. Men diagnosed in 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer death compared to men diagnosed in 2000-2002. The reduced risk of prostate cancer death was restricted to men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer with no differences observed in men with low- or high-risk prostate cancer.ConclusionDuring the study period, the risk of prostate cancer death decreased in the total population of men with localised prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. The decrease was restricted to men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
| S-EPMC8518635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:For patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), active surveillance (AS) may produce oncologic outcomes comparable to those achieved with radical prostatectomy (RP). Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes are important to consider, yet few studies have examined HRQoL among patients with PCa who were managed with AS. In this study, the authors compared longitudinal HRQoL in a prospective, racially diverse, and contemporary cohort of patients who underwent RP or AS for low-risk PCa.Beginning in 2007, HRQoL data from validated questionnaires (the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite and the 36-item RAND Medical Outcomes Study short-form survey) were collected by the Center for Prostate Disease Research in a multicenter national database. Patients aged ?75 years who were diagnosed with low-risk PCa and elected RP or AS for initial disease management were followed for 3 years. Mean scores were estimated using generalized estimating equations adjusting for baseline HRQoL, demographic characteristics, and clinical patient characteristics.Of the patients with low-risk PCa, 228 underwent RP, and 77 underwent AS. Multivariable analysis revealed that patients in the RP group had significantly worse sexual function, sexual bother, and urinary function at all time points compared with patients in the AS group. Differences in mental health between groups were below the threshold for clinical significance at 1 year.In this study, no differences in mental health outcomes were observed, but urinary and sexual HRQoL were worse for patients who underwent RP compared with those who underwent AS for up to 3 years. These data offer support for the management of low-risk PCa with AS as a means for postponing the morbidity associated with RP without concomitant declines in mental health.
| S-EPMC4490040 | biostudies-literature