Dataset Information

Survival after radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy in clinical node-positive prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To 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 methods

Within 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.

Results

Overall, 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).

Conclusions

RP may hold a CSM advantage over RT in cN1 PCa patients.

SUBMITTER: Chierigo F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9311819 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe optimal salvage treatment strategies for lymph node-positive (LNP) patients after radical surgery have not been clearly defined in prostate cancer with biochemical recurrence or persistence of elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA). In this study, we compared the clinical outcomes of two different salvage treatments, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone versus ADT with radiotherapy (RT). We also investigated prognostic factors that could support the use of ADT with RT in LNP prostate cancer.Materials and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 94 LNP prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) followed by salvage treatment between 2004 and 2018. Salvage treatments involved either ADT alone or ADT with RT according to the clinical judgment of the physician. We analyzed clinicopathological and treatment factors related to 2nd biochemical failure (2nd BCF), clinical progression (CP), and progression-free survival (PFS). The cumulative failure after salvage treatment was defined as including both 2nd BCF and CP.ResultsThe median duration of follow-up was 55 months (interquartile range, 35-97 months). Thirty-seven (39.4%) patients were treated with ADT alone, and 57 patients (60.6%) were treated with a combination of ADT with RT. During follow-up period, the incidence of failure after salvage treatment in the ADT alone group and the combined treatment group was 89.2% and 45.6%, respectively (HR, 22.4; 95% CI 5.43-92.1; P < 0.001). The combination of ADT with RT was associated with better 2nd BCF and PFS than ADT alone (P = 0.007 and P = 0.015, respectively). In multivariate analyses, number of positive LN ≥ 2 and PSA nadir ≥ 0.005 ng/ml after RP were associated with poor 2nd BCF, CP, and PFS after salvage treatment. Salvage by combined ADT plus RT showed better 2nd BCF and PFS than ADT alone. Specifically, patients with number of positive LN ≥ 2 or PSA nadir ≥ 0.005 ng/ml after RP showed better 2nd BCF (P = 0.004) or PFS (P = 0.011) when treated with ADT plus RT rather than ADT alone.ConclusionsIn patients with LNP prostate cancer, salvage ADT plus RT improved 2nd BCF and PFS compared to ADT alone. In particular, when the patients had more than two positive lymph nodes or PSA nadir ≥ 0.005 ng/ml after RP, ADT with RT seems to be a more beneficial salvage treatment resulting in better 2nd BCF and PFS.

Project description:BackgroundPenile prosthesis surgery (PPS) is a commonly used treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED), either as first-line therapy or in cases refractory to other treatment options. In patients with a urologic malignancy such as prostate cancer, surgical interventions like radical prostatectomy (RP) as well as non-surgical treatments such as radiation therapy can all induce ED. PPS as a treatment for ED has high satisfaction rates in the general population. Our aim was to compare sexual satisfaction in patients with prosthesis implantation for ED following RP versus ED following radiation therapy for prostate cancer.MethodsA retrospective chart review from our institutional database was conducted to identify patients who underwent PPS at our institution from 2011 to 2021. Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire data at least 6 months from implant operative date available was required for inclusion. Eligible patients were placed in one of two groups depending on etiology of ED-following RP or prostate cancer radiation therapy. To prevent crossover confounding; patients with history of pelvic radiation were excluded from the RP group and patients with history of RP were excluded from the radiation group. Data were obtained from 51 patients in the RP group and 32 patients in the radiation therapy group. Mean EDITS scores and additional survey questions were compared between the radiation and RP groups.ResultsThere was a significant difference in mean survey responses for 8 of the 11 questions in the EDITS questionnaire between the RP group and the radiation group. Additional survey questions administered also found RP patients reported significantly higher rate of satisfaction with size of penis post-operatively versus the radiation group.ConclusionsThese preliminary findings, while requiring large-scale follow-up, suggest that there is greater sexual satisfaction and penile prosthesis device satisfaction in patients undergoing IPP placement following RP versus radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Use of validated questionnaires should continue to be utilized in quantifying device and sexual satisfaction following PPS.

Project description:Importance:Prostate cancer is the most common malignant neoplasm among men and is the one with the highest positive surgical margin (PSM) rate. This high rate is due to the difficulty in balancing the risk of extraprostatic disease and excising periprostatic structures, which ultimately affects patients' quality of life. In the case of a PSM, the appropriateness of adjuvant radiation therapy (aRT) should be discussed. The financial burden of PSMs on health systems has not been investigated. Objective:To estimate the financial costs associated with a PSM during radical prostatectomy on the basis of the odds of undergoing aRT. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study used data on men with prostate cancer from the US National Cancer Database (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2015). Data were requested in March 2019, accessed in April 2019, and analyzed in August 2019. Exposure:Treatment with radical prostatectomy followed by aRT, if indicated. Main Outcomes and Measures:The attributable risk fraction of PSMs on undergoing aRT was estimated from a logistic regression with aRT administration as the outcome. The analysis was adjusted for patients' socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and tumor characteristics. The aRT cost for the year 2019 was calculated using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System. The fraction of this cost attributable to a PSM was estimated according to its attributable risk fraction. Results:In total, 230?175 men were identified (median [interquartile range] age at diagnosis, 62.0 [56.0-67.0] years). Overall, 22.8% of the patients had a PSM. Patients with PSMs were more likely than those without PSMs to be older (median [interquartile range] age, 62.0 [56.0-66.0] years vs 62.0 [57.0-67.0] years) and nonwhite (9320 patients [17.8%] vs 29?872 patients [16.8%]), to have higher comorbidity scores (1604 patients [3.1%] vs 4884 patients [2.7%] with a Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index score ?2) and worse tumor characteristics (category T3 and T4 disease, 26?394 patients [50.3%] vs 36?040 patients [20.3%]), and to have lower socioeconomic indicators (median annual income <$30?000, 5708 patients [10.9%] vs 17?874 patients [10.1%]; proportion of individuals without a high school degree in the area ?29%, 6925 patients [13.2%] vs 22?648 patients [12.7%]). In addition, PSMs were documented more frequently at nonacademic institutions than academic ones (31?702 patients [60.5%] vs 20?714 patients [39.5%]). A total of 11?585 patients (5.0%) underwent aRT, and 7698 of them (3.3%) had a PSM at the final pathology examination. When controlling for patients' socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and tumor characteristics, men with PSMs were more likely than those with negative margins to undergo aRT, with an odds ratio of 3.79 (95% CI, 3.63-3.96; P?<?.001). The attributable risk fraction of the presence of a PSM on aRT was 44% (95% CI, 42%-45%). The attributable cost of a PSM was calculated as $17?356 (95% CI, $16?567-$17?751). Assuming 60?000 prostatectomies in 2019 and similar trends of PSM and aRT, the overall health burden attributable to PSMs was calculated to be $52?068?000 (95% CI, $49?701?000-$53?253?000). Conclusions and Relevance:The estimated aRT cost attributable to the presence of a PSM was $17?356, resulting in $52?068?000 in spending on aRT in 2019. Strategies to reduce PSMs could be associated with a reduction in the overall health costs of surgically treated PCa.

Project description:We assessed survival after radical prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy or conformal radiation therapy vs no local therapy for metastatic prostate cancer adjusting for patient comorbidity, androgen deprivation therapy and other factors.We identified men 66 years old or older with metastatic prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, conformal radiation therapy or no local therapy in the SEER-Medicare linked database from 2004 to 2009. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models before and after inverse propensity score weighting were used to assess all cause and prostate cancer specific mortality. Competing risk regression analysis was done to assess prostate cancer specific mortality.Of 4,069 men with metastatic prostate cancer radical prostatectomy in 47, intensity modulated radiation therapy in 88 and conformal radiation therapy in 107 were selected as local therapy vs no local therapy in 3,827. Radical prostatectomy was associated with a 52% decrease (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.85) in the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality after adjusting for sociodemographics, primary tumor characteristics, comorbidity, androgen deprivation therapy and bone radiation within 6 months of diagnosis. Intensity modulated radiation therapy was associated with a 62% decrease (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.61) in the risk of prostate specific cancer specific mortality. Conformal radiation therapy was not associated with improved survival compared to no local therapy. Propensity score weighting yielded comparable results. Competing risk analysis revealed a 42% and 57% decrease (SHR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.95 and SHR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.68, respectively) in the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality for radical prostatectomy and intensity modulated radiation therapy.Local therapy with radical prostatectomy and intensity modulated radiation therapy but not with conformal radiation therapy was associated with a survival benefit in men with metastatic prostate cancer. This finding warrants prospective evaluation in clinical trials.

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.).