Strahlentherapie und Onkologie

, Volume 191, Issue 4, pp 321–329 | Cite as

Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Comparison of treatment outcomes
  • Yeon-Joo Kim
  • Kwan Ho ChoEmail author
  • Hong Ryull Pyo
  • Kang Hyun Lee
  • Sung Ho Moon
  • Tae Hyun Kim
  • Kyung Hwan Shin
  • Joo-Young Kim
  • Young-kyung Kim
  • Se Byeong Lee
Original article



We retrospectively compared the treatment outcomes of localized prostate cancer between radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).

Materials and methods

We retrospectively analyzed 738 patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent either RP (n = 549) or EBRT (n = 189) with curative intent at our institution between March 2001 and December 2011. Biochemical failure was defined as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA)  level of ≥ 0.2 ng/ml in the RP group and the nadir of + ≥ 2 ng/ml in the EBRT group.


The median (range) follow-up duration was 48.8 months (0.7–133.2 months) and 48.7 months (1.0–134.8 months) and the median age was 66 years (45–89 years) and 71 years (51–84 years; p < 0.001) in the RP and EBRT groups, respectively. Overall, 21, 42, and 36 % of patients in the RP group, and 15, 27, and 58 % of patients in the EBRT group were classified as low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively (p < 0.001). Androgen-deprivation therapy was more common in the EBRT group (59 vs. 27 %, respectively; p < 0.001). The 8-year biochemical failure-free survival rates were 44 and 72 % (p < 0.001) and the disease-specific survival rates were 98 % and 97 % (p = 0.543) in the RP and EBRT groups, respectively.


Although the EBRT group included more high-risk patients than did the RP group, the outcomes of EBRT were not inferior to those of RP. Our data suggest that EBRT is a viable alternative to RP for treating localized prostate cancer.


Prostate cancer Prostatectomy Radiotherapy Biochemical failure-free survival Disease-specific survival 

Radikale Prostatektomie versus externe Strahlentherapie beim lokal begrenzten Prostatakarzinom

Vergleich der Behandlungsergebnisse



Wir vergleichen retrospektiv die Verfahrensergebnisse des lokal begrenzten Prostatakarzinoms zwischen radikaler Prostatektomie (RP) und externer Strahlentherapie (EBRT).

Material und Methoden

Wir analysieren zurückblickend 738 Patienten mit lokal begrenztem Prostatakarzinom, die zwischen März 2001 und Dezember 2011 in unserem Institut entweder eine RP (n = 549) oder eine EBRT (n = 189) mit kurativer Intention durchliefen. Biochemischer Fehler wurde als prostataspezifisches Antigen (PSA)  ≥ 0,2 ng/ml in der RP-Gruppe und ein Nadir + ≥ 2 ng/ml in EBRT-Gruppe definiert.


Die mediane Follow-up-Dauer betrug in der RP- bzw. der EBRT-Gruppe jeweils 48,8 Monate (Spanne 0,7–133,2 Monate) bzw. 48,7 Monate (Spanne 1,0–134,8 Monate) und das mittlere Alter 66 Jahre (Spanne 45–89 Jahre) bzw. 71 Jahre (Spanne 51–84 Jahre; p < 0,001). Insgesamt 21, 42, und 36 % der Patienten in der RP-Gruppe und 15, 27, und 58 % der Patienten in der EBRT-Gruppe waren jeweils klassifiziert als niedriges, mittleres bzw. hohes Risiko (P < 0,001). Eine Androgendeprivationstherapie war in der EBRT-Gruppe üblicher (59 vs. 27 %; p < 0,001). Die biochemischen fehlerfreien 8-Jahres-Überlebensraten lagen in der RP- bzw. der EBRT-Gruppe jeweils bei 44 und 72 % (p < 0,001) und die krankheitsspezifischen Überlebensraten bei 98 und 97 % (p = 0,543).


Obwohl die EBRT-Gruppe mehr Hochrisiko-Patienten als die RP-Gruppe umfasste, waren die Ergebnisse der EBRT nicht minderwertig zu den der RP. Unsere Daten weisen darauf hin, dass EBRT für das lokal begrenzte Prostatakarzinom eine verfügbare Alternative ist.


Prostatakarzinom Prostatektomie Strahlentherapie Biochemisches fehlerfreies Überleben Krankheitsspezifisches Überleben 


Compliance with ethical guidelines


This study was supported by Grant No.1010480 from the National Cancer Center, Korea.

Conflict of interest

Y-J. Kim, K.H. Cho, H.R. Pyo, K.H. Lee, S.H. Moon, T.H. Kim, K.H. Shin, J-Y. Kim, Y-K. Kim, and S.B. Lee state that there are no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ et al (2013) Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in 2010. Cancer Res Treat 45:1–14Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zeliadt SB, Ramsey SD, Penson DF et al (2006) Why do men choose one treatment over another?: a review of patient decision making for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 106:1865–1874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jang TL, Bekelman JE, Liu Y et al (2010) Physician visits prior to treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Archives Intern Med 170:440–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee DH, Jung HB, Chung MS et al (2013) The change of prostate cancer treatment in Korea: 5 year analysis of a single institution. Yonsei Med J 54:87–91Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim YJ, Cho KH, Pyo HR et al (2013) A phase II study of hypofractionated proton therapy for prostate cancer. Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) 52:477–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA et al (2006) Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a proposal for a standardized definition. J Clin Oncol 24:3973–3978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr et al (2006) Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:965–974Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines (2013) Accessed 1 Aug 2013
  9. 9.
    D’amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969–974CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Akakura K, Suzuki H, Ichikawa T et al (2006) A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy plus endocrine therapy versus external beam radiotherapy plus endocrine therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: results at median follow-up of 102 months. Jpn J Clin Oncol 36:789–793Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuban DA, Tucker SL, Dong L et al (2008) Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:67–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kupelian PA (2002) Comparison of the efficacy of local therapies for localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen era: a large single-institution experience with radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 20:3376–3385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arcangeli G, Strigari L, Arcangeli S et al (2009) Retrospective comparison of external beam radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy in high-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 75:975–982CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zelefsky MJ, Eastham JA, Cronin AM et al (2010) Metastasis after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a comparison of clinical cohorts adjusted for case mix. J Clin Oncol 28:1508–1513CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sooriakumaran P, Nyberg T, Akre O et al (2014) Comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in prostate cancer: observational study of mortality outcomes. BMJ 348:g1502Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Winkelmayer WC, Kurth T (2004) Propensity scores: help or hype? Nephrol Dial Transplant 19:1671–1673Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoffman RM, Hunt WC, Gilliland FD et al (2003) Patient satisfaction with treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. Cancer 97:1653–1662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fellin G, Rancati T, Fiorino C et al (2014) Long term rectal function after high-dose prostatecancer radiotherapy: results from a prospective cohort study. Radiother Oncol 110:272–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zelefsky MJ, Levin EJ, Hunt M et al (2008) Incidence of late rectal and urinary toxicities after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:1124–1129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guckenberger M, Ok S, Polat B et al (2010) Toxicity after intensity-modulated, image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 186:535–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghadjar P, Gwerder N, Manser P et al (2010) High-dose (80 Gy) intensity-modulated radiation therapy with daily image-guidance as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 186:687–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Razzaghdoust A, Mozdarani H, Mofid B (2014) Famotidine as a radioprotector for rectal mucosa in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: phase I/II randomized placebo-controlled trial. Strahlenther Onkol 190:739–744CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bolla M, Van Poppel H, Tombal B et al (2012) Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 380:2018–2027CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yeon-Joo Kim
    • 1
  • Kwan Ho Cho
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hong Ryull Pyo
    • 2
  • Kang Hyun Lee
    • 1
  • Sung Ho Moon
    • 1
  • Tae Hyun Kim
    • 1
  • Kyung Hwan Shin
    • 1
  • Joo-Young Kim
    • 1
  • Young-kyung Kim
    • 1
  • Se Byeong Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute and HospitalNational Cancer CenterGoyangKorea
  2. 2.Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, School of MedicineSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations