Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 9, pp 1399–1407 | Cite as

Survival after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for locally advanced (cT3) prostate cancer

  • Marco BandiniEmail author
  • Michele Marchioni
  • Felix Preisser
  • Emanuele Zaffuto
  • Zhe Tian
  • Derya Tilki
  • Francesco Montorsi
  • Shahrokh F. Shariat
  • Fred Saad
  • Alberto Briganti
  • Pierre I. Karakiewicz
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

No prospective data examined the effect of radical prostatectomy (RP) vs. external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to compare survival outcomes of RP and EBRT in patients harboring cT3N0-1 PCa.

Methods

Within the SEER database (2004–2014), we identified 5500 cT3N0-1 PCa patients. Cumulative incidence plots and competing-risks regression models (CRRs) tested cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other cause of mortality (OCM) according to treatment type. The multivariable relationship between baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values and 10-year CSM after either RP or EBRT was graphically depicted using the LOESS smoothing method. Sensitivity analyses were performed in cT3N0-only patients, after OCM propensity score matching, and through landmark analyses.

Results

Ten-year CSM and OCM rates were significantly higher after EBRT (15.8 and 28.2%) than RP (8.1 and 10.4%) (all p < 0.0001). In multivariable CRRs, RP yielded lower CSM [hazard ratio (HR): 0.64] than EBRT. Significantly lower 10-year CSM rate was recorded after RP vs. EBRT through the entire range of baseline PSA values. The same results were recorded in cT3N0 subgroup, as well as after OCM propensity score matching. Finally, landmark analyses at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months rejected the effect of favorable survival bias after RP.

Conclusions

CSM was significantly lower after RP than EBRT in cT3N0-1 PCa. A lower CSM was recorded throughout the entire range of baseline PSA and even in cT3N0 subgroup, as well as after OCM propensity score matching and landmark analyses.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy External beam radiotherapy Locally advanced disease SEER program 

Notes

Author contribution

MB: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. FP: data collection or management. MM: manuscript writing/editing. ZT: data analysis. EZ: manuscript writing/editing. DT: data analysis. FM: protocol/project development. SFS: data collection or management. AB: protocol/project development. FS: manuscript writing/editing. PIK: manuscript writing/editing, protocol/project development.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have stated that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

345_2018_2310_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (902 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1. Graphical depiction of multivariable adjusted cancer specific mortality rate (LOESS) in 1,866 cT3N0-1 prostate cancer after other cause mortality propensity score matching according to treatment received: radical prostatectomy vs. external beam radiotherapy. 1 (TIFF 902 kb)
345_2018_2310_MOESM2_ESM.tiff (902 kb)
Supplementary Figure 2. Cumulative incidence plots depicting other cause mortality rates in 1,866 cT3N0-1 prostate cancer after other cause mortality propensity score matching stratified according to treatment received: radical prostatectomy vs. external beam radiotherapy. 2 (TIFF 902 kb)
345_2018_2310_MOESM3_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 12 kb)
345_2018_2310_MOESM4_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML et al (2005) Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int 95:751–756.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05394.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lardas M, Liew M, van den Bergh RC et al (2017) Quality of life outcomes after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 72:869–885.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Professionals SO Prostate cancer. In: Uroweb. http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/#5. Accessed 25 Mar 2018
  4. 4.
    Mitchell CR, Boorjian SA, Umbreit EC et al (2012) 20-Year survival after radical prostatectomy as initial treatment for cT3 prostate cancer. BJU Int 110:1709–1713.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11372.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hsu CY, Wildhagen MF, Van Poppel H, Bangma CH (2010) Prognostic factors for and outcome of locally advanced prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 105:1536–1540.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09054.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yamamoto S, Kawakami S, Yonese J et al (2014) Long-term oncological outcome in men with T3 prostate cancer: radical prostatectomy versus external-beam radiation therapy at a single institution. Int J Clin Oncol 19:1085–1091.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-013-0654-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Viterbo R et al (2011) Long-term survival after radical prostatectomy versus external-beam radiotherapy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Cancer 117:2883–2891.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25900 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pilepich MV, Winter K, Lawton CA et al (2005) Androgen suppression adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in prostate carcinoma–long-term results of phase III RTOG 85-31. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:1285–1290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.08.047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noone AM, Cronin KA, Altekruse SF et al (2017) Cancer incidence and survival trends by subtype using data from the surveillance epidemiology and end results program, 1992–2013. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 26:632–641.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0520 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    National cancer institute surveillance, epidemiology, and end results prostate-specific antigen working group, Adamo MP, Boten JA et al (2017) Validation of prostate-specific antigen laboratory values recorded in surveillance, epidemiology, and end results registries. Cancer 123:697–703.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bandini M, Pompe RS, Marchioni M et al (2017) Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy reduce prostate cancer mortality in elderly patients: a population-based propensity score adjusted analysis. World J Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2102-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leyh-Bannurah SR, Budäus L, Zaffuto E et al (2017) Adherence to pelvic lymph node dissection recommendations according to the national comprehensive cancer network pelvic lymph node dissection guideline and the D’Amico lymph node invasion risk stratification. Urol Oncol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.10.022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rusthoven CG, Waxweiler TV, DeWitt PE et al (2015) Gleason stratifications prognostic for survival in men receiving definitive external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 33(71):e11–e19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bandini M, Preisser F, Nazzani S et al (2018) Contemporary trends and survival outcomes after aborted radical prostatectomy in lymph node metastatic prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol Focus.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.01.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD et al (2016) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 69:428–435.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Logan BR, Zhang MJ (2013) The use of group sequential designs with common competing risks tests. Stat Med 32:899–913.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5597 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scrucca L, Santucci A, Aversa F (2010) Regression modeling of competing risk using R: an in depth guide for clinicians. Bone Marrow Transplant 45:1388–1395.  https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2009.359 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cleveland WS, Devlin SJ (1988) Locally weighted regression: an approach to regression analysis by local fitting. J Am Stat Assoc 83:596–610.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478639 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mnatzaganian G, Davidson DC, Hiller JE, Ryan P (2015) Propensity score matching and randomization. J Clin Epidemiol 68:760–768.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anderson JR, Cain KC, Gelber RD (1983) Analysis of survival by tumor response. J Clin Oncol 1:710–719.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1983.1.11.710 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hager B, Kraywinkel K, Keck B et al (2017) Increasing use of radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer in the USA and Germany: a comparative population-based study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20:61–66.  https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2016.43 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 28:1508–1513.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.22.2265 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kupelian PA, Elshaikh M, Reddy CA et al (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 20:3376–3385.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.01.150 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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 36:789–793.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyl115 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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 75:975–982.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.045 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gabriele D, Collura D, Oderda M et al (2016) Is there still a role for computed tomography and bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer staging? An analysis from the EUREKA-1 database. World J Urol 34:517–523.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1669-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Bandini
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Michele Marchioni
    • 3
    • 4
  • Felix Preisser
    • 3
    • 5
  • Emanuele Zaffuto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhe Tian
    • 3
  • Derya Tilki
    • 5
  • Francesco Montorsi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shahrokh F. Shariat
    • 6
  • Fred Saad
    • 3
  • Alberto Briganti
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pierre I. Karakiewicz
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology URIIRCCS Ospedale San RaffaeleMilanItaly
  2. 2.Vita-Salute San Raffaele UniversityMilanItaly
  3. 3.Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montreal Health CenterMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Department of UrologySS Annunziata Hospital, “G. D’Annunzio” University of ChietiChietiItaly
  5. 5.Martini Klinik, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  6. 6.Department of UrologyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations