Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer: Are We Moving Towards More or Less Radical Surgical Intervention?

  • Urosurgery (J Collins, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Treatment possibilities for clinically localised prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, focal therapy and active surveillance. Conflicting and methodologically flawed observational data from the last two decades have led to uncertainty as to the best oncological option. However, recently, there has been a series of high-quality studies that point to disease specific and overall survival advantages for those men undergoing RP. This article reviews the latest evidence and argues that at the current time, RP must be considered the gold standard treatment for the majority of men with clinically localised prostate cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Athene Lane J, Donovan JL, David M, et al. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: study design and diagnostic and baseline results of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(10):1109–18. Important baseline details and recruitment information for the soon to be published ProtecT RCT.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys ED, et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic state of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology. 2007;69:1095–101.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:932–42. Updated results from the SPCG-4 trial.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localised prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:203–13. Results of the PIVOT trial.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Roobol MJ, Bokhorst LP. The ProtecT trial: what can we expect? Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(10):1046–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kates M, Tosoian J, Trock BJ et al. Indications for intervention during active surveillance of prostate cancer: a comparison of the Johns Hopkins and Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocols. BJUI. 2014; 12828

  7. Surcel CI, Sooriakumaran P, Briganti A et al. Preferences for the management of high-risk prostate cancer among urologists in Europe: results of a web-based survey. BJUI Int. 2014; 12796

  8. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):969–74. Seminal paper comparing outcomes following treatment for prostate cancer.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zelefsky MJ, Eastham JA, Cronin AM, et al. 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. 2010;28(9):1508–13.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kupelian PA, Elshaikh M, Reddy CA, et al. 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. 2002;20(16):3376–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grimm P, Billiet I, Bostwick D, et al. Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group. BJUI. 2012;109(1):22–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cooperberg MR, Vickers AJ, Broering JM, et al. Comparative risk-adjusted mortality outcomes after primary surgery, radiotherapy, or androgen-deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2010;116(22):5226–34.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1708–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sun M, Sammon JD, Becker A, et al. Radical prostatectomy vs radiotherapy vs observation among older patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a comparative effectiveness evaluation. BJUI. 2014;113:200–8. High quality recently published observational study.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoffman RM, Koyama T, Kang-Hsien F, et al. Mortality after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. JNCI. 2013;105(10):711–8. High quality recently published observational study.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Daskivich TJ, Chamie K, Kwan L, et al. Improved prediction of long-term, other cause mortality in men with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011;186(5):1868–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sooriakumaran P, Nyberg T, Akre O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in prostate cancer: observational study of mortality outcomes. BMJ. 2014;348:1502. Recently published observational study with near complete high quality dataset.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stattin P, Loeb S, et al. “To measure is to know. If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it”: statistical modeling cannot compensate for unmeasured bias. Eur Urol. 2014;65(4):701–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rane A. Surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer? BMJ. 2014;348:g1580.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Matthew AG, Alibhai SM, Davidson T, et al. Health-related quality of life following radical prostatectomy: long term outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2309–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shroeck FL, Krupski T, Sun L, et al. Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;54(4):785–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nam RK, Cheung P, Herschorn S, et al. Incidence of complications other than urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(2):223–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schuessler WW, Schulmam PG, Clayman RV, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology. 1997;50(6):854–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mayer EK, Winkler MH, Aggarwal R, et al. Robotic prostatectomy: the first UK experience. Int J Med Robot. 2006;2(4):321–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):382–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen R, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):431–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. [http://www.baus.org.uk/Resources/BAUS/Documents/PDF%20Documents/Data%20and%20Audit/RadProsSnapshotPoster2012.pdf] Accessed 06/12/14.

  28. Sooriakumaran P, Haendler L, Nyberg T, et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a european single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol. 2012;62(5):768–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2185–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W, et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(8):591–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Shoots I, Petrides N, Giganti F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;10(050):S0302–2838.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sooriakumaran P, Calway A, Sagalovich D, et al. The impact of multiple biopsies on outcomes of nerve-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Impot Res. 2012;24(4):161–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Barret E, Ahallal Y, Sanchez-Salas R, et al. Morbidity of focal therapy in the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;63:618–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ahmed HU, Freeman A, Kirkham A, et al. Focal therapy for localised prostate cancer: a phase I/II trial. J Urol. 2011;185:1246–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ahmed HU, Hindley RG, Dickinson L, et al. Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:622–32.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bahn D, de Castro Abeu AL, Gill IS, et al. Focal cryotherapy for clinically unilateral, low-intermediate risk prostate cancer in 73 men with a median follow-up of 3.7 years. Eur Urol. 2012;62:55–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Haffner M, Mosbruger T, Esopi DM, et al. Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer. J Clin Invest. 2013;123(11):4918–22.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Kirkham AP, et al. A multi-centre prospective development study evaluating focal therapy using high intensity focused ultrasound for localised prostate cancer: The INDEX study. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;36(1):68–80.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Daniel J. Stevens, Dr. Naomi L. Sharma and Dr. Roger Kirby each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Dr. Ashutosh K. Tewari reports grants and personal fees from Intuitive Surgical Inc.

Dr. Prasanna Sooriakumaran reports grants from Intuitive Surgical Inc., personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Spoonful of Sugar Ltd., grants from European Urology Scholarship Fund, outside the submitted work; and The Endourological Society, Intuitive Surgical Inc., Prostate UK, The Urology Foundation, and the European Urology Scholarship Fund for surgical training in radical prostatectomy.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Daniel J. Stevens

  2. Department of Urology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK

    Daniel J. Stevens, Naomi L. Sharma & Prasanna Sooriakumaran

  3. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Prasanna Sooriakumaran

  4. Department of Urology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Ashutosh K. Tewari

  5. The Prostate Centre, London, UK

    Roger Kirby

  6. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

    Prasanna Sooriakumaran

Authors
  1. Daniel J. Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naomi L. Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ashutosh K. Tewari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roger Kirby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Prasanna Sooriakumaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prasanna Sooriakumaran.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Urosurgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stevens, D.J., Sharma, N.L., Tewari, A.K. et al. Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer: Are We Moving Towards More or Less Radical Surgical Intervention?. Curr Urol Rep 16, 27 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0504-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0504-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation