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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
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
Professionals SO Prostate cancer. In: Uroweb. http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/#5. Accessed 25 Mar 2018
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
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.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
345_2018_2310_MOESM1_ESM.tiff
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
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)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bandini, M., Marchioni, M., Preisser, F. et al. Survival after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for locally advanced (cT3) prostate cancer. World J Urol 36, 1399–1407 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2310-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2310-y