20-Year survival after radical prostatectomy as initial treatment for cT3 prostate cancer
Departments of Urology Health Sciences Research, Mayo Medical School and Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. BJU International
(Impact Factor: 3.53).
08/2012; 110(11). DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11372.x
OBJECTIVE To present long-term survival outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) for patients with cT3 prostate cancer, as the optimal treatment for patients with clinical T3 prostate cancer is debated. PATIENTS AND METHODS We identified 843 men who underwent RP for cT3 tumours between 1987 and 1997. Survival was estimated using the KaplanMeier method. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the association of clinicopathological features with outcome RESULTS The median (range) postoperative follow-up was 14.3 (0.123.5) years. Down-staging to pT2 disease occurred in 26% (223/843) at surgery. Local recurrence-free, systemic progression-free and cancer-specific survival for men with cT3 prostate cancer after RP was 76%, 72%, and 81%, respectively, at 20 years. On multivariate analysis, increasing RP Gleason score (hazard ratio [HR] 1.8; P= 0.01), non-diploid chromatin content (HR 1.8; P= 0.01), positive surgical margins (HR 2.1; P= 0.007), and seminal vesicle invasion (HR 2.1; P= 0.005) were associated with a significant risk of prostate cancer death, while a more recent year of surgery was associated with a decreased risk of cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.88; P= 0.01) CONCLUSIONS RP affords accurate pathological staging and may be associated with durable cancer control for cT3 prostate cancer, with 20 years of follow-up presented here. RP as part of a multimodal treatment strategy therefore remains a viable treatment option for patients with cT3 tumours.
Available from: Isabel Syndikus
- "This might also reduce the incidence of disease up-and downstaging , which have been reported from radical prostatectomy series in men with apparent clinical T3 disease at presentation . Of note, these studies (although not comparing with radical radiotherapy) have shown encouraging results from radical prostatectomy as a monomodality therapy for initial T3 disease  . Nevertheless , although in localised disease the evidence base for radical radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy may arguably show equivalence of outcomes, the same cannot currently be said of locally advanced disease because of the paucity of good-quality radical prostatectomy data that in the main have come from single institution case series. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: As the incidence of prostate cancer rises, the detection and management of men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer is becoming increasingly important. The benefits of radical treatment have been clearly shown in this group from a number of publications. The current mainstays of treatment are radical prostatectomy (with selective use of adjuvant radiation) and radical radiotherapy with concurrent androgen deprivation. The outcomes from these two approaches seem to be remarkably similar and are considered equally valid options for primary treatment. The choice of therapy is critically dependent on a number of factors, but ultimately left to the decision of the patients with advice from clinicians. Clinicians themselves, however, are known to be biased towards their particular skill set and experiences. Attempts at randomised comparisons between these two modalities have so far failed and are confounded by patient-clinician bias, the continual advances in therapy as well as the long natural history of the disease. In the lack of level 1 comparable evidence, this article explores the existing literature as to the key factors that should be considered in radical treatment selection for high-risk prostate cancer. These factors include disease aggressiveness, comorbidity and life expectancy, functional outcomes and the consequences of therapy failure with regards to salvage treatment. We propose that these factors may be useful in developing a decision guide for rationale radical therapy selection in the light of two apparently equally effective treatments. Ultimately, however, there is an urgent need for added clinical and biological markers that can provide a more precise approach to therapy selection.
Copyright © 2014 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Clinical Oncology 11/2014; 27(3). DOI:10.1016/j.clon.2014.11.004 · 3.40 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Clinical stage has been incorporated into multiple risk stratification models for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. However, the independent prognostic value of this variable remains open to debate. In this study we evaluated the association of clinical stage with death from prostate cancer in men who underwent radical prostatectomy and assessed for changes in its prognostic value over time.
Materials and methods:
We reviewed the records of 14,842 consecutive patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution between 1970 and 2008 without having received preoperative hormone or radiation therapy. Postoperative disease recurrence was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to analyze the association of clinical stage with outcome.
A total of 5,725 (38.6%) men were classified as having cT1 tumors, 8,160 (55.0%) cT2 tumors and 957 (6.4%) cT3 disease. On univariate analysis clinical stage was significantly associated with postoperative biochemical recurrence, systemic progression and death from prostate cancer (p <0.001 for each). Moreover on multivariate analysis clinical stage was significantly associated with death from cancer for patients treated before (1.45, p = 0.006) and those treated during (1.96, p <0.001) the prostate specific antigen era. Furthermore, the incorporation of clinical stage into contemporary risk stratification improved the prediction of cancer specific survival (c statistic 0.782 without and 0.802 with clinical stage).
Clinical stage is significantly associated with systemic progression and death from prostate cancer. Inclusion of this variable in multivariate prediction models improves the prediction of systemic progression and cancer specific survival.
The Journal of urology 11/2012; 189(5). DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.065 · 4.47 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose of review:
Prostate cancer remains the commonest nondermatological cause of cancer in Western men and the second leading cause of cancer death in these men. While low and intermediate-risk prostate cancers make up the vast bulk of prostate cancer diagnoses, it is high-risk prostate cancer that is a much larger killer. Management paradigms for such disease are changing and thus we review the current state of play with the management of these cancers and what the future might hold.
High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous beast, with huge variations in disease severity. Hence, management of these cases must be tailored based on specific risk factors of individual patients, and the role for surgery especially in the lower end of the spectrum is increasing.
The increasing use of radical extirpative surgery might negatively impact functional outcomes but are likely to prolong lives of high-risk prostate cancer sufferers, though more research from well conducted randomized controlled trials is needed to exactly define which patient subpopulations should receive which therapies, in which orders, and at what times.
Current opinion in urology 05/2013; 23(4). DOI:10.1097/MOU.0b013e328361ebea · 2.33 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.