20-year survival after radical prostatectomy as initial treatment for cT3 prostate cancer.
ABSTRACT Study Type - Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Despite a lack of randomised controlled trials, most men with locally advanced prostate cancer are recommended to undergo external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), often combined with long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Many of these men are not offered radical prostatectomy (RP) by their treating urologist. Additionally, it is know that EBRT with long-term ADT does provide good cancer control (88% at 10 years). We have previously published intermediate-term follow-up of a large series of men treatment with RP for cT3 prostate cancer. We report long-term follow-up of a large series of men treated with RP as primary treatment for cT3 prostate cancer. Our study shows that with long-term follow-up RP provides excellent oncological outcomes even at 20 years. While most men do require a multimodal treatment approach, many men can be managed successfully with RP alone. 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 Kaplan-Meier 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 (0.1-23.5) 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.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although the optimal treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer remains unclear, combined radiotherapy and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has become the standard of care; however, more recently, this paradigm has been challenged. In contemporary surgical series, using a multimodal approach with primary radical prostatectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy, when appropriate, had comparable efficacy in patients with high-risk disease to radiotherapy in combination with ADT. Furthermore, perioperative and postoperative morbidity associated with radical prostatectomy seem to be similar in patients with low-risk, intermediate-risk, or high-risk prostate cancer. Importantly, downstaging and downgrading of a substantial proportion of tumours after surgery suggests that many patients might be overtreated using radiotherapy and ADT. Indeed, the potential benefits of surgery include the ability to obtain tissues that can provide accurate histopathological information and, therefore, guide further disease management, in addition to local control of disease, a potentially reduced risk of developing metastases, and avoidance of long-term ADT. Thus, patients with high-risk disease should be offered a choice of first-line treatments, including surgery. However, effective management of high-risk prostate cancer is likely to require a multimodal approach, including surgery, radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant and adjuvant ADT, although the optimal protocols remain to be determined.Nature Reviews Urology 05/2014; · 4.79 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Positron emission tomography (PET) with a number of tracers targeted to particular biological features of cancer has been explored for the imaging evaluation of patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after curative primary treatment. However, these reports are often heterogeneous in study design, patient cohorts, standards of reference for the imaging findings, data analysis, and data reporting. The aim of our study was to address these limitations by extracting and re-analyzing the PET detection data only from studies that satisfied pre-defined sets of patient selection criteria and verification standards. Our investigation analyzed the effects of 5 tracers ((18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), (11)C-acetate (ACET), (11)C- or (18)F-choline (CHOL), anti-1-amino-3-(18)F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (FACBC), and radiolabeled ligand targeted to prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)), 2 treatment types (radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy), and whether the detected disease was local or metastatic, including lesion type (bone, lymph node, soft tissue). FDG exhibited the lowest detection rate for any suspected disease. ACET tended to be advantageous over CHOL in detecting local recurrence and lymph node lesions, even though the difference was not statistically significant. FACBC had greater likelihood of detecting local recurrence, when compared to CHOL, though this difference was not statistically significant. PSMA tended to show a higher proportion of patients with suspected disease compared to the other four tracers. Patients treated with radiation therapy had greater odds of displaying local recurrence on PET than those treated with radical prostatectomy. We also provide suggestions for future investigations that facilitate communication and the impact of the findings.American Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 01/2014; 4(6):580-601. · 3.25 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In 2010, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) developed treatment guidelines for men with prostate cancer who are older than 70 years old. In 2013, a new multidisciplinary SIOG working group was formed to update these recommendations. The consensus of the task force is that older men with prostate cancer should be managed according to their individual health status, not according to age. On the basis of a validated rapid health status screening instrument and simple assessment, the task force recommends that patients are classed into three groups for treatment: healthy or fit patients who should have the same treatment options as younger patients; vulnerable patients with reversible impairment who should receive standard treatment after medical intervention; and frail patients with non-reversible impairment who should receive adapted treatment.The Lancet Oncology 08/2014; 15(9):e404–e414. · 24.73 Impact Factor