Comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in prostate cancer: observational study of mortality outcomes

BMJ (online) (Impact Factor: 16.38). 02/2014; 348:g1502. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g1502
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare the survival outcomes of patients treated with surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
Observational study.
Sweden, 1996-2010.
34 515 men primarily treated for prostate cancer with surgery (n=21 533) or radiotherapy (n=12 982). Patients were categorised by risk group (low, intermediate, high, and metastatic), age, and Charlson comorbidity score.
Cumulative incidence of mortality from prostate cancer and other causes. Competing risks regression hazard ratios for radiotherapy versus surgery were computed without adjustment and after propensity score and traditional (multivariable) adjustments, as well as after propensity score matching. Several sensitivity analyses were performed.
Prostate cancer mortality became a larger proportion of overall mortality as risk group increased for both the surgery and the radiotherapy cohorts. Among patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer the adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio for prostate cancer mortality favoured surgery (1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 2.08, for radiotherapy v prostatectomy), whereas there was no discernible difference in treatment effect among men with metastatic disease. Subgroup analyses indicated more clear benefits of surgery among younger and fitter men with intermediate and high risk disease. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the main findings.
This large observational study with follow-up to 15 years suggests that for most men with non-metastatic prostate cancer, surgery leads to better survival than does radiotherapy. Younger men and those with less comorbidity who have intermediate or high risk localised prostate cancer might have a greater benefit from surgery.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The main objective of this review is to summarise, for primary and secondary care doctors, the management options and current supporting evidence for clinically localised prostate cancer. We review all aspects of management including current guidelines on early cancer detection and the importance of informed consent on PSA-based screening and assess the most common treatment options and the evidence for managing patients with low-, medium-, and high-risk disease.
    Current Urology Reports 05/2015; 16(5):502. DOI:10.1007/s11934-015-0502-1
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Increasing proportions of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the UK are presenting with non-metastatic disease. We investigated how treatment trends in this demographic have changed. Non-metastatic cancers diagnosed from 2000-2010 in the UK Anglian Cancer network stratified by age and risk group were analysed [n = 10,365]. Radiotherapy [RT] and prostatectomy [RP] cancer specific survival [CSS] were further compared [n = 4755]. Over the decade we observed a fall in uptake of primary androgen deprivation therapy but a rise in conservative management [CM] and radical therapy [p<0.0001]. CM in particular has become the primary management for low-risk disease by the decade end [p<0.0001]. In high-risk disease however both RP and RT uptake increased significantly but in an age dependent manner [p<0.0001]. Principally, increased RP in younger men and increased RT in men ≥ 70y. In multivariate analysis of radically treated men both high-risk disease [HR 8.0 [2.9-22.2], p<0.0001] and use of RT [HR 1.9 [1.0-3.3], p = 0.024] were significant predictors of a poorer CSM. In age-stratified analysis however, the trend to benefit of RP over RT was seen only in younger men [≤ 60 years] with high-risk disease [p = 0.07]. The numbers needed to treat by RP instead of RT to save one cancer death was 19 for this group but 67 for the overall cohort. This study has identified significant shifts in non-metastatic prostate cancer management over the last decade. Low-risk disease is now primarily managed by CM while high-risk disease is increasingly treated radically. Treatment of high-risk younger men by RP is supported by evidence of better CSM but this benefit is not evident in older men.
    PLoS ONE 03/2015; 10(3):e0119494. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0119494 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Men undergoing treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer may experience a number of treatment-related complications, which affect their quality of life.Methods:On the basis of population-based retrospective cohort of men undergoing surgery, with or without subsequent radiotherapy, or radiotherapy alone for prostate cancer in Ontario, Canada, we measured the incidence of treatment-related complications using administrative and billing data.Results:Of 36 984 patients, 15 870 (42.9%) underwent surgery alone, 4519 (12.2%) underwent surgery followed by radiotherapy, and 16 595 (44.9%) underwent radiotherapy alone. For all end points except urologic procedures, the 5-year cumulative incidence rates were lowest in the surgery only group and highest in the radiotherapy only group. Intermediary rates were seen in the surgery followed by radiotherapy group, except for urologic procedures where rates were the highest in this group. Although age and comorbidity were important predictors, radiotherapy as the primary treatment modality was associated with higher rates for all complications (adjusted hazard ratios 1.6-4.7, P=0.002 to <0.0001).Conclusions:In patients treated for prostate cancer, radiation after surgery increases the rate of complications compared with surgery alone, though these rates remain lower than patients treated with radiation alone. This information may inform patient and physician decision making in the treatment of prostate cancer.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 17 February 2015; doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.54
    British Journal of Cancer 02/2015; 112(6). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2015.54 · 4.82 Impact Factor


Available from
May 16, 2014
Available from