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
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common non-skin cancer among men in developed countries. Several novel treatments have been adopted by healthcare systems to manage PCa. Most of the observational studies and randomized trials on PCa have concurrently evaluated fewer treatments over short follow-up. Further, preceding decision analytic models on PCa management have not evaluated various contemporary management options. Therefore, a contemporary decision analytic model was necessary to address limitations to the literature by synthesizing the evidence on novel treatments thereby forecasting short and long-term clinical outcomes. To develop and validate a Markov Monte Carlo model for the contemporary clinical management of PCa, and to assess the clinical burden of the disease from diagnosis to end-of-life. A Markov Monte Carlo model was developed to simulate the management of PCa in men 65 years and older from diagnosis to end-of-life. Health states modeled were: risk at diagnosis, active surveillance, active treatment, PCa recurrence, PCa recurrence free, metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer, overall and PCa death. Treatment trajectories were based on state transition probabilities derived from the literature. Validation and sensitivity analyses assessed the accuracy and robustness of model predicted outcomes. Validation indicated model predicted rates were comparable to observed rates in the published literature. The simulated distribution of clinical outcomes for the base case was consistent with sensitivity analyses. Predicted rate of clinical outcomes and mortality varied across risk groups. Life expectancy and health adjusted life expectancy predicted for the simulated cohort was 20.9 years (95%CI 20.5-21.3) and 18.2 years (95% CI 17.9-18.5), respectively. Study findings indicated contemporary management strategies improved survival and quality of life in patients with PCa. This model could be used to compare long-term outcomes and life expectancy conferred of PCa management paradigms.
    PLoS ONE 12/2014; 9(12):e113432. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0113432 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • 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


Available from
May 16, 2014
Available from