Survival after Radical Prostatectomy versus Radiation Therapy in High-Risk and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article
- Keywords
- prostatectomy, prostatic neoplasms, radiotherapy, risk,
- MeSH
- Survival Analysis MeSH
- Brachytherapy statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Risk Assessment statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Kallikreins blood MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Prostatic Neoplasms blood diagnosis mortality therapy MeSH
- SEER Program MeSH
- Prostate pathology radiation effects surgery MeSH
- Prostatectomy statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Prostate-Specific Antigen blood MeSH
- Retrospective Studies MeSH
- Risk Factors MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Neoplasm Staging MeSH
- Neoplasm Grading MeSH
- Propensity Score MeSH
- Age Factors MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Kallikreins MeSH
- KLK3 protein, human MeSH Browser
- Prostate-Specific Antigen MeSH
PURPOSE: Our goal was to compare cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network© (NCCN©) high risk (HR) patients, as well as in Johns Hopkins University (JH) HR and very high risk (VHR) subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 24,407 NCCN HR patients, of whom 10,300 (42%) vs 14,107 (58%) patients qualified for JH HR vs VHR, respectively. Overall, 9,823 (40%) underwent RP vs 14,584 (60%) EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing-risks regression addressed CSM after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, prostate specific antigen, clinical T and N stages, and biopsy Gleason score) between RP and EBRT patients. All analyses addressed the combined NCCN HR cohort, as well as in JH HR and JH VHR subgroups. RESULTS: In the combined NCCN HR cohort 5-year CSM rates were 2.3% for RP vs 4.1% for EBRT and yielded a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.54-0.86, p <0.001) favoring RP. In VHR patients 5-year CSM rates were 3.5% for RP vs 6.0% for EBRT, yielding a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% CI 0.44-0.77, p <0.001) favoring RP. Conversely, in HR patients no significant difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.39-1.25, p=0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that RP holds a CSM advantage over EBRT in the combined NCCN HR cohort, and in its subgroup of JH VHR patients.
Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences University of Genova Genova Italy
Department of Urology 2nd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic
Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria
Department of Urology University Hospital Frankfurt Frankfurt am Main Germany
Department of Urology University of Texas Southwestern Dallas Texas
Departments of Urology Weill Cornell Medical College New York New York
Martini Klinik Prostate Cancer Center University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf Hamburg Germany
References provided by Crossref.org
Contemporary seminal vesicle invasion rates in NCCN high-risk prostate cancer patients
