AIM: To compare overall mortality (OM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM), and other cause mortality (OCM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) versus radiotherapy (RT) in clinical node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER) (2004-2016), we identified 4685 cN1 PCa patients, of whom 3589 (76.6%) versus 1096 (24.4%) were treated with RP versus RT. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression models tested the effect of RP versus RT on OM, while cumulative incidence plots and competing-risks regression (CRR) models addressed CSM and OCM between RP and RT patients. All analyses were repeated after the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). For CSM and OCM analyses, the propensity score was used as a covariate in the regression model. RESULTS: Overall, RT patients were older, harbored higher prostate-specific antigen values, higher clinical T and higher Gleason grade groups. PSM resulted in two equally sized groups of 894 RP versus 894 RT patients. After PSM, 5-year OM, CSM, and OCM rates were, respectively, 15.4% versus 25%, 9.3% versus 17%, and 6.1% versus 8% for RP versus RT (all p < 0.001) and yielded respective multivariate hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.63 (0.52-0.78, p < 0.001), 0.66 (0.52-0.86, p < 0.001), 0.71 (0.5-1.0, p = 0.05), all favoring RP. After IPTW, Cox regression models yielded HR of 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.66) for OM, and CRR yielded HRs of 0.49 (0.34-0.70) and 0.54 (0.36-0.79) for, respectively, CSM and OCM, all favoring RP (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RP may hold a CSM advantage over RT in cN1 PCa patients.

Department of Maternal Child and Urological Sciences Sapienza Rome University Policlinico Umberto 1 Hospital Rome Italy

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 Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit Division of Urology University of Montréal Health Center Montréal Québec Canada

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Urology Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health 1 M Sechenov 1st Moscow State Medical University Moscow Russia

Department of Urology Martini Klinik Prostate Cancer Center University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf Hamburg Germany

Department of Urology University Hospital Frankfurt Frankfurt am Main Germany

Department of Urology University of Texas Southwestern Dallas Texas USA

Department of Urology Weill Cornell Medical College New York New York USA

Division of Experimental Oncology Department of Urology URI Urological Research Institute IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute Milan Italy

Division of Urology Department of Special Surgery Jordan University Hospital The University of Jordan Amman Jordan

Prostate. 2022 Sep;82(12):1219-1220. doi: 10.1002/pros.24377. PubMed

See more in PubMed

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7‐30. 10.3322/caac.21442 PubMed DOI

Ventimiglia E, Seisen T, Abdollah F, et al. A systematic review of the role of definitive local treatment in patients with clinically lymph node‐positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2:294‐301. 10.1016/j.euo.2019.02.001 PubMed DOI

Jang TL, Patel N, Faiena I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy with adjuvant radiotherapy versus radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation therapy for men with advanced prostate cancer. Cancer. 2018;124:4010‐4022. 10.1002/CNCR.31726 PubMed DOI PMC

Seisen T, Vetterlein MW, Karabon P, et al. Efficacy of local treatment in prostate cancer patients with clinically pelvic lymph node‐positive disease at initial diagnosis. Eur Urol. 2018;73:452‐461. 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.011 PubMed DOI

Sarkar RR, Bryant AK, Parsons JK, et al. Association between radical prostatectomy and survival in men with clinically node‐positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2:584‐588. 10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.015 PubMed DOI PMC

About the SEER Program. n.d. Accessed March 22, 2021 . https://seer.cancer.gov/about/

Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94:496‐509. 10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144 DOI

Vetterlein MW, Seisen T, May M, et al. Effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy after radical cystectomy for locally advanced and/or pelvic lymph node‐positive muscle‐invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: a propensity score‐weighted competing risks analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4:252‐259. 10.1016/J.EUF.2016.07.001 PubMed DOI

Paget S. The distribution of secondary growths in cancer of the breast. 1889. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 1989;8:98‐101. PubMed

Kaplan RN, Psaila B, Lyden D. Bone marrow cells in the “pre‐metastatic niche”: within bone and beyond. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2006;25:521‐529. 10.1007/S10555-006-9036-9 PubMed DOI

Reynders K, Illidge T, Siva S, Chang JY, De Ruysscher D. The abscopal effect of local radiotherapy: using immunotherapy to make a rare event clinically relevant. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015;41:503‐510. 10.1016/J.CTRV.2015.03.011 PubMed DOI PMC

About the National Cancer Database. n.d . Accessed April 20, 2021. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/ncdb/about

Knipper S, Palumbo C, Pecoraro A, et al. Survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy vs. external beam radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients with Gleason Score 9‐10 at biopsy: a population‐based analysis. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Invest. 2020;38:79.e9‐79.e14. 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.09.015 PubMed DOI

Knipper S, Pecoraro A, Palumbo C, et al. A 25‐year period analysis of other‐cause mortality in localized prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17:395‐401. 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.07.008 PubMed DOI

Bandini M, Preisser F, Nazzani S, et al. The effect of other‐cause mortality adjustment on access to alternative treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer among African American Patients. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1:215‐222. 10.1016/j.euo.2018.03.007 PubMed DOI

Brief Description of SEER‐Medicare Database. n.d. Accessed April 20, 2021 . https://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/seermedicare/overview/

Pearlstein KA, Basak R, Chen RC. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatment options: limitations of retrospective analysis of cancer registry data. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;103:1053‐1057. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.08.001 PubMed DOI