EAU 2011 - Is 10-year follow-up long enough to evaluate oncological outcomes of patients after radical prostatectomy? - Session Highlights

VIENNA, AUSTRIA (UroToday.com) - The goal of this study was to evaluate the long-term recurrence rates of patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) with a minimum follow-up of 10 years.

Between 1985 and 2010, 5,957 patients were treated with RP at a single referral center. The rates of overall mortality, cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and of biochemical recurrence (BCR) according to clinical and pathological patient characteristics were determined.

Among 5,957 patients treated with RP, 728 (12.2%) had follow-up > 10 years. These patients were treated between 1986 and 2000. Mean and median follow-up were 152 and 144 months, respectively. At RP, mean PSA was 17.4. Pathological Gleason score was 2-6, 7 and 8-10 in 56.3, 22.8 and 14.9% of patients, respectively. Pathological stage showed organ confined disease, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node involvement in 57.2, 13.3, 20.8 and 20.4% of patients, respectively. Positive surgical margins were found in 11.5% of patients. The 10- and 15-year BCR-free survival rates were 61 and 52%, respectively. The 10- and 15-year overall survival rates were 77 and 65% respectively. The 10- and 15-year freedom from CSM rates were 89 and 85%, respectively. Among 337 patients who had recurrence, 149 (44.2%) and 46 (13.6%) developed BCR beyond 5 and 10 years of follow-up. Of 85 patients who died of prostate cancer, 53 (62.3%) and 12 (14.1%) died beyond 5 and 10 years of follow-up, respectively. Surprisingly, 11%, 14% and 11% of low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients entering the 10-year interval respectively experienced BCR beyond the 10-year landmark.


Presented by Nazareno Suardi, MD, FEBU, et al. at the 26th Annual European Association of Urology (EAU) Congress - March 18 - 21, 2011 - Austria Centre Vienna, Vienna, Austria


The opinions expressed in this article are those of the UroToday.com Contributing Medical Editor and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of the European Association of Urology (EAU)


View EAU 2011 Annual Meeting Coverage