Radical Prostatectomy versus External Beam Radiotherapy for cT1-4N0M0 Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Patient Outcomes Including Mortality.

Although radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) have been considered as comparable treatments for localized prostate cancer (PC), it is controversial which treatment is better.

The present study aimed to compare outcomes, including mortality, of RP and EBRT for localized PC.

We retrospectively analyzed 891 patients with cT1-4N0M0 PC who underwent either RP (n = 569) or EBRT (n = 322) with curative intent at our single institution between 2005 and 2012. Of the EBRT patients, 302 (93. 8%) underwent intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Related to these, other-cause mortality (OCM) was also calculated. Biochemical recurrence-free survival was assessed as a secondary endpoint. Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis.

Median follow-up durations were 53 and 45 months, and median ages were 66 and 70 years (P <0.0001), in the RP and EBRT groups, respectively. As a whole, significantly better prognoses of the RP group than the EBRT group were observed for both OS and CSS, although OCM was significantly higher in the EBRT group. There was no death from PC in men with low and intermediate D'Amico risks, except one with intermediate-risk in the EBRT group. In high-risk patients, significantly more patients died from PC in the EBRT group than the RP group. Multivariate analysis demonstrated the RP group to be an independent prognostic factor for better CSS. On the other hand, the EBRT group had a significantly longer biochemical recurrence-free survival than the RP group.

Mortality outcomes of both RP and EBRT were generally favorable in low and intermediate risk patients. Improvement of CSS in high risk patients was seen in patients receiving RP over those receiving EBRT.

PloS one. 2015 Oct 27*** epublish ***

Satoru Taguchi, Hiroshi Fukuhara, Kenshiro Shiraishi, Keiichi Nakagawa, Teppei Morikawa, Shigenori Kakutani, Yuta Takeshima, Hideyo Miyazaki, Tetsuya Fujimura, Tohru Nakagawa, Haruki Kume, Yukio Homma

Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. , Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. , Department of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. , Department of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. , Department of Pathology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. , Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. , Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. , Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. , Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. , Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. , Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. , Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

PubMed

E-Newsletters

Newsletter subscription

Free Daily and Weekly newsletters offered by content of interest

The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are rapidly advancing. Sign up today for articles, videos, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.

Subscribe