Radical prostatectomy versus brachytherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer on oncological and functional outcomes: a meta-analysis.
Prostate cancer (PCa)
brachytherapy (BT)
meta-analysis
radical prostatectomy (RP)
Journal
Translational andrology and urology
ISSN: 2223-4691
Titre abrégé: Transl Androl Urol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101581119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
entrez:
19
5
2020
pubmed:
19
5
2020
medline:
19
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prostate cancer (PCa) is a form of malignancy that harms the health status of elderly men worldwide. It is unclear which of radical prostatectomy (RP) or brachytherapy (BT) is the more effective treatment for PCa. This study presents the first highly comprehensive and up-to-date comparative analysis of the overall outcomes of RP versus BT. We conducted a systematic literature search for studies published on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library on the outcomes of RP versus BT in clinically localized PCa. The cumulative analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.3 software, and the Chi-square test was employed to test the statistical heterogeneity. The summary odds ratio (OR) and standard mean difference (SMD) was estimated using random effects models at 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 2 randomized, 2 prospective, and 21 retrospective comparative studies were included. No significant differences in biochemical recurrence rate (BCR) (OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.68) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) (OR: 1.62; 95% CI: 0.86, 3.04) between RP and BT were noted. With erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence, BT was more protective than RP in both short-term post-operative reports (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.15, 3.70 and OR: 4.62; 95% CI: 2.33, 9.16) and long-term patient outcome reports (SMD: -5.62; 95% CI: -13.81, 2.57 and SMD: -11.52; 95% CI: -18.32, -4.72). BT and RP for PCa therapy pose comparable risks of PCSM and BCR, while BT is associated with a lower incidence of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. This study tentatively confirms that BT is an alternative to RP for patients seeking a curative treatment with minimal risks of urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prostate cancer (PCa) is a form of malignancy that harms the health status of elderly men worldwide. It is unclear which of radical prostatectomy (RP) or brachytherapy (BT) is the more effective treatment for PCa. This study presents the first highly comprehensive and up-to-date comparative analysis of the overall outcomes of RP versus BT.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search for studies published on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library on the outcomes of RP versus BT in clinically localized PCa. The cumulative analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.3 software, and the Chi-square test was employed to test the statistical heterogeneity. The summary odds ratio (OR) and standard mean difference (SMD) was estimated using random effects models at 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 2 randomized, 2 prospective, and 21 retrospective comparative studies were included. No significant differences in biochemical recurrence rate (BCR) (OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.68) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) (OR: 1.62; 95% CI: 0.86, 3.04) between RP and BT were noted. With erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence, BT was more protective than RP in both short-term post-operative reports (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.15, 3.70 and OR: 4.62; 95% CI: 2.33, 9.16) and long-term patient outcome reports (SMD: -5.62; 95% CI: -13.81, 2.57 and SMD: -11.52; 95% CI: -18.32, -4.72).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
BT and RP for PCa therapy pose comparable risks of PCSM and BCR, while BT is associated with a lower incidence of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. This study tentatively confirms that BT is an alternative to RP for patients seeking a curative treatment with minimal risks of urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32420139
doi: 10.21037/tau.2020.02.15
pii: tau-09-02-332
pmc: PMC7215023
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
332-343Informations de copyright
2020 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2020.02.15). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
J Urol. 1998 Dec;160(6 Pt 2):2418-24
pubmed: 9817395
Urology. 2000 Nov 1;56(5):730-4
pubmed: 11068289
Cancer. 1998 Dec 15;83(12):2437-46
pubmed: 9874447
J Urol. 2012 Jun;187(6):2087-92
pubmed: 22498227
BJU Int. 2004 Nov;94(7):1003-9
pubmed: 15541117
Springerplus. 2016 Nov 3;5(1):1905
pubmed: 27867812
Br J Cancer. 2012 Feb 14;106(4):638-45
pubmed: 22274410
N Engl J Med. 1997 Jul 31;337(5):295-300
pubmed: 9233866
Brachytherapy. 2005;4(1):34-44
pubmed: 15737905
J Urol. 2006 Mar;175(3 Pt 1):907-12
pubmed: 16469577
Can Urol Assoc J. 2015 Jan-Feb;9(1-2):e93-7
pubmed: 25737770
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jun 20;34(18):2182-90
pubmed: 26884580
Urology. 2003 Dec;62(6):1063-7
pubmed: 14665356
BJU Int. 2011 Aug;108(4):583-7
pubmed: 21091973
Int J Impot Res. 2020 May;32(3):274-280
pubmed: 31395986
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Sep;15(10):1109-18
pubmed: 25163905
Eur J Epidemiol. 2010 Sep;25(9):603-5
pubmed: 20652370
Can J Urol. 2017 Apr;24(2):8728-8733
pubmed: 28436359
BJU Int. 2016 Aug;118(2):193-204
pubmed: 27087414
Can Urol Assoc J. 2016 Aug;10(7-8):246-250
pubmed: 27878044
Oncol Lett. 2019 Jul;18(1):72-80
pubmed: 31289474
Urology. 2010 Nov;76(5):1251-7
pubmed: 20378156
World J Urol. 2009 Oct;27(5):607-12
pubmed: 19455340
N Engl J Med. 2011 May 5;364(18):1708-17
pubmed: 21542742
N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1425-1437
pubmed: 27626365
N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1415-1424
pubmed: 27626136
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Aug 20;100(16):1144-54
pubmed: 18695132
J Surg Oncol. 1972;4(3):207-16
pubmed: 5069803
Int J Urol. 2020 Jan;27(1):17-23
pubmed: 31549770
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Mar 1;67(3):812-22
pubmed: 17293235
J Urol. 2003 Nov;170(5):1738-41
pubmed: 14532766
JAMA. 2017 Mar 21;317(11):1141-1150
pubmed: 28324092
Int Braz J Urol. 2017 Mar-Apr;43(2):216-223
pubmed: 28128908
Eur Urol. 2007 Jan;51(1):105-10; discussion 110-1
pubmed: 16814455
Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Feb;3(1):21-31
pubmed: 31411965
CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Sep;69(5):386-401
pubmed: 31361333
Urol Clin North Am. 1996 Nov;23(4):633-50
pubmed: 8948417
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Jul 08;106(7):
pubmed: 25006192
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Apr 20;36(12):1192-1198
pubmed: 29489433
Int J Urol. 2018 Jun;25(6):524-531
pubmed: 29740894
Cent European J Urol. 2019;72(1):32-38
pubmed: 31011437
Prostate. 1995 Jul;27(1):13-7
pubmed: 7603912
J Urol. 1999 Apr;161(4):1212-5
pubmed: 10081871
J Urol. 2012 Dec;188(6):2219-24
pubmed: 23083655
Radiother Oncol. 2004 Apr;71(1):29-33
pubmed: 15066293