Focal therapy compared to radical prostatectomy for non-metastatic prostate cancer: a propensity score-matched study.
Journal
Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases
ISSN: 1476-5608
Titre abrégé: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815755
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2021
06 2021
Historique:
received:
26
08
2020
accepted:
11
12
2020
revised:
29
11
2020
pubmed:
29
1
2021
medline:
19
1
2022
entrez:
28
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Focal therapy (FT) ablates areas of prostate cancer rather than treating the whole gland. We compared oncological outcomes of FT to radical prostatectomy (RP). Using prospective multicentre databases of 761 FT and 572 RP cases (November/2005-September/2018), patients with PSA < 20 ng/ml, Gleason </= 4 + 3 and stage </= T2c were 1-1 propensity score-matched for treatment year, age, PSA, Gleason, T-stage, cancer core length and use of neoadjuvant hormones. FT included 1-2 sessions. Primary outcome was failure-free survival (FFS) defined by need for salvage local or systemic therapy or metastases. Differences in FFS were determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test. 335 radical prostatectomy and 501 focal therapy patients were eligible for matching. For focal therapy, 420 had HIFU and 81 cryotherapy. Cryotherapy was used predominantly for anterior cancer. After matching, 246 RP and 246 FT cases were identified. For radical prostatectomy, mean (SD) age was 63.4 (5.6) years, median (IQR) PSA 7.9 g/ml (6-10) and median (IQR) follow-up 64 (30-89) months. For focal therapy, these were 63.3 (6.9) years, 7.9 ng/ml (5.5-10.6) and 49 [34-67] months, respectively. At 3, 5 and 8 years, FFS (95%CI) was 86% (81-91%), 82% (77-88%) and 79% (73-86%) for radical prostatectomy compared to 91% (87-95%), 86% (81-92%) and 83% (76-90%) following focal therapy (p = 0.12). In patients with non-metastatic low- intermediate prostate cancer, oncological outcomes over 8 years were similar between focal therapy and radical prostatectomy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33504940
doi: 10.1038/s41391-020-00315-y
pii: 10.1038/s41391-020-00315-y
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
567-574Références
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N. Engl J Med. 2016;375:1415–24.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider JR, Taari K, Busch C, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:932–42.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311593
Wilt TJ, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Andriole GL, Culkin D, Wheeler T, et al. Follow-up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:132–42.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1615869
Veronesi UCN, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, Aguilar M, et al. Twenty- year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast- conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–32.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020989
Cao C, Chandrakumar D, Gupta S, Yan TD, Tian DH. Could less be more?-A systematic review and meta-analysis of sublobar resections versus lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer according to patient selection. Lung Cancer. 2015;89:121–32.
doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.05.010
Pierorazio PM, Johnson MH, Patel HD, Sozio SM, Sharma R, Iyoha E, et al. Management of renal masses and localized renal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2016;196:989–99.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.04.081
Shah TT, Peters M, Eldred-Evans D, Miah S, Yap T, Faure-Walker NA, et al. Early-medium-term outcomes of primary focal cryotherapy to treat nonmetastatic clinically significant prostate cancer from a prospective multicentre registry. Eur Urol. 2019;76:98–105.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.12.030
Guillaumier S, Peters M, Arya M, Afzal N, Charman S, Dudderidge T, et al. A multicentre study of 5-year outcomes following focal therapy in treating clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2018;74:422–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.006
Kuru TH, van Essen J, Pfister D, Porres D. Role of focal therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound in the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. Oncol Res Treat. 2015;38:634–8.
doi: 10.1159/000441600
Ahdoot M, Lebastchi AH, Turkbey B, Wood B, Pinto PA. Contemporary treatments in prostate cancer focal therapy. Curr Opin Oncol. 2019;31:200–6.
doi: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000515
Valerio M, Cerantola Y, Eggener SE, Lepor H, Polascik TJ, Villers A, et al. New and established technology in focal ablation of the prostate: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;71:17–34.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.044
Albisinni S, Aoun F, Bellucci S, Biaou I, Limani K, Hawaux E, et al. Comparing high-intensity focal ultrasound hemiablation to robotic radical prostatectomy in the management of unilateral prostate cancer: a matched-pair analysis. J Endourol. 2017;31:14–9.
doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0702
Hamdy FC, Steffi le Conte DE, Davies LC, Burns RM, Thomson C, Gray R, et al. Partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: the PART feasibility RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2018;22:1–96.
doi: 10.3310/hta22520
Ahmed HU, Berge V, Bottomley D, Cross W, Heer R, Kaplan R, et al. Can we deliver randomized trials of focal therapy in prostate cancer? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014;11:482–91.
doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.44
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370:1453–7.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
Parker C, Clarke NW, Cook A, Kynaston HG, Meidahl Petersen P, Cross W, et al. Timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP): first results from the RADICALS RT randomised controlled trial (RCT) [NCT00541047]. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:v883–v4. (abstract LBA49_PR)
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz394.042
Austin PC. The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med. 2014;33:1242–58.
doi: 10.1002/sim.5984
Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:150–61.
doi: 10.1002/pst.433
Garcia-Barreras S, Sanchez-Salas R, Sivaraman A, Barret E, Secin F, Nunes-Silva I. Comparative analysis of partial gland ablation and radical prostatectomy to treat low and intermediate risk prostate cancer: oncologic and functional outcomes. J Urol. 2018;199:140–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.08.076
Scheltema MJ, Chang JI, Bohm M, van den Bos W, Blazevski A, Gielchinsky I, et al. Pair-matched patient-reported quality of life and early oncological control following focal irreversible electroporation versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2018;36:1383–9.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2281-z
Tay KJ, Polascik TJ, Elshafei A, Tsivian E, Jones JS. Propensity score-matched comparison of partial to whole-gland cryotherapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of the cryo on-line data registry data. J Endourol. 2017;31:564–71.
doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0830
Huber, PM, Afzal, N, Arya, M, Boxler, S, Dudderidge, T, Emberton, M, et al. Prostate specific antigen criteria to diagnose failure of cancer control following focal therapy of nonmetastatic prostate cancer using high intensity focused ultrasound. J Urol. 2020;203:734–42.
Azzouzi A-R, Vincendeau S, Barret E, Cicco A, Kleinclauss F, van der Poel HG, et al. Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:181–91.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30661-1
Taneja SS. Re: padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial. J Urol. 2017;198:255–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.05.029
Sivaraman A, Barret E. Focal therapy for prostate cancer: an “A la Carte” approach. Eur Urol. 2016;69:973–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.015
Reddy D, Shah TT, Dudderidge T, McCracken S, Arya M, Dobbs C, et al. Comparative Healthcare Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (IP4-CHRONOS): a prospective, multi-centre therapeutic phase II parallel Randomised Control Trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2020;93:105999.
doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2020.105999
Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Freeman A, et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol. 2011;186:458–64.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.147
Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1051–60.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30357-7