Long-term Outcomes of Focal Cryotherapy for Low- to Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: Results and Matched Pair Analysis with Active Surveillance.


Journal

European urology focus
ISSN: 2405-4569
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Focus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101665661

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 2022
Historique:
received: 08 02 2021
revised: 13 03 2021
accepted: 08 04 2021
pubmed: 1 5 2021
medline: 1 9 2022
entrez: 30 4 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To date, only one trial compared focal therapy and active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). In addition, long-term outcomes of focal cryotherapy (FC) are lacking. Our aim was to evaluate long-term outcomes of FC and compare them with AS. We included two prospective series of 121 (FC) and 459 (AS) consecutive patients (2008-2018) for low- to intermediate-risk PCa. Study outcomes were radical therapy-free or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival. A matched pair analysis was performed using seven covariates. The median FC follow-up was 85 mo (interquartile range 58-104); 92 (76%) men had International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1. Among matched variables, no significant differences were present except for cT stage and year of entry (both p < 0.01). Ten-year radical therapy-free or ADT-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival were 51%, 40.2%, 93.9%, and 97%, respectively for FC. No differences were noted with AS (all p > 0.05), with the exception of time to radical therapy, time to radical therapy and ADT, and time to any treatment, all being shorter for AS (all p < 0.01). Freedom from radical treatment or ADT was higher for FC (AS 10 yr 39.3%; p = 0.04). Complications were relatively rare (26.5%) and mainly of low grade (Clavien >2, n = 3); three men developed incontinence (p = 0.0814), while both International Index of Erectile Function 5 and International Prostate Symptom Score scores increased (p = 0.0287 and p = 0.0165, respectively). Limitations include absence of randomization. At an early long-term follow-up, FC in the context of mainly low-risk PCa is safe and increases time to radical therapy but does not provide meaningful oncological advantages compared with AS. We compared focal cryotherapy with active surveillance mainly for low-risk prostate cancer. Focal cryotherapy, despite having fewer complications, did not yield meaningful advantages over active surveillance at 10 yr. Active surveillance should be preferred to focal cryotherapy for these patients.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
To date, only one trial compared focal therapy and active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). In addition, long-term outcomes of focal cryotherapy (FC) are lacking.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to evaluate long-term outcomes of FC and compare them with AS.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
We included two prospective series of 121 (FC) and 459 (AS) consecutive patients (2008-2018) for low- to intermediate-risk PCa.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Study outcomes were radical therapy-free or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival. A matched pair analysis was performed using seven covariates.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
The median FC follow-up was 85 mo (interquartile range 58-104); 92 (76%) men had International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1. Among matched variables, no significant differences were present except for cT stage and year of entry (both p < 0.01). Ten-year radical therapy-free or ADT-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival were 51%, 40.2%, 93.9%, and 97%, respectively for FC. No differences were noted with AS (all p > 0.05), with the exception of time to radical therapy, time to radical therapy and ADT, and time to any treatment, all being shorter for AS (all p < 0.01). Freedom from radical treatment or ADT was higher for FC (AS 10 yr 39.3%; p = 0.04). Complications were relatively rare (26.5%) and mainly of low grade (Clavien >2, n = 3); three men developed incontinence (p = 0.0814), while both International Index of Erectile Function 5 and International Prostate Symptom Score scores increased (p = 0.0287 and p = 0.0165, respectively). Limitations include absence of randomization.
CONCLUSIONS
At an early long-term follow-up, FC in the context of mainly low-risk PCa is safe and increases time to radical therapy but does not provide meaningful oncological advantages compared with AS.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We compared focal cryotherapy with active surveillance mainly for low-risk prostate cancer. Focal cryotherapy, despite having fewer complications, did not yield meaningful advantages over active surveillance at 10 yr. Active surveillance should be preferred to focal cryotherapy for these patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33926838
pii: S2405-4569(21)00114-0
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.04.008
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Androgen Antagonists 0
Prostate-Specific Antigen EC 3.4.21.77

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

701-709

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Giancarlo Marra (G)

Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France; Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy. Electronic address: drgiancarlomarra@gmail.com.

Timo Soeterik (T)

Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Davide Oreggia (D)

Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.

Rafael Tourinho-Barbosa (R)

Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.

Marco Moschini (M)

Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.

Claudia Filippini (C)

Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Harm H E van Melick (HHE)

Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Roderick C N van den Bergh (RCN)

Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Paolo Gontero (P)

Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.

Nathalie Cathala (N)

Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.

Petr Macek (P)

Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.

Rafael Sanchez-Salas (R)

Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.

Xavier Cathelineau (X)

Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH