Six-year outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis.
External beam radiotherapy
Intensity-modulated radiotherapy
Prostate cancer
Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
Volumetric modulated arc therapy
Journal
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]
ISSN: 1439-099X
Titre abrégé: Strahlenther Onkol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8603469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jan 2024
05 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
24
09
2023
accepted:
17
12
2023
medline:
5
1
2024
pubmed:
5
1
2024
entrez:
5
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Although robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy are the leading respective techniques of prostatectomy and radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer, almost no study has directly compared their outcomes; none have compared mortality outcomes. We compared 6‑year outcomes of RARP (n = 500) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT, a rotational intensity-modulated radiotherapy, n = 360) in patients with cT1-4N0M0 prostate cancer. We assessed oncological outcomes, namely overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), radiological recurrence-free survival (rRFS), and biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), using propensity score matching (PSM). We also assessed treatment-related complication outcomes of prostatectomy and radiotherapy. The median follow-up duration was 79 months (> 6 years). PSM generated a matched cohort of 260 patients (130 per treatment group). In the matched cohort, RARP and VMAT showed equivalent results for OS, CSS, and rRFS: both achieved excellent 6‑year outcomes for OS (> 96%), CSS (> 98%), and rRFS (> 91%). VMAT had significantly longer bRFS than RARP, albeit based on different definitions of biochemical recurrence. Regarding complication outcomes, patients who underwent RARP had minimal (2.6%) severe perioperative complications and achieved excellent continence recovery (91.6 and 68.8% of the patients achieved ≤ 1 pad/day and pad-free, respectively). Patients who underwent VMAT had an acceptable rate (20.0%) of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary complications and a very low rate (4.4%) of grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal complications. On the basis of PSM after a 6-year follow-up, RARP and VMAT showed equivalent and excellent oncological outcomes, as well as acceptable complication profiles.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy are the leading respective techniques of prostatectomy and radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer, almost no study has directly compared their outcomes; none have compared mortality outcomes.
METHODS
METHODS
We compared 6‑year outcomes of RARP (n = 500) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT, a rotational intensity-modulated radiotherapy, n = 360) in patients with cT1-4N0M0 prostate cancer. We assessed oncological outcomes, namely overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), radiological recurrence-free survival (rRFS), and biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), using propensity score matching (PSM). We also assessed treatment-related complication outcomes of prostatectomy and radiotherapy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The median follow-up duration was 79 months (> 6 years). PSM generated a matched cohort of 260 patients (130 per treatment group). In the matched cohort, RARP and VMAT showed equivalent results for OS, CSS, and rRFS: both achieved excellent 6‑year outcomes for OS (> 96%), CSS (> 98%), and rRFS (> 91%). VMAT had significantly longer bRFS than RARP, albeit based on different definitions of biochemical recurrence. Regarding complication outcomes, patients who underwent RARP had minimal (2.6%) severe perioperative complications and achieved excellent continence recovery (91.6 and 68.8% of the patients achieved ≤ 1 pad/day and pad-free, respectively). Patients who underwent VMAT had an acceptable rate (20.0%) of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary complications and a very low rate (4.4%) of grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal complications.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of PSM after a 6-year follow-up, RARP and VMAT showed equivalent and excellent oncological outcomes, as well as acceptable complication profiles.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38180494
doi: 10.1007/s00066-023-02192-5
pii: 10.1007/s00066-023-02192-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer—2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol 79:243–262
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
pubmed: 33172724
Kakehi Y, Sugimoto M, Taoka R; committee for establishment of the evidenced-based clinical practice guideline for prostate cancer of the Japanese Urological Association (2017) Evidenced-based clinical practice guideline for prostate cancer (summary: Japanese Urological Association, 2016 edition). Int J Urol 24:648–666.
Taguchi S, Shiraishi K, Fukuhara H (2020) Updated evidence on oncological outcomes of surgery versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 50:963–969
doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyaa105
pubmed: 32580211
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969–974
doi: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969
pubmed: 9749478
Merglen A, Schmidlin F, Fioretta G et al (2007) Short- and long-term mortality with localized prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med 167:1944–1950
doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.18.1944
pubmed: 17923593
Aizer AA, Yu JB, Colberg JW et al (2009) Radical prostatectomy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the management of localized prostate adenocarcinoma. Radiother Oncol 93:185–191
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.09.001
pubmed: 19800702
Merino T, San Francisco IF, Rojas PA et al (2013) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus radical prostatectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer: long-term follow-up. BMC Cancer 13:530
doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-530
pubmed: 24209381
pmcid: 3833713
Hoffman RM, Koyama T, Fan KH et al (2013) Mortality after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 105:711–718
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt059
pubmed: 23615689
pmcid: 3653822
Sooriakumaran P, Nyberg T, Akre O et al (2014) Comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in prostate cancer: observational study of mortality outcomes. BMJ 348:g1502
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1502
pubmed: 24574496
pmcid: 3936107
Taguchi S, Fukuhara H, Shiraishi K et al (2015) Radical Prostatectomy versus External Beam Radiotherapy for cT1-4N0M0 Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Patient Outcomes Including Mortality. PLoS ONE 10:e141123
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141123
pubmed: 26506569
pmcid: 4624690
Kishan AU, Cook RR, Ciezki JP et al (2018) Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or external beam radiotherapy with brachytherapy boost and disease progression and mortality in patients with Gleason score 9–10 prostate cancer. JAMA 319:896–905
doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.0587
pubmed: 29509865
pmcid: 5885899
Taguchi S, Shiraishi K, Fujimura T et al (2019) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus volumetric modulated arc therapy: Comparison of front-line therapies for localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 140:62–67
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.05.015
pubmed: 31176208
Hayashi N, Osaka K, Muraoka K et al (2020) Outcomes of treatment for localized prostate cancer in a single institution: comparison of radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy by propensity score matching analysis. World J Urol 38:2477–2484
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-03056-3
pubmed: 31875247
Ko YH (2021) The comparison of the survival outcome between robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer in men over 70 years: Korean Nationwide Observational Study. J Robot Surg 15:585–592
doi: 10.1007/s11701-020-01144-w
pubmed: 32918235
Wu SY, Chang SC, Chen CI et al (2021) Oncologic Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy and High-Dose Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy with Androgen-Deprivation Therapy for Relatively Young Patients with Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Adenocarcinoma. Cancers (Basel) 13:1517
doi: 10.3390/cancers13071517
pubmed: 33806181
Wu SY, Effendi FF, Canales RE et al (2022) The Latest Data Specifically Focused on Long-Term Oncologic Prognostication for Very Old Adults with Acute Vulnerable Localized Prostate Cancer: A Nationwide Cohort Study. J Clin Med 11:3451
doi: 10.3390/jcm11123451
pubmed: 35743522
pmcid: 9225393
Chierigo F, Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C et al (2022) Survival after Radical Prostatectomy versus Radiation Therapy in High-Risk and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol 207:375–384
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002250
pubmed: 34555930
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, ProtecT Study Group (2023) Fifteen-Year Outcomes after Monitoring or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med 388:1547–1558
Wolff D, Stieler F, Welzel G et al (2009) Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. serial tomotherapy, step-and-shoot IMRT and 3D-conformal RT for treatment of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 93:226–233
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.08.011
pubmed: 19765846
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL et al (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383
doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
pubmed: 3558716
Shrivastava A, Baliga M, Menon M (2007) The Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy. BJU Int 99:1173–1189
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06878.x
pubmed: 17437452
Fujimura T, Menon M, Fukuhara H et al (2016) Validation of an educational program balancing surgeon training and surgical quality control during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 23:160–166
doi: 10.1111/iju.12993
pubmed: 26502293
Naito S, Kuroiwa K, Kinukawa N, et al; Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer Investigators (2008) Validation of Partin tables and development of a preoperative nomogram for Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer using 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus on Gleason grading: data from the clinicopathological research group for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 180:904–909.
Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr et al (2006) Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO phoenix consensus conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:965–974
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029
pubmed: 16798415
Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111:518–526
pubmed: 1598671
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
pubmed: 15273542
pmcid: 1360123
Yamada Y, Teshima T, Fujimura T et al (2020) Comparison of perioperative outcomes in elderly (age ≧ 75 years) vs. younger men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. PLoS ONE 15:e234113
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234113
pubmed: 32497131
pmcid: 7272059
Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, ProtecT Study Group (2016) Patient-Reported Outcomes after Monitoring or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1425–1437
Tree AC, Ostler P, van der Voet H, PACE Trial Investigators (2022) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): 2‑year toxicity results from an open-label phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 23:1308–1320