Survival after radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy in clinical node-positive prostate cancer

Local Therapy on Clinically Lymph Node-positive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Patients with clinically lymph node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer (PCa) are traditionally regarded to have metastatic disease, and the role of local therapy (LT) in their treatment remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes of cN1 PCa patients treated with LT, and secondarily to compare between different modalities of LT, including radiotherapy (RT) and radical prostatectomy (RP).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A bibliographic search was performed using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies comparing the survival outcomes of cN1 PCa patients treated with LT (RT or RP) with those who did not receive any form of LT (observation or androgen deprivation therapy alone). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations were followed. Survival outcomes of the addition of LT were assessed using a random-effect model.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 8522 patients across eight studies were included. LT significantly improved overall survival (OS) across all time points from 2 to 10 yr compared with patients without LT, most notably providing a durable benefit in 10-yr OS (odds ratio [OR]: 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-2.10). Both RT and RP were associated with benefits to both OS and recurrence-free survival, with no significant difference in OS between both modalities in medium-term follow-up (4-yr OR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.41-1.40, p = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of modality, the use of LT in cN1 patients improved OS. Future studies should aim to identify patients who could benefit from LT and include more comprehensive survival data including biochemical recurrence.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of clinically lymph node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with local therapy (LT) and compared between different modalities of LT, including radiotherapy (RT) and radical prostatectomy (RP). We found that the addition of LT for cN1 PCa patients leads to a significant improvement in survival outcomes, most notably for overall survival, with no significant difference between RT and RP.

Assessing the Efficacy and Long-Term Outcomes of Surgical Intervention Versus Radiotherapy: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Treatment Modalities

There is controversy regarding the most effective primary treatment of choice for prostate cancer (PCa) in terms of patient outcomes, such as surgery or radiotherapy (RT). This study evaluated the comparative efficacy and long-term outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) and RT for PCa treatment. A thorough literature review of relevant databases was conducted, focusing on academic and clinical studies published from 2019 onwards. The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other observational studies comparing survival outcomes in patients treated with surgery and RT. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to provide an overview of the data. We selected 19 studies based on the inclusion criteria. Of the total 19 studies, 12 advocated RP as the preferred treatment to improve survival outcomes in patients with PCa. The results of our synthesis showed that prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) was lower in patients treated with RT. The total effect size for the analysis was calculated as Z=1.19 (p-value=0.23). The heterogeneity in the studies was as follows: Tau2=0.09, Chi2=20.25, df=4, I2=80%. Moreover, overall survival (OS) was shown to be higher in patients who underwent prostatectomy. The combined effect for the analysis was found to be: HR=0.97 (0.93, 1.01). The total effect was calculated as Z=1.33 (p-value= 0.18). The heterogeneity was found to be Tau2=0.00, Chi2=1.33, df=2, and I2=0%. However, overall mortality (OM) was shown to be independent of the treatment modality. RT is the preferred strategy for PCa treatment, as it balances efficacy and long-term outcomes. Clinical decision-making should consider individual patient characteristics and future research should delve into specific subpopulations and long-term outcomes to further refine the treatment guidelines.

Survival After Cryotherapy Versus Radiotherapy in Low and Intermediate Risk Localized Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Focal therapy, including cryotherapy, reduces overtreatment in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients with multiple comorbidities, which seems to increase in popularity compared with whole gland treatment. However, there is currently no consensus regarding the medium-term outcomes of cryosurgery as a prospective alternative to radiotherapy (RT) for such patients. Our study aims to find the available evidence that directly compares the medium-term overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) outcomes between cryotherapy and RT in patients with low- and intermediated-risk PCa.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we identified 47,787 patients with low- and intermediate-risk PCa diagnosed between 2004 and 2015, of which 46,853 (98%) received treatment with RT, while only 934 (2.0%) received treatment with cryotherapy. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimateOS and cancer-specific survival (CSS) between the 2 groups. We performed multivariable Cox regression analysis to assess overall mortality (OM), while the cumulative incidence function (CIF) was used to illustrate cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and noncancer-specific mortality (non-CSM) for all patients. Additionally, competing risks regression (Fine-Gray) was implemented to evaluate any differences. After propensity score matching (PSM), all the aforementioned analyses were repeated. After the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), we repeated Kaplan-Meier methods on OS and CSS, and performed multivariable Cox regression analysis to assess OM in cryotherapy versus RT. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding patients who died of cardiovascular disease.

RESULTS

After applying 1:4 PSM to the cryotherapy group with the RT group, the resulting RT cohort consisted of 3,736 patients who were matched with 934 patients in the cryotherapy cohort. The 5-year OS and cumulative CSM rates for PS-matched groups (N = 4670) receiving cryotherapy (N = 934) or RT (N = 3736) were 89% versus 91.8%, 0.65% versus 0.57, respectively. Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated that cryotherapy was associated with a poorer OS outcome compared to RT (hazard ratio [HR] 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-1.55, p < .01). Multivariate competing risk regression analysis revealed that both treatments were not associated with CSS, with HR = 1.07 (95% CI: 0.55-2.08, p = .85). IPTW-adjusted analyses showed that the 5-years OS rates were 89.6% versus 91.8% for cryotherapy versus RT, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis for OS demonstrated that cryotherapy was more likely to have inferior OS in comparison to RT (HR = 1.30; 95%CI: 1.09-1.54; p < .01). The outcome of sensitivity analyses indicates that there was no significant difference in OS and CSS between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

For low- and intermediate-risk PCa patients treated by cryotherapy or RT, we could not demonstrate a survival difference. Cryotherapy may be a feasible option as a viable alternative to traditional radiation therapy.

Clinical Significance of Radical Prostatectomy in Clinical Lymph Node Metastasis in Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the role of radical prostatectomy (RP) among clinical nodal metastasis prostate cancer and whether histological confirmation of lymph node metastasis through surgery can help with treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

After excluding patients with distant metastatic prostate cancer or neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy, 42 patients with clinical nodal metastasis who underwent RP at our institution were included in the study. We classified them as having or not having pathological lymph node metastasis. Clinicopathologic data were analyzed in this retrospective chart review. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate the estimated castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)-free survival, biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival, and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

RESULTS

There is no significant difference in age, presence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, BCR time, CRPC time, overall survival, salvage RT rate, and initial prostate-specific antigen level between the two groups. However, there is a significant difference in the pathology N1 group in terms of pathological T stage, pathologic Gleason score, BCR rate, CRPC rate, and CSS. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to identify predictors of CRPC-free survival. Patients with pathological lymph node metastasis had a shorter CRPC-free survival [hazard ratio (HR) 4.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-19.00, p = 0.02].

CONCLUSION

Radical prostatectomy can confirm lymph node metastasis. Although pathologic diagnosis has no effect on time to BCR and CPRC, because it affects BCR rate, CRPC rate, and CSS, an accurate pathological diagnosis obtained through surgery is beneficial in the treatment of clinical lymph node metastasis prostate cancer.

Development of machine learning prognostic models for overall survival of prostate cancer patients with lymph node-positive

Prostate cancer (PCa) patients with lymph node involvement (LNI) constitute a single-risk group with varied prognoses. Existing studies on this group have focused solely on those who underwent prostatectomy (RP), using statistical models to predict prognosis. This study aimed to develop an easily accessible individual survival prediction tool based on multiple machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict survival probability for PCa patients with LNI. A total of 3280 PCa patients with LNI were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, covering the years 2000-2019. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Gradient Boosting Survival Analysis (GBSA), Random Survival Forest (RSF), and Extra Survival Trees (EST) were used to develop prognosis models, which were compared to Cox regression. Discrimination was evaluated using the time-dependent areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (time-dependent AUC) and the concordance index (c-index). Calibration was assessed using the time-dependent Brier score (time-dependent BS) and the integrated Brier score (IBS). Moreover, the beeswarm summary plot in SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) was used to display the contribution of variables to the results. The 3280 patients were randomly split into a training cohort (n = 2624) and a validation cohort (n = 656). Nine variables including age at diagnosis, race, marital status, clinical T stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at diagnosis, Gleason Score (GS), number of positive lymph nodes, radical prostatectomy (RP), and radiotherapy (RT) were used to develop models. The mean time-dependent AUC for GBSA, RSF, and EST was 0.782 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.779-0.783), 0.779 (95% CI 0.776-0.780), and 0.781 (95% CI 0.778-0.782), respectively, which were higher than the Cox regression model of 0.770 (95% CI 0.769-0.773). Additionally, all models demonstrated almost similar calibration, with low IBS. A web-based prediction tool was developed using the best-performing GBSA, which is accessible at https://pengzihexjtu-pca-n1.streamlit.app/ . ML algorithms showed better performance compared with Cox regression and we developed a web-based tool, which may help to guide patient treatment and follow-up.

Evaluation of the role of local therapy in patients with cN1M0 prostate cancer: A population-based study from the SEER database

Objective

To investigate the prognostic value of local therapy (LT) in cN1M0 prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

Patients diagnosed with cN1M0 PCa were extracted from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curve was used to compare the survival outcomes between patients treated with and without LT. Further, among patients receiving LT, KM analysis was also applied to investigate the survival differences in patients with radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the basic characteristics of patients in each group and make it comparable when exploring the survival impact of different treatment types. Finally, uni- and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models were utilized to identify independent prognostic factors associated with overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in this population.

Results

Patients treated with LT had significantly better OS (P<0.0001) and CSS (P<0.0001) than those without LT, as well as in most subgroups, except for non-White patients, or those with ISUP grade group 1 or T3 stage. Notably, patients receiving RP also had significantly better OS (P=0.00012) and CSS (P=0.0045) than those treated with RT alone, especially in those aged ≥75 years old, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 10-20 ng/mL, ISUP grade 1-3 or non-white patients. Finally, clinical T stage, ISUP grade group and the administration of LT were identified to be independent prognostic factors for OS and CSS among cN1M0 PCa patients.

Conclusion

The cN1M0 PCa patients treated with LT were associated with significantly better survival. Among patients receiving LT, the combination of RP and PLND could lead to a better prognosis compared to RT alone in most subgroups. An individualized treatment strategy is warranted to be developed after weighing the benefits and risks of treatment.