Surgery Versus Implant for Early Prostate Cancer: Results From a Single Institution, 1992–2005

Long-Term Biochemical Control of a Prospective Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Interstitial Brachytherapy Versus Radical Prostatectomy

AIMS

To report long-term oncological outcomes of men treated prospectively as part of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group phase III Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial (SPIRIT) at our institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2003-2004, patients eligible for SPRIT attended a multidisciplinary educational session, following which they could choose radical prostatectomy, low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) or randomisation to SPIRIT. Biochemical failure was determined by the accepted definitions of a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≥0.2 ng/ml after radical prostatectomy and the Phoenix definition of PSA ≥2 ng/ml above the nadir after LDR-BT. A sensitivity analysis, using a PSA >0.5 ng/ml to define biochemical failure after LDR-BT and a threshold PSA ≥0.2 ng/ml, was carried out to test the robustness of the results. To account for the competing risk of death, Gray's test was used to test the equality of the cumulative incidence function of biochemical failure between treatment groups. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival and prostate cancer-specific survival. A P-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of 156 patients, 100 received LDR-BT (15 after randomisation) and 56 underwent radical prostatectomy (15 after randomisation). The median follow-up was 12.6 and 14.7 years for LDR-BT and radical prostatectomy, respectively. The median age was 60 years; the median pre-treatment PSA was 5.5 (interquartile range 4.3-7.1). No significant differences in patient characteristics were found between groups. Two patients received adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. The cumulative incidence function of biochemical failure was 0%, 1.1% and 2.4% at 5, 10 and 15 years, respectively, in the LDR-BT arm versus 8.5%, 15.8% and 15.8% in the radical prostatectomy arm (P < 0.001). These results were consistent when varying the definition of biochemical failure defined as PSA ≥0.5 ng/ml (P = 0.01). At 15 years, overall survival was higher in patients treated with radical prostatectomy compared with those treated with LDR-BT; however, no statistical difference was found in prostate cancer-specific survival.

CONCLUSION

In low-risk prostate cancer patients, LDR-BT offers excellent long-term oncological outcomes comparable with radical prostatectomy, in addition to the previously reported advantage for LDR-BT in urinary and sexual quality of life domains and patient satisfaction.

Can patients with low-risk prostate cancer really benefit from radical treatment?: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active surveillance are three widely used treatment options for patients with low-risk prostate cancer, but the relative effects are controversial. We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science until June 2020, focusing on the studies comparing the effect of radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Through the random-effects model, dichotomous data were extracted and summarised by odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. Twenty-two studies containing 185,363 participants were pooled for the comprehensive comparison. The Bayesian mixed network estimate demonstrated the cancer-specific mortality of radical prostatectomy was significantly lower than active surveillance (OR, 0.46; 95% CI 0.34-0.64) and external beam radiation therapy (OR, 0.66; 95% CI 0.46-0.96), but not brachytherapy (OR, 0.63; 95% CI 0.41-1.03). The brachytherapy demonstrated the best treatment ranking probability results in terms of all-cause mortality, while no significant difference was observed when compared with other three treatment modalities. Brachytherapy and radical prostatectomy were associated with a similar risk of cancer-specific mortality, and both of them were significantly superior to active surveillance and external beam radiation therapy; nevertheless, there was no significant difference among the aforementioned treatment methods in all-cause mortality.

125I low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy and radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer

Radical prostatectomy (RP) and low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR) are two widely used treatment options for patients with T1c-T3a prostate cancer. In the present study, the efficacy of the two treatments was compared. A total of 429 patients who underwent either LDR (n=218) or RP (n=211) between January 2010 and June 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Biochemical relapse-free survival time (bRFS) and clinical relapse-free survival time (cRFS) were assessed. The log-rank test compared bRFS between the two modalities, and Cox regression identified factors associated with bRFS. The median follow-up time and patient age were 46.6 months and 71 years, respectively. The bRFS at 1, 2 and 5 years was 89.4, 87.2 and 79.9% for LDR, respectively, and 91.0, 82.8 and 72.2% for RP, respectively (P=0.077). The cRFS at 1, 2 and 5 years was 99.1, 97.7 and 94.9% for LDR, respectively, and 99.0, 96.2 and 94.5% for RP, respectively (P=0.630). It was indicated that LDR produced equivalent bRFS and cRFS rates compared with RP. The risk of biochemical failure (bF) was higher for the RP group compared with the LDR group in patients with a Gleason score ≤3+4 (P=0.022) or initial prostate specific antigen ≤10 ng/ml (P=0.002). Based on the univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of all 429 patients, T stage ≥T2b was an independent predictor for bF.

Meta-analysis of studies comparing oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) with brachytherapy (BT).

Methods

A literature review was conducted according to the 'Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses' (PRISMA) statement. We included studies reporting comparative oncologic outcomes of RP versus BT for localized prostate cancer (PCa). From each comparative study, we extracted the study design, the number and features of the included patients, and the oncologic outcomes expressed as all-cause mortality (ACM), PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) or, when the former were unavailable, as biochemical recurrence (BCR). All of the data retrieved from the selected studies were recorded in an electronic database. Cumulative analysis was conducted using the Review Manager version 5.3 software, designed for composing Cochrane Reviews (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Statistical heterogeneity was tested using the Chi-square test.

Results

Our cumulative analysis did not show any significant difference in terms of BCR, ACM or PCSM rates between the RP and BT cohorts. Only three studies reported risk-stratified outcomes of intermediate- and high-risk patients, which are the most prone to treatment failure.

Conclusions

our analysis suggested that RP and BT may have similar oncologic outcomes. However, the analysis included a limited number of studies, and most of them were retrospective, making it impossible to derive any definitive conclusion, especially for intermediate- and high-risk patients. In this scenario, appropriate urologic counseling remains of utmost importance.

The comparative oncologic effectiveness of available management strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer

The primary goal of modern prostate cancer treatment paradigms is to optimize the balance of predicted benefits associated with prostate cancer treatment against the predicted harms of therapy. However, given the limitations in the existing evidence as well as the significant tradeoffs posed by each treatment, there remain myriad challenges associated with individualized prostate cancer treatment decision-making. In this review, we summarize the existing comparative effectiveness evidence of treatments for localized prostate cancer with an emphasis on oncologic control. While we focus on the major treatment categories of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and observation, we also provide a review of emerging therapies such as cryotherapy and high-intensity frequency ultrasound (HIFU).

Low-dose rate brachytherapy for patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

We review the current evidence for the role of low-dose rate brachytherapy (PB) in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer using a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (from January 1996 to October 2011), the Cochrane Library, relevant guideline web-sites, and websites for meetings specific for genitourinary diseases.

RESULTS

Ten systematic reviews and 55 single-study papers met the pre-planned study selection criteria. In the end, 36 articles were abstracted and analyzed for this systematic review. There is no evidence for a difference in efficacy between PB and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), or between PB and radical prostatectomy (RP). During the 6 months to 3 years after treatment, PB was associated with less urinary incontinence and sexual impotency than RP, and RP was associated with less urinary irritation and rectal morbidity than PB. However, these differences diminished over time. PB conferred less risk of impotency and rectal morbidity in the three years after treatment than EBRT. Iodine-125 and alladium-103 did not differ with respect to biochemical relapse-free survival and patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

PB alone is a treatment option with equal efficacy to EBRT or RP alone in patients with newly diagnosed low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who require or choose active treatment.

Real-time catheter tracking for high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy using an electromagnetic 3D-guidance device: a preliminary performance study

PURPOSE

In order to increase the accuracy and speed of catheter reconstruction in a high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate implant procedure, an automatic tracking system has been developed using an electromagnetic (EM) device (trakSTAR, Ascension Technology, VT). The performance of the system, including the accuracy and noise level with various tracking parameters and conditions, were investigated.

METHODS

A direct current (dc) EM transmitter (midrange model) and a sensor with diameter of 1.3 mm (Model 130) were used in the trakSTAR system for tracking catheter position during HDR prostate brachytherapy. Localization accuracy was assessed under both static and dynamic analyses conditions. For the static analysis, a calibration phantom was used to investigate error dependency on operating room (OR) table height (bottom vs midposition vs top), sensor position (distal tip of catheter vs connector end of catheter), direction [left-right (LR) vs anterior-posterior (AP) vs superior-inferior (SI)], sampling frequency (40 vs 80 vs 120 Hz), and interference from OR equipment (present vs absent). The mean and standard deviation of the localization offset in each direction and the corresponding error vectors were calculated. For dynamic analysis, the paths of five straight catheters were tracked to study the effects of directions, sampling frequency, and interference of EM field. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare the results in different configurations.

RESULTS

When interference was present in the static analysis, the error vectors were significantly higher at the top table position (3.3 ± 1.3 vs 1.8 ± 0.9 mm at bottom and 1.7 ± 1.0 mm at middle, p < 0.001), at catheter end position (3.1 ± 1.1 vs 1.4 ± 0.7 mm at the tip position, p < 0.001), and at 40 Hz sampling frequency (2.6 ± 1.1 vs 2.4 ± 1.5 mm at 80 Hz and 1.8 ± 1.1 at 160 Hz, p < 0.001). So did the mean offset errors in the LR direction (-1.7 ± 1.4 vs 0.4 ± 0.5 mm in AP and 0.8 ± 0.8 mm in SI directions, p < 0.001). The error vectors were significantly higher with surrounding interference (2.2 ± 1.3 mm) vs without interference (1.0 ± 0.7 mm, p < 0.001). An accuracy of 1.6 ± 0.2 mm can be reached when using optimum configuration (160 Hz at middle table position). When interference was present in the dynamic tracking, the mean tracking errors in LR direction (1.4 ± 0.5 mm) was significantly higher than that in AP direction (0.3 ± 0.2 mm, p < 0.001). So did the mean vector errors at 40 Hz (2.1 ± 0.2 mm vs 1.3 ± 0.2 mm at 80 Hz and 0.9 ± 0.2 mm at 160 Hz, p < 0.05). However, when interference was absent, they were comparable in the both directions and at all sampling frequencies. An accuracy of 0.9 ± 0.2 mm was obtained for the dynamic tracking when using optimum configuration.

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of an EM tracking system depends highly on the system configuration and surrounding environment. The accuracy of EM tracking for catheter reconstruction in a prostate HDR brachytherapy procedure can be improved by reducing interference from surrounding equipment, decreasing distance from transmitter to tracking area, and choosing appropriated sampling frequency. A calibration scheme is needed to further reduce the tracking error when the interference is high.

Evidence-based guideline recommendations on low-dose rate brachytherapy in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

The Genitourinary Cancer Disease Site Group (GU DSG) and Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care (PEBC) in Ontario, Canada developed a guideline on low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) in patients with early-stage low-grade prostate cancer in 2001. The current updated guideline focuses on the research questions regarding the effect of LDR-BT alone, the effect of LDR-BT with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and the selection of an isotope.

METHODS

This guideline was developed by using the methods of the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle and the core methodology was a systematic review. MEDLINE and EMBASE (from January 1996 to October 2011), the Cochrane Library, main guideline websites, and main annual meeting abstract websites specific for genitourinary diseases were searched. Internal and external reviews of the draft guideline were conducted.

RESULTS

The draft guideline was developed according to a total of 10 systematic reviews and 55 full text articles that met the pre-planned study selection criteria. The quality of evidence was low to moderate. The final report reflects integration of the feedback obtained through the internal review (two oncologists and a methodologist) and external review (five target reviewers and 48 professional consultation reviewers) process, with final approval given by the GU DSG and the PEBC.

CONCLUSION

THE MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS ARE: (1) For patients with newly diagnosed low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who require or choose active treatment, LDR-BT alone is a treatment option as an alternative to EBRT alone or RP alone; and (2) I-125 and Pd-103 are each reasonable isotope options.

Historical prostate cancer screening and treatment outcomes from a single institution

OBJECTIVE

To quantify outcomes of individuals diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer in a single institution.

DESIGN

Retrospective electronic chart abstraction.

SETTING

Marshfield Clinic, the largest private multispecialty group practice in Wisconsin, and one of the largest in the United States, provides health care services annually to approximately 385,000 unique patients through 1.8 million annual patient encounters.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals within the Marshfield Clinic cancer registry who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1960 and 2009.

METHODS

Electronic chart abstraction from the cancer registry and the electronic medical record was conducted (N=6,181). Data abstracted included age at diagnosis; stage and grade of tumor; prostate specific antigen (PSA) values before, at, and after diagnosis; initial cancer treatment; follow-up time; subsequent cancer treatments; evidence of metastasis; age of death; and cause of death, if known.

RESULTS

The average age of prostate cancer diagnosis has decreased from 70-71 years in the 1960's and 1970's to an average age at diagnosis of 67 years in the 2000's (P<0.001). This decrease in age occurred within the decades of implementation of PSA screening. Approximately 74% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer within the PSA screening era had at least one PSA test, and the presence of a PSA test did not appear to change treatment outcome. Age, grade, and stage were the biggest predictors of prostate cancer outcome. There was no difference in event-free survival between current treatment types (radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, photon treatment, or intensity-modulated radiation therapy) (2003 or later) when stratified by age (greater than 85%, 5-year event-free survival P=0.85); however, more events occurred with older external beam radiation treatment regimens (1993-2003) (70% to 75%, 5-year event-free survival P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Individuals diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer within the Marshfield Clinic comprehensive care setting follow national trends with a decreased age of diagnosis since the advent of PSA screening. Outcomes for individuals treated within the Clinic system are also comparable to national trends.

Low-dose rate brachytherapy for men with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Localized prostate cancer is a slow growing tumor for many years for the majority of affected men. Low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) is short-distance radiotherapy using low-energy radioactive sources. LDR-BT has been recommended for men with low risk localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and harm of LDR-BT compared to radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and no primary therapy (NPT) in men with localized prostatic cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1950), and EMBASE (from 1980) were searched in June 2010 as well as online trials registers and reference lists of reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, controlled trials comparing LDR-BT versus RP, EBRT, and NPT in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on study methods, participants, treatment regimens, observation period and outcomes were recorded by two reviewers independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only one RCT (N = 200; mean follow up 68 months). This trial compared LDR-BT and RP. The risk of bias was deemed high. Primary outcomes (overall survival, cause-specific mortality, or metastatic-free survival) were not reported. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at 5 years follow up was not significantly different between LDR-BT (78/85 (91.8%)) and RP (81/89 (91.0%)); P = 0.875; relative risk 0.92 (95% CI: 0.35 to 2.42).For severe adverse events reported at 6 months follow up, results favored LDR-BT for urinary incontinence (LDR-BT 0/85 (0.0%) versus RP 16/89 (18.0%); P < 0.001; relative risk 0) and favored RP for urinary irritation (LDR-BT 68/85 (80.0%) versus RP 4/89 (4.5%); P < 0.001; relative risk 17.80, 95% CI 6.79 to 46.66). The occurrence of urinary stricture did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (LDR-BT 2/85 (2.4%) versus RP 6/89 (6.7%); P = 0.221; relative risk 0.35, 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.68). Long-term information was not available.We did not identify significant differences of mean scores between treatment groups for patient-reported outcomes function and bother as well as generic health-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose rate brachytherapy did not reduce biochemical recurrence-free survival versus radical prostatectomy at 5 years. For short-term severe adverse events, low-dose rate brachytherapy was significantly more favorable for urinary incontinence, but radical prostatectomy was significantly more favorable for urinary irritation. Evidence is based on one RCT with high risk of bias.

Five year biochemical recurrence free survival for intermediate risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy or permanent seed implantation

OBJECTIVE

To compare biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated by retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), external beam radiation therapy (RT), or permanent seed implantation (PI).

METHODS

Patients treated for intermediate-risk prostate cancer per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines from 1996 to 2005 were studied. Variables potentially affecting bRFS were examined using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. Five-year bRFS rates were calculated by actuarial methods; bRFS was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Nadir +2 definition of biochemical failure was used for RT and PI patients; a PSA ≥ 0.4 ng/mL was used for radical prostatectomy (RP) patients. Time to initiation of salvage therapy was compared for each treatment group using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Nine-hundred seventy-nine patients were analyzed with a median follow-up of 65 months. Five years bRFS rate was 82.8% for all patients (89.5% PI, 85.7% RT, 79.9% RRP, and 60.2% LRP). Patients treated by LRP had significantly worse bRFS than RT (P < .0001), PI (P < .0001), or RRP patients (P = .0038). Treatment modality (P < .0001) and average number of PSA tests per year (P < .0001) were the only independent predictors of bRFS on multivariate analysis. Median time to initiation of salvage therapy from time of treatment was 28.6 months for all patients (26.1 RP, 21.0 LRP, 47.4 PI, 47.8 RT; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer choosing PI, RT, or RRP appear to have improved 5-year bRFS and delayed salvage therapy compared with LRP.