Assessments of Neoadjuvant Hormone Therapy Followed by Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Intermediate- and High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Impacts of Neoadjuvant Hormonal Therapy Prior to Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy on Postoperative Hormonal- and Sexual-Related Quality of Life – Assessment by Patient-Reported Questionnaire

Purpose

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (HT) before radical prostatectomy (RP) is not recommended by current guidelines in terms of oncological outcomes. Despite this, neoadjuvant HT is sometimes conducted before RP for a small proportion of patients in clinical practice. This study evaluated the impacts of neoadjuvant HT on hormonal- and sexual-related quality of life (QOL) among patients who underwent robot-assisted RP (RARP).

Materials and Methods

Participants comprised 470 patients divided into a non-neoadjuvant HT group (n = 408) and a neoadjuvant HT group (n = 62). Hormonal- and sexual-related QOL were measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire.

Results

Hormonal summary scores at 6 and 9 months, function scores before and 3, 6, and 9 months and bother score at 6 months after RARP were significantly lower in the neoadjuvant HT group than in the non-neoadjuvant HT group. Sexual function scores were decreased in the neoadjuvant HT group compared to the non-neoadjuvant HT group before and 6 months after RARP. In the neoadjuvant HT group, sexual function at 3 months after RARP was significantly worse in patients with >5 months of neoadjuvant HT than in patients with ≤5 months of neoadjuvant HT. Conversely, sexual bother at 3 months after RARP was significantly worse in patients with ≤5 months of neoadjuvant HT than in patients with >5 months of neoadjuvant HT.

Conclusion

Vintage neoadjuvant HT prior to RARP should not be recommended due to not only oncological outcomes, but also the impacts on postoperative hormonal- and sexual-related QOL.

The Impact of Neoadjuvant Hormone Therapy on Surgical and Oncological Outcomes for Patients With Prostate Cancer Before Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

This systematic study aimed to assess and compare the comprehensive evidence regarding the impact of neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) on surgical and oncological outcomes of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) before radical prostatectomy (RP).

Methods

Literature searches were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Using PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases, we identified relevant studies published before July 2020. The pooled effect sizes were calculated in terms of the odds ratios (ORs)/standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed or random-effects model.

Results

We identified 22 clinical trials (6 randomized and 16 cohort) including 20,199 patients with PCa. Our meta-analysis showed no significant differences in body mass index (SMD = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.08-0.29, p = 0.274) and biopsy Gleason score (GS) (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.76-2.35 p = 0.321) between the two groups. However, the NHT group had a higher mean age (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.07-0.31, p = 0.001), preoperative prostate-specific antigen (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.19-0.75, p = 0.001), and clinic tumor stage (OR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.53-3.29, p < 0.001). Compared to the RP group, the NHT group had lower positive surgical margins (PSMs) rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.67, p < 0.001) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.26-0.83, p = 0.009). Between both groups, there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss (SMD = -0.06, 95% CI: -0.24-0.13, p = 0.556), operation time (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI: -0.12-0.51, p = 0.219), pathological tumor stage (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.54-1.06, p = 0.104), specimen GS (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.49-1.68, p = 0.756), and lymph node involvement (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.40-1.45, p = 0.404).

Conclusions

NHT prior to RP appeared to reduce the tumor stage, PSMs rate, and risk of BCR in patients with PCa. According to our data, NHT may be more suitable for older patients with higher tumor stage. Besides, NHT may not increase the surgical difficulty of RP.