Cargando…

Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: To summarize recent evidence in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional and oncological outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: We...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heesterman, Berdine L., Aben, Katja K. H., de Jong, Igle Jan, Pos, Floris J., van der Hel, Olga L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10157926/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37142955
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10842-1
_version_ 1785036855539924992
author Heesterman, Berdine L.
Aben, Katja K. H.
de Jong, Igle Jan
Pos, Floris J.
van der Hel, Olga L.
author_facet Heesterman, Berdine L.
Aben, Katja K. H.
de Jong, Igle Jan
Pos, Floris J.
van der Hel, Olga L.
author_sort Heesterman, Berdine L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To summarize recent evidence in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional and oncological outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry on 29 march 2021. Comparative studies, published since 2016, that reported on treatment with RP versus dose-escalated EBRT and ADT for high-risk non-metastatic PCa were included. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to appraise quality and risk of bias. A qualitative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Nineteen studies, all non-randomized, met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment indicated low (n = 14) to moderate/high (n = 5) risk of bias. Only three studies reported functional outcomes and/or HRQoL using different measurement instruments and methods. A clinically meaningful difference in HRQoL was not observed. All studies reported oncological outcomes and survival was generally good (5-year survival rates > 90%). In the majority of studies, a statistically significant difference between both treatment groups was not observed, or only differences in biochemical recurrence-free survival were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence clearly demonstrating superiority in terms of oncological outcomes of either RP or EBRT combined with ADT is lacking. Studies reporting functional outcomes and HRQoL are very scarce and the magnitude of the effect of RP versus dose-escalated EBRT with ADT on HRQoL and functional outcomes remains largely unknown. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-023-10842-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10157926
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101579262023-05-05 Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review Heesterman, Berdine L. Aben, Katja K. H. de Jong, Igle Jan Pos, Floris J. van der Hel, Olga L. BMC Cancer Research BACKGROUND: To summarize recent evidence in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional and oncological outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry on 29 march 2021. Comparative studies, published since 2016, that reported on treatment with RP versus dose-escalated EBRT and ADT for high-risk non-metastatic PCa were included. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to appraise quality and risk of bias. A qualitative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Nineteen studies, all non-randomized, met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment indicated low (n = 14) to moderate/high (n = 5) risk of bias. Only three studies reported functional outcomes and/or HRQoL using different measurement instruments and methods. A clinically meaningful difference in HRQoL was not observed. All studies reported oncological outcomes and survival was generally good (5-year survival rates > 90%). In the majority of studies, a statistically significant difference between both treatment groups was not observed, or only differences in biochemical recurrence-free survival were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence clearly demonstrating superiority in terms of oncological outcomes of either RP or EBRT combined with ADT is lacking. Studies reporting functional outcomes and HRQoL are very scarce and the magnitude of the effect of RP versus dose-escalated EBRT with ADT on HRQoL and functional outcomes remains largely unknown. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-023-10842-1. BioMed Central 2023-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC10157926/ /pubmed/37142955 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10842-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Heesterman, Berdine L.
Aben, Katja K. H.
de Jong, Igle Jan
Pos, Floris J.
van der Hel, Olga L.
Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review
title Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review
title_full Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review
title_fullStr Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review
title_short Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review
title_sort radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10157926/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37142955
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10842-1
work_keys_str_mv AT heestermanberdinel radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapywithandrogendeprivationtherapyforhighriskprostatecancerasystematicreview
AT abenkatjakh radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapywithandrogendeprivationtherapyforhighriskprostatecancerasystematicreview
AT dejongiglejan radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapywithandrogendeprivationtherapyforhighriskprostatecancerasystematicreview
AT posflorisj radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapywithandrogendeprivationtherapyforhighriskprostatecancerasystematicreview
AT vanderhelolgal radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapywithandrogendeprivationtherapyforhighriskprostatecancerasystematicreview