Cargando…

Radical Prostatectomy versus External Beam Radiotherapy for cT1-4N0M0 Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Patient Outcomes Including Mortality

BACKGROUND: Although radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) have been considered as comparable treatments for localized prostate cancer (PC), it is controversial which treatment is better. The present study aimed to compare outcomes, including mortality, of RP and EBRT for...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taguchi, Satoru, Fukuhara, Hiroshi, Shiraishi, Kenshiro, Nakagawa, Keiichi, Morikawa, Teppei, Kakutani, Shigenori, Takeshima, Yuta, Miyazaki, Hideyo, Fujimura, Tetsuya, Nakagawa, Tohru, Kume, Haruki, Homma, Yukio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4624690/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26506569
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141123
_version_ 1782397838370537472
author Taguchi, Satoru
Fukuhara, Hiroshi
Shiraishi, Kenshiro
Nakagawa, Keiichi
Morikawa, Teppei
Kakutani, Shigenori
Takeshima, Yuta
Miyazaki, Hideyo
Fujimura, Tetsuya
Nakagawa, Tohru
Kume, Haruki
Homma, Yukio
author_facet Taguchi, Satoru
Fukuhara, Hiroshi
Shiraishi, Kenshiro
Nakagawa, Keiichi
Morikawa, Teppei
Kakutani, Shigenori
Takeshima, Yuta
Miyazaki, Hideyo
Fujimura, Tetsuya
Nakagawa, Tohru
Kume, Haruki
Homma, Yukio
author_sort Taguchi, Satoru
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) have been considered as comparable treatments for localized prostate cancer (PC), it is controversial which treatment is better. The present study aimed to compare outcomes, including mortality, of RP and EBRT for localized PC. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 891 patients with cT1-4N0M0 PC who underwent either RP (n = 569) or EBRT (n = 322) with curative intent at our single institution between 2005 and 2012. Of the EBRT patients, 302 (93.8%) underwent intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Related to these, other-cause mortality (OCM) was also calculated. Biochemical recurrence-free survival was assessed as a secondary endpoint. Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Median follow-up durations were 53 and 45 months, and median ages were 66 and 70 years (P <0.0001), in the RP and EBRT groups, respectively. As a whole, significantly better prognoses of the RP group than the EBRT group were observed for both OS and CSS, although OCM was significantly higher in the EBRT group. There was no death from PC in men with low and intermediate D’Amico risks, except one with intermediate-risk in the EBRT group. In high-risk patients, significantly more patients died from PC in the EBRT group than the RP group. Multivariate analysis demonstrated the RP group to be an independent prognostic factor for better CSS. On the other hand, the EBRT group had a significantly longer biochemical recurrence-free survival than the RP group. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality outcomes of both RP and EBRT were generally favorable in low and intermediate risk patients. Improvement of CSS in high risk patients was seen in patients receiving RP over those receiving EBRT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4624690
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46246902015-11-06 Radical Prostatectomy versus External Beam Radiotherapy for cT1-4N0M0 Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Patient Outcomes Including Mortality Taguchi, Satoru Fukuhara, Hiroshi Shiraishi, Kenshiro Nakagawa, Keiichi Morikawa, Teppei Kakutani, Shigenori Takeshima, Yuta Miyazaki, Hideyo Fujimura, Tetsuya Nakagawa, Tohru Kume, Haruki Homma, Yukio PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Although radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) have been considered as comparable treatments for localized prostate cancer (PC), it is controversial which treatment is better. The present study aimed to compare outcomes, including mortality, of RP and EBRT for localized PC. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 891 patients with cT1-4N0M0 PC who underwent either RP (n = 569) or EBRT (n = 322) with curative intent at our single institution between 2005 and 2012. Of the EBRT patients, 302 (93.8%) underwent intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Related to these, other-cause mortality (OCM) was also calculated. Biochemical recurrence-free survival was assessed as a secondary endpoint. Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Median follow-up durations were 53 and 45 months, and median ages were 66 and 70 years (P <0.0001), in the RP and EBRT groups, respectively. As a whole, significantly better prognoses of the RP group than the EBRT group were observed for both OS and CSS, although OCM was significantly higher in the EBRT group. There was no death from PC in men with low and intermediate D’Amico risks, except one with intermediate-risk in the EBRT group. In high-risk patients, significantly more patients died from PC in the EBRT group than the RP group. Multivariate analysis demonstrated the RP group to be an independent prognostic factor for better CSS. On the other hand, the EBRT group had a significantly longer biochemical recurrence-free survival than the RP group. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality outcomes of both RP and EBRT were generally favorable in low and intermediate risk patients. Improvement of CSS in high risk patients was seen in patients receiving RP over those receiving EBRT. Public Library of Science 2015-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4624690/ /pubmed/26506569 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141123 Text en © 2015 Taguchi et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Taguchi, Satoru
Fukuhara, Hiroshi
Shiraishi, Kenshiro
Nakagawa, Keiichi
Morikawa, Teppei
Kakutani, Shigenori
Takeshima, Yuta
Miyazaki, Hideyo
Fujimura, Tetsuya
Nakagawa, Tohru
Kume, Haruki
Homma, Yukio
Radical Prostatectomy versus External Beam Radiotherapy for cT1-4N0M0 Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Patient Outcomes Including Mortality
title Radical Prostatectomy versus External Beam Radiotherapy for cT1-4N0M0 Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Patient Outcomes Including Mortality
title_full Radical Prostatectomy versus External Beam Radiotherapy for cT1-4N0M0 Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Patient Outcomes Including Mortality
title_fullStr Radical Prostatectomy versus External Beam Radiotherapy for cT1-4N0M0 Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Patient Outcomes Including Mortality
title_full_unstemmed Radical Prostatectomy versus External Beam Radiotherapy for cT1-4N0M0 Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Patient Outcomes Including Mortality
title_short Radical Prostatectomy versus External Beam Radiotherapy for cT1-4N0M0 Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Patient Outcomes Including Mortality
title_sort radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy for ct1-4n0m0 prostate cancer: comparison of patient outcomes including mortality
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4624690/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26506569
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141123
work_keys_str_mv AT taguchisatoru radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapyforct14n0m0prostatecancercomparisonofpatientoutcomesincludingmortality
AT fukuharahiroshi radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapyforct14n0m0prostatecancercomparisonofpatientoutcomesincludingmortality
AT shiraishikenshiro radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapyforct14n0m0prostatecancercomparisonofpatientoutcomesincludingmortality
AT nakagawakeiichi radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapyforct14n0m0prostatecancercomparisonofpatientoutcomesincludingmortality
AT morikawateppei radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapyforct14n0m0prostatecancercomparisonofpatientoutcomesincludingmortality
AT kakutanishigenori radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapyforct14n0m0prostatecancercomparisonofpatientoutcomesincludingmortality
AT takeshimayuta radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapyforct14n0m0prostatecancercomparisonofpatientoutcomesincludingmortality
AT miyazakihideyo radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapyforct14n0m0prostatecancercomparisonofpatientoutcomesincludingmortality
AT fujimuratetsuya radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapyforct14n0m0prostatecancercomparisonofpatientoutcomesincludingmortality
AT nakagawatohru radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapyforct14n0m0prostatecancercomparisonofpatientoutcomesincludingmortality
AT kumeharuki radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapyforct14n0m0prostatecancercomparisonofpatientoutcomesincludingmortality
AT hommayukio radicalprostatectomyversusexternalbeamradiotherapyforct14n0m0prostatecancercomparisonofpatientoutcomesincludingmortality