Cargando…

The curative effect of androgen deprivation therapy alone is insufficient in high-risk prostate cancer

To compare the outcomes of patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated by primary radical prostatectomy (RP) and primary androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The study included patients with high-risk or very high-risk prostate cancer. Patients treated with definitive radiation therapy and those...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Choi, Se Young, Lim, Bumjin, Chi, Byung Hoon, Lee, Wonchul, Kim, Jung Hoon, Kyung, Yoon Soo, You, Dalsan, Kim, Choung-Soo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8341274/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34397848
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000026833
Descripción
Sumario:To compare the outcomes of patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated by primary radical prostatectomy (RP) and primary androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The study included patients with high-risk or very high-risk prostate cancer. Patients treated with definitive radiation therapy and those with clinical N1 and M1 disease were excluded. The RP group was divided into sub-cohorts of patients treated with ADT and those who received ADT after biochemical recurrence post-RP. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model. The study analyzed 859 patients divided into the RP group (n = 654) and ADT group (n = 205). Castration-resistant prostate cancer was detected in 23 (3.5%) patients in the RP group and 43 (21.0%) patients in the ADT group. Mortality cases included 63 (9.6%) patients in the RP group and 91 (44.4%) patients in the ADT group. CSS (P = .0002) and OS (P < .0001) were significantly higher in the RP group than in the ADT group. In the sub-cohort, CSS did not differ significantly between the RP and ADT groups, whereas OS was significantly higher in the RP group than in the ADT group (P < .0001). In the multivariate analysis, primary ADT increased CSS (hazard ratio, 2.068; P = .0498) and OS (hazard ratio, 3.218; P < .0001) compared with RP. In clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer patients, primary RP was associated with better CSS and OS than primary ADT. Comprehensive counseling in this cohort of patients will help the selection of treatment.