LONG-TERM RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY ONCOLOGIC OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH CLINICALLY LOCALLY ADVANCED PROSTATE CANCER: A SINGLE-CENTER STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32471/exp-oncology.2312-8852.vol-44-no-1.17436Keywords:
locally advanced prostate cancer, oncologic outcomes, radical prostatectomyAbstract
Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer in males worldwide and placed fifth in cancer mortality among males. Between 14–24% of PCa patients have newly diagnosed advanced stages, which paradoxically has remained stable over time. Aim: To estimate and compare long-term radical prostatectomy (RP) oncologic outcomes in patients with clinically locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPCa), to determine the prognostic significance of common clinical-pathological parameters. Patients and Methods: The study included 105 patients with LAPCa who underwent RP with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy between September 2003 — April 2015. Kaplan — Meier method was used for calculating biochemical recurrence- (BRFS), progression-free- (PFS), overall (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) rates. Analyses of features associated with outcomes were conducted using Cox proportional hazards regression model. Results: Patients from cT3b group had worse PFS, OS and PCSS rates in comparison with cT3a, while there was no significant difference in BRFS rates. Preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level (hazard ratio (HR) 1.023, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.014–1.033, p < 0.001), pT3a (HR 3,027, 95% CI: 1.449–7.096, p < 0.01), pT3b (HR 2.792, 95% CI: 1.133–6.881, p < 0.05) pT4 stage (HR 31.12, 95% CI: 7.646–126.6 p < 0.001) and positive lymph nodes status (HR 6.503, 95% CI: 3.190–13.25, p < 0.001) were significant factors in BRFS. Preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level (HR 1.018, 95% CI: 1.007–1.030, p = 0.001) and positive lymph nodes status (HR 3.191, 95% CI: 1.672–6.088, p < 0.001) were significant factors in PFS and PCSS. Conclusions: RP as the initial treatment option of multimodal therapy in the management of LAPCa patients demonstrates encouraging oncologic outcomes. Patients from the cT3b group had the worse rates of PFS, OS, and PCSS in comparison with the cT3a group. Heterogeneity of LAPCa patients’ outcomes reflects the insufficiency of the existing clinical risk classification for the prediction of systemic progression and cancer-specific survival.
References
Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, et al. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer 2019; 144: 1941–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31937
Srivatsa N, Negaraja H, Shweta S, et al. Radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancers — Review of literature. Indian J Surg Oncol 2017; 8: 175–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-016-0599-9
Delporte G, Henon F, Ploussard G, et al. Radical prostatectomy for locally advanced and high-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review of the literature. Prog Urol 2018; 28: 875–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2018.08.007
Suzanne B, Stewart MD, Stephen A, et al. Radical prostatectomy in high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer: Mayo Clinic perspective. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: 235–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.10.003
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969–74.
Grygorenko VM, Vikarchuk MV, Danylets RO, et al. Oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy in patients with clinical locally advanced prostate cancer. Urologyia 2017; 81: 15–20 (in Ukrainian).
Yossepowitch O, Eggener SE, Bianco FJ, et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized, high-risk prostate cancer: a critical analysis of risk assessment methods. J Urol 2007; 178: 493–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.105
Joniau S, Hsu CY, Lerut E, et al. A pretreatment table for the prediction of final histopathology after radical prostatectomy in clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 388–94; discussion 395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.06.051
Van Poppel H, Ameye F, Oyen R, et al. Accuracy of combined computerized tomography and fine-needle aspiration cytology in lymph node staging of localized prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 1994; 151: 1310–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35238-2
Hsu C, Wildhagen MF, Van Poppel H, et al. Prognostic factors for and outcome for locally advanced prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2010; 105: 1536–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09054.x
Meng MV, Elkin EP, Latini DM, et al. Treatment of patients with high risk localized prostate cancer: results from cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor (CaPSURE). Urol 2005; 173: 1557–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000154610.81916.81
Cooperber MR, Cowan J, Broering JM, et al. High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990–2007. World J Urol 2008; 26: 211–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-008-0250-7
Chung BH. The role of radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Int 2013; 1: 95–101. https://doi.org/10.12954/PI.13018
Milonas D, Baltrimavicius R, Grybas A, et al. Outcome of surgery in locally advanced pT3a prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 64: 209–12. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2011.04.art4
Tewari A, Divine G, Chang P, et al. Long-term survival in men with high-grade prostate cancer: comparison between conservative treatment, radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy — a propensity scoring approach. J Urol 2007; 177: 911–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.040
Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI, Chun FK-H, et al. Percentage of positive biopsy core can improve the ability to predict lymph node invasion in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 1573–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.108.
Swanson GP, Hussey MA, Tangen CM, et al. Predominant treatment failure in postprostatectomy patients is local: analysis of patterns of treatment failure in SWOG 8794. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 2225–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.09.6495
Shipley WU, Pugh SL, Lukka HR, et al. NRG Oncology/RTOG 9601, a phase III trial in prostate cancer patients: Anti-androgen therapy (AAT) with bicalutamide during and after salvage radiation therapy (RT) following radical prostatectomy (RP) and an elevated PSA. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34 (3-3).
Van Poppel H, Vekemans K, Da Pozzo L, et al. Radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer: results of a feasibility study (EORTC 30001). Eur J Cancer 2006; 42: 1062–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2005.11.030
Johnstone PA, Ward KC, Goodman M, et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinical T4 prostate cancer. Cancer 2006; 106: 2603–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21926
Hsu CY, Joniau S, Roskams T, et al. Comparing results after surgery in patients with clinical unilateral T3a, prostate cancer treated with or without neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy. BJU Int 2007; 99: 311–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06559.x
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Experimental Oncology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
