Literature DB >> 11111188

4-Year follow-up results of a European prospective randomized study on neoadjuvant hormonal therapy prior to radical prostatectomy in T2-3N0M0 prostate cancer. European Study Group on Neoadjuvant Treatment of Prostate Cancer.

C C Schulman1, F M Debruyne, G Forster, F P Selvaggi, A R Zlotta, W P Witjes.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term effects of 3-month neoadjuvant hormonal treatment in patients treated by radical prostatectomy for locally confined prostate cancer.
METHODS: We report the results of 402 patients (220 with a clinical T2 tumor and 182 with a clinical T3 tumor) of whom 192 randomly received neoadjuvant total androgen deprivation using a LHRH analogue (goserelin) plus flutamide for a period of 3 months and 210 underwent radical prostatectomy only.
RESULTS: 'Clinical downstaging' was seen in 30% of cases in the neoadjuvantly treated group (NEO). 'Pathological downstaging' occurred in 7 and 15% of cases in the direct radical prostatectomy (DP) group and the NEO group, respectively (p<0.01). In patients with clinical T2 as well as in patients with clinical T3 tumors, a significant difference in the number of positive margins was shown in favor of the NEO group (cT2, p<0.01; cT3, p = 0.01). This advantage, although there was a trend in favor of the NEO group, specifically in cT2 tumors, did not translate in a significantly better PSA progression rate (p = 0.18). However, when evaluating the local control rate in cT2 tumors, we observed local recurrence in 3 of 102 (3%) patients in the NEO group versus 12 of 114 (11%) patients in the DP group. The difference is statistically significant (p = 0.03). In the cT3 group, this difference was not statistically significant (NEO group: 15 of 87 (17%), and DP group: 21 of 95 (22%) patients; p = 0.41).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the clinical revelance of pathological downstaging and the lower percentage of patients with positive margins in the neoadjuvantly treated group with a clinical T2 tumor is not confirmed by a lower PSA progression rate. However, this study indicates that there may be a trend that this advantage in favor of the NEO group directly translates into a better local control rate in clinical T2 tumors. Better local control in cT2 tumors is only going to be of relevance if subsequently you can show that there is a better survival for these patients. Unfortunately, this article reports a study which is not yet mature enough to show relevant information. Presently, neoadjuvant therapy should not be given outside clinical research settings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11111188     DOI: 10.1159/000020366

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  57 in total

Review 1.  [Significance of neoadjuvant therapy before radical prostatectomy].

Authors:  R Paul; H Van Randenborgh; H Kübler; M Alschibaja; R Hartung
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  [Treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer].

Authors:  M P Wirth; O W Hakenberg; M Fröhner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Downsizing and prostate cancer.

Authors:  Shandra Wilson
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2004

4.  Comparative study of the impact of 3- versus 8-month neoadjuvant hormonal therapy on outcome of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Xiao-Yong Pu; Xing-Huan Wang; Yi-Long Wu; Huai-Peng Wang
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-04-25       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 5.  Effectiveness and adverse effects of hormonal therapy for prostate cancer: Japanese experience and perspective.

Authors:  Mikio Namiki; Satoru Ueno; Yasuhide Kitagawa; Takashi Fukagai; Hideyuki Akaza
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-03-26       Impact factor: 3.285

6.  Testicular vs adrenal sources of hydroxy-androgens in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Tianzhu Zang; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Daniel Tamae; Wanling Xie; Clementina Mesaros; Zhenwei Zhang; Glenn Bubley; Bruce Montgomery; Steven P Balk; Elahe A Mostaghel; Ian A Blair; Trevor M Penning
Journal:  Endocr Relat Cancer       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 5.678

7.  Assessment of low prostate weight as a determinant of a higher positive margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective pathologic study of 1,500 cases.

Authors:  Peiguo G Chu; Sean K Lau; Lawrence M Weiss; Mark Kawachi; Jeffrey Yoshida; Christopher Ruel; Rebecca Nelson; Laura Crocitto; Timothy Wilson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-09-24       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  [Adjuvant and neoadjuvant drug therapy for prostate cancer].

Authors:  K Miller; M Lein; M Schostak; M Schrader
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 0.639

9.  Effects of complete androgen blockade for 12 and 24 weeks on the pathological stage and resection margin status of prostate cancer.

Authors:  C Selli; R Montironi; A Bono; F Pagano; F Zattoni; A Manganelli; F P Selvaggi; G Comeri; G Fiaccavento; S Guazzieri; A Lembo; S Cosciani-Cunico; D Potenzoni; G Muto; R Mazzucchelli; A Santinelli
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 10.  Preoperative therapy for localized prostate cancer: a comprehensive overview.

Authors:  Jensen Hu; JoAnn Hsu; Paulo G Bergerot; Bertram E Yuh; Cy A Stein; Sumanta K Pal
Journal:  Maturitas       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.