OBJECTIVES: To compare the oncological and functional outcomes reported after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) versus brachytherapy (BT) in the treatment of low-risk prostatic cancer (CaP). METHODS:Between May 1999 and October 2002, 200 patients (mean age 65.3 +/- 8.7) were enrolled and randomized into two groups of 100 patients each to undergo RRP (group 1) or BT (group 2). Prior to and following treatment, all patients were evaluated by physical examination, PSA assay and compilation of IPSS, IIEF-5 and EORTC-QLQ-C30/PR25 questionnaires. Oncological results were reported at 5 years, while functional outcomes were reported at 6 months, and 1 and 5 years mean follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 200 patients studied, 174 completed the 5-year follow-up assessment. With regards to oncological outcomes, similar 5-year biochemical disease-free survival rates were reported for RRP (91.0%) or BT (91.7%). At 6 months and 1 year, both techniques produced a significant decrease in quality of life aspects, while group 2 patients reported a significantly higher and longer lasting rate of urinary irritative disorders and better erective function than group 1. No differences in functional outcomes were encountered after 5 years in either group. CONCLUSIONS:RRP and BT are two different options for the treatment of low-risk CaP, which produce different short-term sequelae in terms of urinary disorders and erective functions, but similar biochemical disease-free survival. Further studies with a higher number of patients and a longer follow-up are needed to evaluate their comparative effectiveness on overall disease-specific survival and metastatic disease.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the oncological and functional outcomes reported after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) versus brachytherapy (BT) in the treatment of low-risk prostatic cancer (CaP). METHODS: Between May 1999 and October 2002, 200 patients (mean age 65.3 +/- 8.7) were enrolled and randomized into two groups of 100 patients each to undergo RRP (group 1) or BT (group 2). Prior to and following treatment, all patients were evaluated by physical examination, PSA assay and compilation of IPSS, IIEF-5 and EORTC-QLQ-C30/PR25 questionnaires. Oncological results were reported at 5 years, while functional outcomes were reported at 6 months, and 1 and 5 years mean follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 200 patients studied, 174 completed the 5-year follow-up assessment. With regards to oncological outcomes, similar 5-year biochemical disease-free survival rates were reported for RRP (91.0%) or BT (91.7%). At 6 months and 1 year, both techniques produced a significant decrease in quality of life aspects, while group 2 patients reported a significantly higher and longer lasting rate of urinary irritative disorders and better erective function than group 1. No differences in functional outcomes were encountered after 5 years in either group. CONCLUSIONS: RRP and BT are two different options for the treatment of low-risk CaP, which produce different short-term sequelae in terms of urinary disorders and erective functions, but similar biochemical disease-free survival. Further studies with a higher number of patients and a longer follow-up are needed to evaluate their comparative effectiveness on overall disease-specific survival and metastatic disease.
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: John W Colberg; Roy H Decker; Anwar M Khan; Ann McKeon; Lynn D Wilson; Richard E Peschel Journal: Cancer J Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Louis Potters; Deepak Khuntia; Jay P Ciezki; Chandana A Reddy; Alwyn M Reuther; Thomas P Carlson; Eric A Klein Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Meredith M Regan; Matthew R Cooperberg; John T Wei; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Larry Hembroff; Natalia Sadetsky; Christopher S Saigal; Mark S Litwin; Eric Klein; Adam S Kibel; Daniel A Hamstra; Louis L Pisters; Deborah A Kuban; Irving D Kaplan; David P Wood; Jay Ciezki; Rodney L Dunn; Peter R Carroll; Martin G Sanda Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christine M Fisher; Patricia Troncoso; David A Swanson; Mark F Munsell; Deborah A Kuban; Andrew K Lee; Shih-Fan Yeh; Steven J Frank Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: George Rodrigues; Xiaomei Yao; D Andrew Loblaw; Michael Brundage; Joseph L Chin Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Jeffrey L Schaal; Xinghai Li; Eric Mastria; Jayanta Bhattacharyya; Michael R Zalutsky; Ashutosh Chilkoti; Wenge Liu Journal: J Control Release Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Mira Keyes; Juanita Crook; Gerard Morton; Eric Vigneault; Nawaid Usmani; W James Morris Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Dong Soo Park; In Hyuck Gong; Don Kyung Choi; Jin Ho Hwang; Hyun Soo Shin; Jong Jin Oh Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-04-27 Impact factor: 4.226