PURPOSE: We retrospectively compared the treatment outcomes of localized prostate cancer between radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 738 patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent either RP (n = 549) or EBRT (n = 189) with curative intent at our institution between March 2001 and December 2011. Biochemical failure was defined as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of ≥ 0.2 ng/ml in the RP group and the nadir of + ≥ 2 ng/ml in the EBRT group. RESULTS: The median (range) follow-up duration was 48.8 months (0.7-133.2 months) and 48.7 months (1.0-134.8 months) and the median age was 66 years (45-89 years) and 71 years (51-84 years; p < 0.001) in the RP and EBRT groups, respectively. Overall, 21, 42, and 36 % of patients in the RP group, and 15, 27, and 58 % of patients in the EBRT group were classified as low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively (p < 0.001). Androgen-deprivation therapy was more common in the EBRT group (59 vs. 27 %, respectively; p < 0.001). The 8-year biochemical failure-free survival rates were 44 and 72 % (p < 0.001) and the disease-specific survival rates were 98 % and 97 % (p = 0.543) in the RP and EBRT groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the EBRT group included more high-risk patients than did the RP group, the outcomes of EBRT were not inferior to those of RP. Our data suggest that EBRT is a viable alternative to RP for treating localized prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: We retrospectively compared the treatment outcomes of localized prostate cancer between radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 738 patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent either RP (n = 549) or EBRT (n = 189) with curative intent at our institution between March 2001 and December 2011. Biochemical failure was defined as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of ≥ 0.2 ng/ml in the RP group and the nadir of + ≥ 2 ng/ml in the EBRT group. RESULTS: The median (range) follow-up duration was 48.8 months (0.7-133.2 months) and 48.7 months (1.0-134.8 months) and the median age was 66 years (45-89 years) and 71 years (51-84 years; p < 0.001) in the RP and EBRT groups, respectively. Overall, 21, 42, and 36 % of patients in the RP group, and 15, 27, and 58 % of patients in the EBRT group were classified as low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively (p < 0.001). Androgen-deprivation therapy was more common in the EBRT group (59 vs. 27 %, respectively; p < 0.001). The 8-year biochemical failure-free survival rates were 44 and 72 % (p < 0.001) and the disease-specific survival rates were 98 % and 97 % (p = 0.543) in the RP and EBRT groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the EBRT group included more high-risk patients than did the RP group, the outcomes of EBRT were not inferior to those of RP. Our data suggest that EBRT is a viable alternative to RP for treating localized prostate cancer.
Authors: Deborah A Kuban; Susan L Tucker; Lei Dong; George Starkschall; Eugene H Huang; M Rex Cheung; Andrew K Lee; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-08-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Steven B Zeliadt; Scott D Ramsey; David F Penson; Ingrid J Hall; Donatus U Ekwueme; Leonard Stroud; Judith W Lee Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael J Zelefsky; James A Eastham; Angel M Cronin; Zvi Fuks; Zhigang Zhang; Yoshiya Yamada; Andrew Vickers; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; William C Hunt; Frank D Gilliland; Robert A Stephenson; Arnold L Potosky Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Carolina Ribbing; Victoria Djukic; Jens Klotz; Richard Holy; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Daniel S Engeler; Christoph Schwab; Armin F Thöni; Werner Hochreiter; Ladislav Prikler; Stefan Suter; Patrick Stucki; Johann Schiefer; Ludwig Plasswilm; Hans-Peter Schmid; Paul Martin Putora Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Ben G L Vanneste; Evert J Van Limbergen; Emile N van Lin; Joep G H van Roermund; Philippe Lambin Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: F L Giesel; F Sterzing; H P Schlemmer; T Holland-Letz; W Mier; M Rius; A Afshar-Oromieh; K Kopka; J Debus; U Haberkorn; C Kratochwil Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 9.236