S Tritschler1, U Ganswindt2, C G Stief3. 1. Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum Großhadern der LMU, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland. stefan.tritschler@med.uni-munchen.de. 2. Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie der LMU, Klinikum Großhadern, München, Deutschland. 3. Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum Großhadern der LMU, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: National and international guidelines recommend radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (EBRT) as standard treatment for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Survival benefit of RP in prostate cancer has been proven in prospectively randomized trials. In contrast, the benefit of EBRT as well as the direct comparison of EBRT and RP have been investigated in several retrospective analyses, but are limited by typical problems associated with retrospective studies. RESULTS: Most of the studies comparing RP with EBRT favor RP with regard to overall survival and cancer-specific survival. Especially in young patients with high-grade prostate cancer, RP seems to be superior in comparison with EBRT. These patient are at high risk of a PSA recurrence and subsequently need an additional radiotherapy. Mortality and morbidity related to these both methods are low. Main complications of RP are urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In contrast, rectal sequelae, erectile dysfunction, and irritative urinary symptoms are the main cause for postinterventional morbidity in patients after EBRT.
BACKGROUND: National and international guidelines recommend radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (EBRT) as standard treatment for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Survival benefit of RP in prostate cancer has been proven in prospectively randomized trials. In contrast, the benefit of EBRT as well as the direct comparison of EBRT and RP have been investigated in several retrospective analyses, but are limited by typical problems associated with retrospective studies. RESULTS: Most of the studies comparing RP with EBRT favor RP with regard to overall survival and cancer-specific survival. Especially in young patients with high-grade prostate cancer, RP seems to be superior in comparison with EBRT. These patient are at high risk of a PSA recurrence and subsequently need an additional radiotherapy. Mortality and morbidity related to these both methods are low. Main complications of RP are urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In contrast, rectal sequelae, erectile dysfunction, and irritative urinary symptoms are the main cause for postinterventional morbidity in patients after EBRT.
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Bertrand Guillonneau; R Jeffrey Karnes; Judd W Moul; Edward M Schaeffer; Christian Stief; Kevin C Zorn Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: James W Denham; Allison Steigler; David S Lamb; David Joseph; Sandra Turner; John Matthews; Chris Atkinson; John North; David Christie; Nigel A Spry; Keen-Hun Tai; Chris Wynne; Catherine D'Este Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes; Rosalia Viterbo; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Eric M Horwitz; Michael L Blute; Mark K Buyyounouski Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-01-10 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: Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ofer Yossepowitch; Scott E Eggener; Angel M Serio; Brett S Carver; Fernando J Bianco; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-10-12 Impact factor: 20.096
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