Romain Mathieu1,2, Stephan M Korn1, Karim Bensalah2, Gero Kramer1, Shahrokh F Shariat3,4,5. 1. Department of Urology, General Hospital, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Urology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France. 3. Department of Urology, General Hospital, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 4. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 5. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surgical removal of the primary tumor in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is becoming a hotly debated issue. The purpose of this review was to summarize the current knowledge on cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (cRP) in this setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a non-systematic Medline/PubMed literature search of articles published in the field between January 2000 and April 2015. RESULTS: Cytoreductive surgery has demonstrated its benefit in various malignancies with a solid biological rationale to justify its assessment in mPCa. cRP appears as a safe and feasible procedure in expert hands and well-selected patients. A growing body of evidence suggests a survival benefit for patients undergoing cRP as a part of a multimodal approach compared to those treated with systemic treatment alone. Nevertheless, little is known about the best clinical and tumor characteristics for the selection of patients most likely to benefit from cRP. The current literature is based on retrospective studies with small cohorts and limited follow-up or large uncontrolled population-based studies. CONCLUSIONS: Data from various other malignancies together with the biological rationale and preliminary results in PCa suggest that cytoreductive surgery may be an option in some mPCa patients. The lack of randomized controlled trials and the low level of evidence in the current literature preclude any firms conclusion on the benefit of cRP in mPCa. Ongoing phase II and future phase III studies are mandatory to define the exact role of cRP in mPCa and to identify the patients who are most likely to benefit from cRP.
PURPOSE: Surgical removal of the primary tumor in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is becoming a hotly debated issue. The purpose of this review was to summarize the current knowledge on cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (cRP) in this setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a non-systematic Medline/PubMed literature search of articles published in the field between January 2000 and April 2015. RESULTS: Cytoreductive surgery has demonstrated its benefit in various malignancies with a solid biological rationale to justify its assessment in mPCa. cRP appears as a safe and feasible procedure in expert hands and well-selected patients. A growing body of evidence suggests a survival benefit for patients undergoing cRP as a part of a multimodal approach compared to those treated with systemic treatment alone. Nevertheless, little is known about the best clinical and tumor characteristics for the selection of patients most likely to benefit from cRP. The current literature is based on retrospective studies with small cohorts and limited follow-up or large uncontrolled population-based studies. CONCLUSIONS: Data from various other malignancies together with the biological rationale and preliminary results in PCa suggest that cytoreductive surgery may be an option in some mPCa patients. The lack of randomized controlled trials and the low level of evidence in the current literature preclude any firms conclusion on the benefit of cRP in mPCa. Ongoing phase II and future phase III studies are mandatory to define the exact role of cRP in mPCa and to identify the patients who are most likely to benefit from cRP.
Authors: R C Flanigan; S E Salmon; B A Blumenstein; S I Bearman; V Roy; P C McGrath; J R Caton; N Munshi; E D Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-12-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Jeffrey Karnes; Christian Stief; Bethan Copsey; Francesco Montorsi; Peter Hammerer; Burkhard Beyer; Marco Moschini; Christian Gratzke; Thomas Steuber; Nazareno Suardi; Alberto Briganti; Lukas Manka; Tommy Nyberg; Susan J Dutton; Peter Wiklund; Markus Graefen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Vassiliki Tzelepi; Eleni Efstathiou; Sijin Wen; Patricia Troncoso; Maria Karlou; Curtis A Pettaway; Louis L Pisters; Anh Hoang; Christopher J Logothetis; Lance C Pagliaro Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anders Widmark; Olbjørn Klepp; Arne Solberg; Jan-Erik Damber; Anders Angelsen; Per Fransson; Jo-Asmund Lund; Ilker Tasdemir; Morten Hoyer; Fredrik Wiklund; Sophie D Fosså Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Padraig Warde; Malcolm Mason; Keyue Ding; Peter Kirkbride; Michael Brundage; Richard Cowan; Mary Gospodarowicz; Karen Sanders; Edmund Kostashuk; Greg Swanson; Jim Barber; Andrea Hiltz; Mahesh K B Parmar; Jinka Sathya; John Anderson; Charles Hayter; John Hetherington; Matthew R Sydes; Wendy Parulekar Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Johannes Linxweiler; Turkan Hajili; Philip Zeuschner; Michael D Menger; Michael Stöckle; Kerstin Junker; Matthias Saar Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 6.639