Karim A Touijer1, Robert Jeffery Karnes2, Niccolo Passoni3, Daniel D Sjoberg3, Melissa Assel3, Nicola Fossati4, Giorgio Gandaglia4, James A Eastham5, Peter T Scardino5, Andrew Vickers3, Cesare Cozzarini6, Francesco Montorsi4, Alberto Briganti4. 1. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: touijerk@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Division of Oncology, Unit of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 5. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Radiotherapy, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal management of patients with lymph node metastasis (LNM) after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains undefined. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the association between three different management strategies and survival in prostate cancer with LNM after RP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed data of 1338 patients with LNM after RP from three tertiary care centers. Three hundred and eighty-seven patients (28%) were observed, 676 (49%) received lifelong adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and 325 (23%) received adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and ADT. Three hundred and sixty-eight men were followed for more than 10 yr. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were cancer-specific survival (CSS) and other-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to visualize OS for the three treatment groups. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to compare OS and CSS among the three groups. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: ADT+EBRT was associated with better OS than ADT alone (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-0.66, p<0.0001) or observation (HR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.27-0.64, p<0.0001). Higher-risk patients benefited more from ADT+EBRT than lower-risk patients. Ten-year mortality risk difference between ADT+EBRT, observation, or ADT alone ranged from 5% in low-risk patients to 40% in high-risk patients. Adjuvant ADT+EBRT was also associated with better CSS than observation or ADT alone (p<0.0001), ADT had better CSS compared to observation (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43-0.95, p=0.027). However, ADT was associated with an increased risk of other-cause mortality (HR: 3.05, 95% CI: 1.45-6.40, p=0.003) compared with observation, resulting in similar OS between ADT and observation (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.65-1.25, p=0.5). While selection bias might remain, its effect would operate in the opposite direction to our findings. CONCLUSIONS: In men with LNM after RP, ADT+EBRT improved survival over either observation or adjuvant ADT alone. This survival benefit increases with higher-risk disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: Lymph node metastasis following radical prostatectomy is associated with poor survival outcomes. However, we found that adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy with external beam radiation therapy improved survival in these patients.
BACKGROUND: Optimal management of patients with lymph node metastasis (LNM) after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains undefined. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the association between three different management strategies and survival in prostate cancer with LNM after RP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed data of 1338 patients with LNM after RP from three tertiary care centers. Three hundred and eighty-seven patients (28%) were observed, 676 (49%) received lifelong adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and 325 (23%) received adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and ADT. Three hundred and sixty-eight men were followed for more than 10 yr. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were cancer-specific survival (CSS) and other-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to visualize OS for the three treatment groups. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to compare OS and CSS among the three groups. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: ADT+EBRT was associated with better OS than ADT alone (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-0.66, p<0.0001) or observation (HR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.27-0.64, p<0.0001). Higher-risk patients benefited more from ADT+EBRT than lower-risk patients. Ten-year mortality risk difference between ADT+EBRT, observation, or ADT alone ranged from 5% in low-risk patients to 40% in high-risk patients. Adjuvant ADT+EBRT was also associated with better CSS than observation or ADT alone (p<0.0001), ADT had better CSS compared to observation (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43-0.95, p=0.027). However, ADT was associated with an increased risk of other-cause mortality (HR: 3.05, 95% CI: 1.45-6.40, p=0.003) compared with observation, resulting in similar OS between ADT and observation (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.65-1.25, p=0.5). While selection bias might remain, its effect would operate in the opposite direction to our findings. CONCLUSIONS: In men with LNM after RP, ADT+EBRT improved survival over either observation or adjuvant ADT alone. This survival benefit increases with higher-risk disease. PATIENT SUMMARY:Lymph node metastasis following radical prostatectomy is associated with poor survival outcomes. However, we found that adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy with external beam radiation therapy improved survival in these patients.
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Peter T Scardino; Patrick C Walsh; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Bruce J Trock; Zhaoyong Feng; David P Wood; James A Eastham; Ofer Yossepowitch; Danny M Rabah; Michael W Kattan; Changhong Yu; Eric A Klein; Andrew J Stephenson Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marco Moschini; Vidit Sharma; Fabio Zattoni; Stephen A Boorjian; Igor Frank; Matthew T Gettman; R Houston Thompson; Matthew K Tollefson; Eugene D Kwon; R Jeffrey Karnes Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Dawn L Hershman; Joseph M Unger; Jason D Wright; Scott Ramsey; Cathee Till; Catherine M Tangen; William E Barlow; Charles Blanke; Ian M Thompson; Maha Hussain Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Glenn N Levine; Anthony V D'Amico; Peter Berger; Peter E Clark; Robert H Eckel; Nancy L Keating; Richard V Milani; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Matthew R Smith; Neil Zakai Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Bruce J Trock; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Theodore L DeWeese; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Luigi F Da Pozzo; Cesare Cozzarini; Alberto Briganti; Nazareno Suardi; Andrea Salonia; Roberto Bertini; Andrea Gallina; Marco Bianchi; Gemma V Fantini; Angelo Bolognesi; Ferruccio Fazio; Francesco Montorsi; Patrizio Rigatti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-02-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Carlo A Bravi; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nazareno Suardi; Elio Mazzone; Daniele Robesti; Daniar Osmonov; Klaus-Peter Juenemann; Luca Boeri; R Jeffrey Karnes; Alexander Kretschmer; Alexander Buchner; Christian Stief; Andreas Hiester; Alessandro Nini; Peter Albers; Gaëtan Devos; Steven Joniau; Hendrik Van Poppel; Shahrokh F Shariat; Axel Heidenreich; David Pfister; Derya Tilki; Markus Graefen; Inderbir S Gill; Alexander Mottrie; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 24.267
Authors: Neal A Patel; Art Sedrakyan; Fernando Bianco; Ruth Etzioni; Michael A Gorin; Wei-Chun Hsu; Jialin Mao; Paul L Nguyen; Edward Schaeffer; Jonathan Shoag; Andrew Vickers; Jim C Hu Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Casey Liveringhouse; Austin Sim; Kosj Yamoah; Michael Poch; Richard B Wilder; Julio Pow-Sang; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2021-04-14
Authors: Amar U Kishan; R Jeffrey Karnes; Tahmineh Romero; Jessica K Wong; Giovanni Motterle; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Eric A Klein; Bradley J Stish; Robert T Dess; Daniel E Spratt; Avinash Pilar; Chandana Reddy; Rebecca Levin-Epstein; Trude B Wedde; Wolfgang A Lilleby; Ryan Fiano; Gregory S Merrick; Richard G Stock; D Jeffrey Demanes; Brian J Moran; Michelle Braccioforte; Hartwig Huland; Phuoc T Tran; Santiago Martin; Rafael Martínez-Monge; Daniel J Krauss; Eyad I Abu-Isa; Ridwan Alam; Zeyad Schwen; Albert J Chang; Thomas M Pisansky; Richard Choo; Daniel Y Song; Stephen Greco; Curtiland Deville; Todd McNutt; Theodore L DeWeese; Ashley E Ross; Jay P Ciezki; Paul C Boutros; Nicholas G Nickols; Prashant Bhat; David Shabsovich; Jesus E Juarez; Natalie Chong; Patrick A Kupelian; Anthony V D'Amico; Matthew B Rettig; Alejandro Berlin; Jonathan D Tward; Brian J Davis; Robert E Reiter; Michael L Steinberg; David Elashoff; Eric M Horwitz; Rahul D Tendulkar; Derya Tilki Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-07-01
Authors: Megan Crumbaker; Eva K F Chan; Tingting Gong; Niall Corcoran; Weerachai Jaratlerdsiri; Ruth J Lyons; Anne-Maree Haynes; Anna A Kulidjian; Anton M F Kalsbeek; Desiree C Petersen; Phillip D Stricker; Christina A M Jamieson; Peter I Croucher; Christopher M Hovens; Anthony M Joshua; Vanessa M Hayes Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Thijs H Huits; Henk B Luiting; Henk G van der Poel; Rohan Nandurkar; Maarten Donswijk; Eva Schaake; Wouter Vogel; Monique J Roobol; Esther Wit; Phillip Stricker; Louise Emmett; Pim J van Leeuwen Journal: BJU Int Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 5.588