Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Several randomised control trials comparing conservative management (watchful waiting/observation/active monitoring) and radical treatments (radical prostatectomy/radiotherapy) for localised prostate cancer with at least more than 10 years of follow-up (median) have been published with conflicting findings. The primary aim of this study was to determine all-cause mortality and prostate cancer-related mortality between conservative management and radical treatment for localised prostate cancer.

Methods:

All randomised clinical trials were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and CENTRAL from their inception until September 2018.

Results:

Four trials were eligible (n = 3211) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In patients who had radical treatment, the incidence of all-cause mortality and prostate cancer-related mortality (three trials, 3069 patients) were reduced (with odds ratio, i.e. 95% confidence interval (CI)), of 1.37 (1.14–1.64), ρ < 0.001, low quality of evidence and odd ratio (95% CI) of 1.74 (1.31–2.30), ρ < 0.001, low quality of evidence, respectively). The radical treatment group was associated with reduced incidence of distant metastases, the odds ratio (95% CI) being 1.87 (1.48–2.36), ρ < 0.001, low quality of evidence. However, patients who were randomised to radical treatment had a significantly higher incidence of erectile dysfunction (the odds ratio (95% CI) being 0.62 (0.39–0.98), ρ = 0.04, very low quality of evidence) and urinary incontinence (odds ratio (95% CI) of 0.42 (0.21–0.86), ρ = 0.02, very low quality of evidence).

Conclusions:

In summary, radical treatments reduce all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer-related and distant metastases, at the expense of higher incidence of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. The general quality of evidence ranged from very low to low.

Level of evidence: 1a

PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42017072687

Keywords

Active monitoring localised prostate cancer prostatectomy watchful waiting

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Siegel

Miller

Jemal

Cancer statistics 2017. Ca Cancer J Clin 2017; 67: 7–30.

Wilt

MacDonald

Rutks

et al . Systematic review: Comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 435–448.

Lavery

Cooperberg

Clinically localized prostate cancer in 2017: A review of comparative effectiveness. Urol Oncol 2017; 35: 40–41.

Johansson

Steineck

Holmberg

et al . Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: The Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 891–899.

Wilt

Jones

Barry

et al . Follow-up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 132–142.

Hamdy

Donovan

Lane

et al . 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1415–1424.

Donovan

Hamdy

Lane

et al . Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1425–1437.

Bill-Axelson

Holmberg

Garmo

et al . Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 932–942.

Peter

Paul

Donald

Radical prostatectomy versus expectant treatment for early carcinoma of the prostate: Twenty-three year follow up of a prospective randomised study. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1995; 172: 65–72.

10.

Hegarty

Beirne

Walsh

et al . Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 11: CD006590.

11.

Shamseer

Moher

Clarke

et al . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015. BMJ 2015; 349: g4647.

12.

The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org

13.

Ryan

Hill

How to GRADE the quality of the evidence [Internet]. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group 2016 [cited 2017 Nov 27], http://cccrg.cochrane.org/author-resources (2011, accessed 9 November 2017).

14.

Thorlund

Engstrom

Wetterslev

et al . User manual for trial sequential analysis (TSA) [Internet]. Copenhagen Trial Unit, http://www.ctu.dk/tools-and-links/trial-sequential-analysis.aspx (2017, accessed 2 January 2018).

15.

Ries

Melbert

Krapcho

et al . SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2004 [Internet]. National Cancer Institute, https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2004/ (2007, accessed 13 Oct 2017).

16.

Schroder

Hugosson

Roobol

et al . The European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer – prostate cancer mortality at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 2014; 384: 2027–2035.

17.

Andriole

Crawford

Grubb

et al . Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: Mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104: 125–132.

18.

Cooperberg

Broering

Carroll

Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1117–1123.

19.

Perry

Is PSA testing flawed, or it the trial design? [Internet]. MEDPAGE TODAY, https://www.medpagetoday.com/urology/prostatecancer/67704?xid=nl_mpt_weeklyvideo_2017–09–09&eun=g1180873d0r (2017, accessed 27 October 2017).

20.

Johansson

Andren

Andersson

et al . Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2004; 291: 2713–2719.

21.

Albertsen

Hanley

Fine

20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005; 293: 2095–2101.

22.

Tewari

Divine

Chang

et al . Long-term survival in men with high grade prostate cancer: A comparison between conservative treatment, radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy–a propensity scoring approach. J Urol 2007; 177: 911–915.

23.

Lau

Bergstralh

Blute

Slezak

Zincke

Radical prostatectomy for pathological Gleason 8 or greater prostate cancer: influence of concomitant pathological variables. J Urol 2002;167(1):117–22.

24.

Bill-Axelson

Garmo

Holmberg

et al . Long-term distress after radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in prostate cancer: A longitudinal study from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 Randomized Clinical Trial. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 920–928.

25.

Stanford

Feng

Hamilton

et al . Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer: The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA 2000; 283: 354–360.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.45 MB

Conservative management and radical treatment in localised prostate cancer: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Abstract

Background:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Level of evidence: 1a

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material