To investigate and document the surgical, functional and oncological outcomes following surgery for high-risk prostate cancer patients.
Patients and methods:
Patients with pathological T3a, T3b and N1 disease were extracted from our prospectively updated institutional database. Data include demographics, preoperative cancer parameters, short and long-term complications and functional results. Details of biochemical recurrence, type and oncological outcome of salvage treatments, cancer-specific and overall survival were also obtained.
Results:
A total of 669 patients were included; 58.9% had T3a disease, 35.9% had pT3b and 11.4% N1 disease. With a median follow-up of 66 months (8–129), overall survival was 94.3%, cancer-specific survival was 98.7% and biochemical recurrence was 45.6%. Average inpatient stay was 1 day and the overall complication rate was 9.1%; 54.2% experienced a biochemical recurrence and 90.3% went on to have one or more salvage treatments, which were varied. Significant predictors of biochemical recurrence included pathological stage, any positive margin and patient age (P<0.005). A total of 44.9% had an immediate biochemical recurrence, with 90% receiving subsequent treatment and 20.5% having a durable response. None of the patients receiving prostate bed radiotherapy alone had a durable response. 54% had a delayed biochemical recurrence, with 63.5% receiving subsequent treatment and 44% having a durable response.
Conclusions:
Surgery is associated with encouraging surgical and functional outcomes, cancer-specific survival and overall survival rates in these patients. Pathological stage is a significant predictor of biochemical recurrence. The present analysis shows that long-term observation for certain patients with biochemical recurrence is appropriate and questions the effectiveness of further local salvage treatments in patients with an immediate biochemical recurrence postoperatively.
MooreALDimitropoulouPLaneA, et al. Population-based prostate-specific antigen testing in the UK leads to a stage migration of prostate cancer. BJU Int2009; 104: 1592–1598.
2.
CooperbergMRCowanJBroeringJM, et al. High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990–2007. World J Urol2008; 26: 211–218.
3.
BrigantiAChunFKSaloniaA, et al. Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion based on the extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int2006; 98: 788–793.
4.
GerberGSThistedRAChodakGW, et al. Results of radical prostatectomy in men with locally advanced prostate cancer: multi-institutional pooled analysis. Eur Urol1997; 32: 385–390.
5.
TerakawaTMiyakeHKurahashiT, et al. Improved sensitivity for detecting micrometastases in pelvic lymph nodes by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) compared with conventional RT-PCR in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. BJU Int2009; 103: 1074–1078.
6.
SooriakumaranPPavanNWiklundPN, et al. Surgery versus radiation for high-risk prostate cancer: the fight continues. But is it time to call a draw and reach consensus?Eur Urol2019; 75: 556–557.
7.
BollaMColletteLBlankL, et al. Long-term results with immediate androgen suppression and external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): a phase III randomised trial. Lancet2002; 360: 103–106.
8.
LaverdiereJGomezJLCusanL, et al. Beneficial effect of combination hormonal therapy administered prior and following external beam radiation therapy in localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1997; 37: 247–252.
9.
MasonMDParulekarWRSydesMR, et al. Final report of the Intergroup Randomized Study of Combined Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Plus Radiotherapy Versus Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Alone in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer. J Clin Oncol2015; 33: 2143–2150.
10.
FallonBWilliamsRD.Current options in the management of clinical stage C prostatic carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am1990; 17: 853–866.
11.
KoupparisAJGrummetJPHurtado-CollA, et al. Radical prostatectomy for high-risk clinically localized prostate cancer: a prospective single institution series. Can Urol Assoc J2011; 5: E156–E161.
12.
MitchellCRBoorjianSAUmbreitEC, et al. 20-Year survival after radical prostatectomy as initial treatment for cT3 prostate cancer. BJU Int2012; 110: 1709–1713.
13.
SpahnMWeissCBaderP, et al. Long-term outcome of patients with high-risk prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy and stage-dependent adjuvant androgen deprivation. Urol Int2010; 84: 164–173.
14.
WardJFSlezakJMBluteML, et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int2005; 95: 751–756.
15.
AbdollahFSchmitgesJSunM, et al. Comparison of mortality outcomes after radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer: a population-based analysis. Int J Urol2012; 19: 836–844; author reply 44–45.
16.
CooperbergMRLubeckDPMehtaSS, et al. Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE). J Urol2003; 170: S21–S25; discussion S6–S7.
17.
BoorjianSAEasthamJAGraefenM, et al. A critical analysis of the long-term impact of radical prostatectomy on cancer control and function outcomes. Eur Urol2012; 61: 664–675.
18.
TewariADivineGChangP, 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 Urol2007; 177: 911–915.
19.
DenbergTDGlodeLMSteinerJF, et al. Trends and predictors of aggressive therapy for clinical locally advanced prostate carcinoma. BJU Int2006; 98: 335–340.
20.
AningJJReillyGSFowlerS, et al. Perioperative and oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer in the UK: an analysis of surgeon-reported data. BJU Int2019; 124: 441–448.
21.
SurcelCISooriakumaranPBrigantiA, et al. Preferences in the management of high-risk prostate cancer among urologists in Europe: results of a web-based survey. BJU Int2015; 115: 571–579.
22.
MohlerJL.The 2010 NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology on prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2010; 8: 145.
MatteiAFuechselFGBhatta DharN, et al. The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol2008; 53: 118–125.
25.
YuhBArtibaniWHeidenreichA, et al. The role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol2014; 65: 918–927.
26.
KooKCJungDCLeeSH, et al. Feasibility of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for very-high risk prostate cancer: surgical and oncological outcomes in men aged >/=70 years. Prostate Int2014; 2: 127–132.
27.
DelporteGHenonFPloussardG, et al. Radical prostatectomy for locally advanced and high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Prog Urol2018; 28: 875–889.
28.
LitwinMSPastaDJStoddardML, et al. Epidemiological trends and financial outcomes in radical prostatectomy among Medicare beneficiaries, 1991 to 1993. J Urol1998; 160: 445–448.
29.
AhnTRobertsMJStrahanA, et al. Improved lower urinary tract symptoms after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: implications for survivorship, treatment selection and patient counselling. BJU Int2019; 123 (Suppl. 5): 47–53.
30.
AbdollahFDalelaDSoodA, et al. Functional outcomes of clinically high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis2017; 20: 395–400.
31.
FranssonPLundJADamberJE, et al. Quality of life in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer given endocrine treatment with or without radiotherapy: 4-year follow-up of SPCG-7/SFUO-3, an open-label, randomised, phase III trial. Lancet Oncol2009; 10: 370–380.
32.
MirMCLiJKlinkJC, et al. Optimal definition of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy depends on pathologic risk factors: identifying candidates for early salvage therapy. Eur Urol2014; 66: 204–210.
33.
LecouvetFEEl MoueddenJColletteL, et al. Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer?Eur Urol2012; 62: 68–75.
34.
BudausLLeyh-BannurahSRSalomonG, et al. Initial experience of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging in high-risk prostate cancer patients prior to radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol2016; 69: 393–396.
35.
EasthamJAKellyWKGrossfeldGD, et al.; Cancer, Leukemia Group B. Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 90203: a randomized phase 3 study of radical prostatectomy alone versus estramustine and docetaxel before radical prostatectomy for patients with high-risk localized disease. Urology2003; 62 (Suppl. 1): 55–62.
36.
BeltranHWyattAWChedgyEC, et al. Impact of therapy on genomics and transcriptomics in high-risk prostate cancer treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy. Clin Cancer Res2017; 23: 6802–6811.
37.
BartkowiakDSiegmannABohmerD, et al. The imapct of prostate-specific antigen persistence after radical prostactectomy on the efficacy of salvage radiotherapy in patientrs with primary N0 prostate cancer. BJU Int2019; 124: 716–718.
