Purpose: Our goal was to compare cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (c) (NCCN (c)) high risk (HR) patients, as well as in Johns Hopkins University (JH) HR and very high risk (VHR) subgroups.Materials and Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 24,407 NCCN HR patients, of whom 10,300 (42%) vs 14,107 (58%) patients qualified for JH HR vs VHR, respectively. Overall, 9,823 (40%) underwent RP vs 14,584 (60%) EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing-risks regression addressed CSM after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, prostate specific antigen, clinical T and N stages, and biopsy Gleason score) between RP and EBRT patients. All analyses addressed the combined NCCN HR cohort, as well as in JH HR and JH VHR subgroups.Results: In the combined NCCN HR cohort 5-year CSM rates were 2.3% for RP vs 4.1% for EBRT and yielded a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.54-0.86, p < 0.001) favoring RP. In VHR patients 5-year CSM rates were 3.5% for RP vs 6.0% for EBRT, yielding a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% CI 0.44-0.77, p < 0.001) favoring RP. Conversely, in HR patients no significant difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.39-1.25, p = 0.2).Conclusions: Our data suggest that RP holds a CSM advantage over EBRT in the combined NCCN HR cohort, and in its subgroup of JH VHR patients.
Survival after Radical Prostatectomy versus Radiation Therapy in High-Risk and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer
Suardi, Nazareno;Terrone, Carlo;
2022-01-01
Abstract
Purpose: Our goal was to compare cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (c) (NCCN (c)) high risk (HR) patients, as well as in Johns Hopkins University (JH) HR and very high risk (VHR) subgroups.Materials and Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 24,407 NCCN HR patients, of whom 10,300 (42%) vs 14,107 (58%) patients qualified for JH HR vs VHR, respectively. Overall, 9,823 (40%) underwent RP vs 14,584 (60%) EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing-risks regression addressed CSM after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, prostate specific antigen, clinical T and N stages, and biopsy Gleason score) between RP and EBRT patients. All analyses addressed the combined NCCN HR cohort, as well as in JH HR and JH VHR subgroups.Results: In the combined NCCN HR cohort 5-year CSM rates were 2.3% for RP vs 4.1% for EBRT and yielded a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.54-0.86, p < 0.001) favoring RP. In VHR patients 5-year CSM rates were 3.5% for RP vs 6.0% for EBRT, yielding a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% CI 0.44-0.77, p < 0.001) favoring RP. Conversely, in HR patients no significant difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.39-1.25, p = 0.2).Conclusions: Our data suggest that RP holds a CSM advantage over EBRT in the combined NCCN HR cohort, and in its subgroup of JH VHR patients.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
