10 year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or
Post on 18-Apr-2022
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION TEMPLATE © 2019
www.PosterPresentations.com
Presented by: Taylor Schumacher & Jennifer Carraux
Freddie C. Hamdy, F.R.C.S.(Urol.), F.Med.Sci., Jenny L. Donovan, Ph.D., F.Med.Sci., J. Athene Lane, Ph.D., Malcolm Mason, M.D., F.R.C.R., Chris Metcalfe, Ph.D., Peter Holding, R.G.N., M.Sc., Michael Davis, M.Sc., et al.
10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
The article follows men age 50-59 between 1999 and 2009
that were newly diagnosed with clinically localized prostate
cancer. They were then separated randomly into 3 different
groups including active surveillance, radiotherapy, and
radical prostatectomy. The purpose was to gauge the
effectiveness of treatments in terms of premature death. The
importance of this study was to evaluate for an incredibly
pressing concern of prostate cancer throughout not only the
United States, but worldwide. There are uncertainties when it
comes to the way prostate cancer is diagnosed and its
correlation to treatment outcomes. This study (a two-part
study initially published in 2014) found low cancer specific
mortality regardless of treatment.2 The study referred to its
initial randomized trial which focused more on methodology
of diagnosis as well as other literature with randomized trials
comparing prostatectomy with active surveillance or
radiotherapy. These ranged from randomized controlled
studies to patient reported outcomes. The active monitoring
group differs from previous studies incorporating “watchful
waiting” such as the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group
Study Number 4 and the U.S. Prostate Cancer Intervention
versus Observation Trial (PIVOT).3,4,5 In the current study
patients were assessed for changes in PSA levels and as a
result clinical management could be modified whereas in the
2 latter studies mentioned no intervention was provided.3,4,5
Despite the differences among the trials PIVOT concluded
that there was not a significant difference in cancer-specific
mortality rates between watchful waiting and radical
prostatectomy. However, amongst the Scandinavian trials it
was concluded that radical prostatectomy helped to reduce
cancer-specific mortality, but did not have a difference
between overall survival.3,6 Adding in the perspective of
prostatectomy versus radiotherapy, a meta-analysis
completed found increased overall risk of mortality, both non
cancer-specific and cancer-specific.7 Per a retrospective
study there was an insignificant difference found amongst
prostatectomy and radiotherapy.8
This study was a prospective trial that compared active
monitoring, radical prostatectomy, and external-beam
radiotherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. A
total of 82,429 men 50 to 69 years of age received a PSA
test between 1999 and 2009. Of that 2664 received the
diagnosis of clinically localized prostate cancer, and 1643
agreed to undergo randomization. After randomization 545
men were active monitoring, 545 underwent radiotherapy,
and 553 men underwent surgery. The goal of randomization
was to ensure the groups were made to be as similar in
demographics as possible with respect to age, Gleason
score, mean baseline from the first biopsy and PSA test.
Prostate-cancer mortality at a median of 10-year follow-up
was the primary outcome. The secondary outcome included
the rates of disease progression, metastases, and all deaths.
A total of 14 patients were lost to follow up for secondary
outcomes, but data on deaths were captured for all
participants. Sensitivity analyses excluded men that were
recruited during the feasibility phase or that included deaths
that were judged to be possibly due to prostate cancer. Men
were also excluded based on PSA test results from the initial
randomized control trial.
Figure 1. Randomization, Treatment, and Follow-up.A
total of 88% of the men assigned to active monitoring, 71% of
the men assigned to surgery, and 74% of men assigned to
radiotherapy received the assigned treatment within 9
months after randomization. A total of 14 patients were lost to
follow-up for secondary outcomes, but data on deaths were
captured for all participants.
Table 2. Deaths from Prostate Cancer, According to
Subgroup.
The results found that of the 1643 men included, 14 were lost
to follow up due to outcomes during the follow up period, but
were still included in the study. They found secondary issues
within the study where 291 of the active monitoring group
ended up receiving some sort of radical treatment, which
included surgery and/or radiotherapy. Of the prostatectomy
group, 6 had to receive some sort of radiotherapy 1-year post
surgery. Of the radiotherapy group, 3 had to undergo savage
prostatectomy, and 15 received additional treatment. They
determined that 7-8 of the deaths in the active surveillance
group were prostate cancer specific, 3-5 in the surgery
group, and 4 in the radiotherapy group. Survival specific to
prostate cancer was determined to be around 98.8% in all
groups with an insignificant difference between the groups.
204 out of the total men were found to have disease
progression including metastasis (46 in the surgery, 112 in
the active surveillance, and 46 in the radiotherapy group).
There were minimal complications reported post treatment
although there were 3 deaths determined to be unrelated to
prostate cancer in the radiotherapy group. Numbers needed
to treat were determined to be 27 men for prostatectomy for
1 avoiding metastatic disease and 33 with radiotherapy. If
combined the number lowers to 9 men. The author
concluded that amongst all three treatment groups there was
no significant difference in prostate-cancer related deaths
over a 10-year span post intervention. However, it found that
prostatectomy and radiotherapy were associated with lower
incidences of progressing disease as opposed to the active
monitoring group. The long-term effects of intervention still
need to be evaluated to form a more educated and evidence-
based decision on treatment. One factor not incorporated or
considered in the study was quality of life for which the
author appears to want to follow up on in future studies. The
study was limited in not considering quality of life or the
specific outcomes post-surgical or radiotherapy. With the
smaller sample size and the sample being solely out of the
UK certain factors such as if there are any differences in the
prostate cancer seen in the UK versus anywhere else in the
world was not addressed. The study and the previous
randomized trial can help to try and establish the benefit of
PSA testing in diagnosis of prostate cancer regarding overall
outcomes.
1. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane, JA et al. 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or
radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375:1415-1424. doi:
10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
2. Lane JA, Donovan JL, Davis M, et al. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or
radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: study design and diagnostic and baseline results
of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trial [published correction appears in Lancet Oncol.
2014 Oct;15(11):e475]. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(10):1109–1118. doi:10.1016/S1470-
2045(14)70361-4
3. Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, et al. A randomized trial comparing radical
prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:781-
789
4. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Barry MJ, et al. The Prostate cancer Intervention Versus
Observation Trial: VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program 407 (PIVOT): design and
baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful
waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials 2009;30:81-87
5. Bill -Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in
early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(10):932–942. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa131159
6. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for
localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;367:203-213
7. Wallis CJD, Saskin R, Choo R, et al. Surgery Versus Radiotherapy for Clinically-localized
Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70(1):21–30.
doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.11.010
8. Andic F, Izol V, Gokcay S, et al. Definitive external-beam radiotherapy versus radical
prostatectomy in clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer: a retrospective study. BMC
Urol. 2019;19(1):3. Published 2019 Jan 5. doi:10.1186/s12894-018-0432-6
Table 1. Prostate-Cancer Mortality, Incidence of Clinical
Progression and Metastatic Disease, and All-Cause Mortality,
According to Randomized Treatment Group.
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Prostate-Cancer–Specific
Survival and Freedom from Disease Progression, According to
Treatment Group Panel A shows the rate of prostate-cancer–
specific survival. Prostate-cancer–specific deaths were those
that were definitely or probably due to prostate cancer or its
treatment, as determined by an independent cause-of-death
evaluation committee whose members were unaware of the
treatment assignments. Panel B shows the rate of freedom from
disease progression. Clinical progression of prostate cancer
included metastasis and death due to prostate cancer or its
treatment.
top related