Mike Wenzel, Katrin Burdenski, Nikolaos Tselis, Claus Rödel, Christian Brandts, Marit Ahrens, Jens Koellermann, Markus Graefen, Clara Humke, Carolin Siech, Benedikt Hoeh, Severine Banek, Felix K H Chun, Philipp Mandel
{"title":"Real world comparison of adjuvant vs. salvage radiation therapy on cancer-control outcomes after radical prostatectomy.","authors":"Mike Wenzel, Katrin Burdenski, Nikolaos Tselis, Claus Rödel, Christian Brandts, Marit Ahrens, Jens Koellermann, Markus Graefen, Clara Humke, Carolin Siech, Benedikt Hoeh, Severine Banek, Felix K H Chun, Philipp Mandel","doi":"10.1007/s00066-025-02400-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Outcomes of adjuvant (aRT) or salvage radiation therapy (sRT) after radical prostatectomy are under investigation regarding cancer-control outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Relying on the University Cancer Center database elaborating differences in metastasis-free (MFS), cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of aRT vs. sRT-treated patients between 2014-2024. Sensitivity analyses addressed high-risk patients with pN1 and/or Gleason score 8-10 and/or pT3-4 stage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1862 patients, 7.1% underwent aRT and 93% were in the sRT group. Median PSA at sRT was 0.33 ng/ml. Patients with aRT harbored significantly worse baseline tumor and pathological characteristics such as PSA level (12.0 vs. 7.6 ng/ml), Gleason score 9-10 (30% vs. 9.8%), D'Amico high risk prostate cancer (97% vs. 56%), as well as pT3-4, pN1 and positive surgical margins rates (all p < 0.001). Similar observations were made for high-risk patients. No differences were observed for aRT vs. sRT with 60-month MFS rates of 85.1% vs. 95.4% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, p = 0.18). 60-months CSS-rates of 96.8% vs. 99.1% and 60-month OS-rates of 91.0% vs. 89.1% respectively (all p ≥ 0.15). Neither sensitivity analyses of high-risk patients nor multivariable adjusted Cox regression models revealed significant differences regarding MFS, CSS or OS in aRT vs. SRT comparison (all p ≥ 0.05), despite aRT showing qualitatively better OS results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within real-world setting, patients undergoing aRT harbor wore tumor characteristics. However, these differences did not translate into significant differences of mid-term oncological outcomes, relative to sRT patients. Similar observations were made within analyses of high-risk patients with pT3-4 and/or Gleason 8-10 and/or pN1 stage, nevertheless aRT showed slightly higher OS rates within this subgroup.</p>","PeriodicalId":21998,"journal":{"name":"Strahlentherapie und Onkologie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strahlentherapie und Onkologie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-025-02400-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Outcomes of adjuvant (aRT) or salvage radiation therapy (sRT) after radical prostatectomy are under investigation regarding cancer-control outcomes.
Methods: Relying on the University Cancer Center database elaborating differences in metastasis-free (MFS), cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of aRT vs. sRT-treated patients between 2014-2024. Sensitivity analyses addressed high-risk patients with pN1 and/or Gleason score 8-10 and/or pT3-4 stage.
Results: Of 1862 patients, 7.1% underwent aRT and 93% were in the sRT group. Median PSA at sRT was 0.33 ng/ml. Patients with aRT harbored significantly worse baseline tumor and pathological characteristics such as PSA level (12.0 vs. 7.6 ng/ml), Gleason score 9-10 (30% vs. 9.8%), D'Amico high risk prostate cancer (97% vs. 56%), as well as pT3-4, pN1 and positive surgical margins rates (all p < 0.001). Similar observations were made for high-risk patients. No differences were observed for aRT vs. sRT with 60-month MFS rates of 85.1% vs. 95.4% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, p = 0.18). 60-months CSS-rates of 96.8% vs. 99.1% and 60-month OS-rates of 91.0% vs. 89.1% respectively (all p ≥ 0.15). Neither sensitivity analyses of high-risk patients nor multivariable adjusted Cox regression models revealed significant differences regarding MFS, CSS or OS in aRT vs. SRT comparison (all p ≥ 0.05), despite aRT showing qualitatively better OS results.
Conclusion: Within real-world setting, patients undergoing aRT harbor wore tumor characteristics. However, these differences did not translate into significant differences of mid-term oncological outcomes, relative to sRT patients. Similar observations were made within analyses of high-risk patients with pT3-4 and/or Gleason 8-10 and/or pN1 stage, nevertheless aRT showed slightly higher OS rates within this subgroup.
目的:研究根治性前列腺切除术后的辅助(aRT)或补救性放射治疗(sRT)对癌症控制结果的影响。方法:依托大学癌症中心数据库,详细阐述2014-2024年间aRT与srt治疗患者的无转移(MFS)、癌症特异性(CSS)和总生存(OS)的差异。敏感性分析针对pN1和/或Gleason评分为8-10和/或pT3-4期的高危患者。结果:1862例患者中,接受aRT治疗的占7.1%,接受sRT治疗的占93%。sRT时中位PSA为0.33 ng/ml。aRT患者的基线肿瘤和病理特征明显更差,如PSA水平(12.0 vs. 7.6 ng/ml), Gleason评分9-10 (30% vs. 9.8%), D'Amico高危前列腺癌(97% vs. 56%),以及pT3-4, pN1和阳性手术切界率(均p 结论:在现实环境中,接受aRT治疗的患者具有肿瘤特征。然而,这些差异并没有转化为中期肿瘤预后的显著差异,相对于sRT患者。在pT3-4期和/或Gleason 8-10期和/或pN1期的高危患者的分析中也有类似的观察结果,尽管aRT在该亚组中显示出略高的OS率。
期刊介绍:
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie, published monthly, is a scientific journal that covers all aspects of oncology with focus on radiooncology, radiation biology and radiation physics. The articles are not only of interest to radiooncologists but to all physicians interested in oncology, to radiation biologists and radiation physicists. The journal publishes original articles, review articles and case studies that are peer-reviewed. It includes scientific short communications as well as a literature review with annotated articles that inform the reader on new developments in the various disciplines concerned and hence allow for a sound overview on the latest results in radiooncology research.
Founded in 1912, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie is the oldest oncological journal in the world. Today, contributions are published in English and German. All articles have English summaries and legends. The journal is the official publication of several scientific radiooncological societies and publishes the relevant communications of these societies.