Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Stage-, Age-, and Frailty-Specific Cancer-Control Outcomes of 2600 Patients.

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
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":"Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Stage-, Age-, and Frailty-Specific Cancer-Control Outcomes of 2600 Patients.","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":"10.3238/arztebl.m2025.0089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Both radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) are recommended as standard treatments for prostate cancer. The prospective comparisons available to date provide only limited information.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from the database of our university cancer center to compare the metastasis-free (MFS), cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of all patients with prostate cancer who underwent either RP or RT in the period 2014-2024. Stage-, age-, and frailty-specific sensitivity analyses were carried out.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2685 patients with prostate cancer, 1999 (74%) underwent RP and 686 (26%) underwent RT. The RP patients were younger (66 vs. 74 years); a higher percentage of the RP patients than of the RT patients had high-risk prostate cancer (60% vs. 43%), stage cT3 (47% vs. 9.6%), and stage cN1 (11 vs. 5.2%), while the RT patients more commonly had ECOG status 1-2 (16% vs. 6.7%; p<0.001 for all comparisons). Univariate analyses of MFS mostly favored RT, while univariate analyses of OS mostly favored RP. These differences, however, were no longer seen after adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics in multivariable Cox regression models, nor were they seen in sensitivity analyses of D'Amico risk groups, age categories, or ECOG status. Lastly, in 2:1 propensity-score-matched analyses, no differences between RP and RT were found in any of the oncol - ogical outcome measures (p≥0.15 for MFS, CSS, and OS).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings of this real-world study of prostate cancer patients who underwent either RP or RT suggest equally effective cancer control by the two methods when the statistical analysis is adjusted for patient and tumor characteristics. At present, patients with high-risk prostate cancer und unfavorable disease stages more commonly undergo RP.</p>","PeriodicalId":11258,"journal":{"name":"Deutsches Arzteblatt international","volume":" Forthcoming","pages":"495-500"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Deutsches Arzteblatt international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2025.0089","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Both radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) are recommended as standard treatments for prostate cancer. The prospective comparisons available to date provide only limited information.

Methods: We used data from the database of our university cancer center to compare the metastasis-free (MFS), cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of all patients with prostate cancer who underwent either RP or RT in the period 2014-2024. Stage-, age-, and frailty-specific sensitivity analyses were carried out.

Results: Of 2685 patients with prostate cancer, 1999 (74%) underwent RP and 686 (26%) underwent RT. The RP patients were younger (66 vs. 74 years); a higher percentage of the RP patients than of the RT patients had high-risk prostate cancer (60% vs. 43%), stage cT3 (47% vs. 9.6%), and stage cN1 (11 vs. 5.2%), while the RT patients more commonly had ECOG status 1-2 (16% vs. 6.7%; p<0.001 for all comparisons). Univariate analyses of MFS mostly favored RT, while univariate analyses of OS mostly favored RP. These differences, however, were no longer seen after adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics in multivariable Cox regression models, nor were they seen in sensitivity analyses of D'Amico risk groups, age categories, or ECOG status. Lastly, in 2:1 propensity-score-matched analyses, no differences between RP and RT were found in any of the oncol - ogical outcome measures (p≥0.15 for MFS, CSS, and OS).

Conclusion: The findings of this real-world study of prostate cancer patients who underwent either RP or RT suggest equally effective cancer control by the two methods when the statistical analysis is adjusted for patient and tumor characteristics. At present, patients with high-risk prostate cancer und unfavorable disease stages more commonly undergo RP.

根治性前列腺切除术与放疗治疗前列腺癌:2600例患者的分期、年龄和虚弱特异性癌症控制结果
背景:根治性前列腺切除术(RP)和放射治疗(RT)都被推荐为前列腺癌的标准治疗方法。迄今为止的前瞻性比较只提供了有限的信息。方法:我们使用来自我校癌症中心数据库的数据,比较2014-2024年期间接受RP或RT治疗的所有前列腺癌患者的无转移(MFS)、癌症特异性(CSS)和总生存(OS)。进行了分期、年龄和虚弱特异性敏感性分析。结果:在2685例前列腺癌患者中,1999例(74%)接受了RP, 686例(26%)接受了rt。RP患者较年轻(66岁vs. 74岁);RP患者中高危前列腺癌(60%比43%)、cT3期(47%比9.6%)和cN1期(11%比5.2%)的比例高于RT患者,而RT患者更常见的是ECOG状态1-2(16%比6.7%);结论:对接受RP或RT治疗的前列腺癌患者的真实研究结果表明,在统计分析中调整了患者和肿瘤特征后,两种方法的癌症控制效果相同。目前,高危前列腺癌和疾病分期不利的患者更常接受RP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Deutsches Arzteblatt international
Deutsches Arzteblatt international 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.20%
发文量
306
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Deutsches Ärzteblatt International is a bilingual (German and English) weekly online journal that focuses on clinical medicine and public health. It serves as the official publication for both the German Medical Association and the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. The journal is dedicated to publishing independent, peer-reviewed articles that cover a wide range of clinical medicine disciplines. It also features editorials and a dedicated section for scientific discussion, known as correspondence. The journal aims to provide valuable medical information to its international readership and offers insights into the German medical landscape. Since its launch in January 2008, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International has been recognized and included in several prestigious databases, which helps to ensure its content is accessible and credible to the global medical community. These databases include: Carelit CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Compendex DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database) EMNursing GEOBASE (Geoscience & Environmental Data) HINARI (Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative) Index Copernicus Medline (MEDLARS Online) Medpilot PsycINFO (Psychological Information Database) Science Citation Index Expanded Scopus By being indexed in these databases, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International's articles are made available to researchers, clinicians, and healthcare professionals worldwide, contributing to the global exchange of medical knowledge and research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信