Dong Soo Kim, Seung Hyun Jeon, Sung-Goo Chang, Sang Hyub Lee
{"title":"Comparison of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy.","authors":"Dong Soo Kim, Seung Hyun Jeon, Sung-Goo Chang, Sang Hyub Lee","doi":"10.4111/kju.2015.56.10.703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We evaluated the biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer patients treated by radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients who underwent RP or RT as primary definitive treatment from 2007 were enrolled for this study. They were divided into two groups; the low-intermediate risk group and the high risk group according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. We compared differences such as age, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score, follow-up duration, clinical T staging, and BCR. Their BCR-free survival rates were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 165 patients were enrolled. There were 115 patients in the low-intermediate risk. Among them, 88 received RP and 27 underwent RT. BCR occurred in 9 of the RP patients (10.2%) and 3 of the RT patients (11.1%). For the high risk group, 50 patients were included. RP was performed in 25 patients and RT in 25 patients. BCR was observed in 4 of the RP patients (16%) and 12 of the RT patients (48%). There were no differences in BCR-free survival for the low-intermediate group (p=0.765). For the high risk group, the RP group had a higher BCR free survival rate (p=0.032).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No difference of BCR and BCR-free survival was seen in the low-intermediate risk group but lower BCR and better BCR-free survival were observed for patients that received RP in the high risk group. RP should be a more strongly considered option when deciding the treatment method for selected high risk patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":17819,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Urology","volume":"56 10","pages":"703-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4111/kju.2015.56.10.703","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.10.703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/10/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Purpose: We evaluated the biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer patients treated by radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT).
Materials and methods: Patients who underwent RP or RT as primary definitive treatment from 2007 were enrolled for this study. They were divided into two groups; the low-intermediate risk group and the high risk group according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. We compared differences such as age, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score, follow-up duration, clinical T staging, and BCR. Their BCR-free survival rates were analyzed.
Results: A total of 165 patients were enrolled. There were 115 patients in the low-intermediate risk. Among them, 88 received RP and 27 underwent RT. BCR occurred in 9 of the RP patients (10.2%) and 3 of the RT patients (11.1%). For the high risk group, 50 patients were included. RP was performed in 25 patients and RT in 25 patients. BCR was observed in 4 of the RP patients (16%) and 12 of the RT patients (48%). There were no differences in BCR-free survival for the low-intermediate group (p=0.765). For the high risk group, the RP group had a higher BCR free survival rate (p=0.032).
Conclusions: No difference of BCR and BCR-free survival was seen in the low-intermediate risk group but lower BCR and better BCR-free survival were observed for patients that received RP in the high risk group. RP should be a more strongly considered option when deciding the treatment method for selected high risk patients.