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