scholarly journals Superior survival benefits of Radical Prostatectomy than External Beam Radiotherapy in aging 75 and older men with high-risk or very high-risk Prostate Cancer: a population-matched study

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (18) ◽  
pp. 5371-5378
Author(s):  
Yan Wang ◽  
Pan Song ◽  
Jiaxiang Wang ◽  
Mengxuan Shu ◽  
Qingwei Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Older Men ◽  
External Beam ◽  
High Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Matched Study ◽  
Very High

scholarly journals The Prognosis of Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy plus Brachytherapy, and External Beam Radiotherapy Alone for Patients above 70 Years with Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Population-Matched Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Pan Song ◽  
Mengxuan Shu ◽  
Luchen Yang ◽  
Xiaoyu Di ◽  
Peiwen Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Survival Curves ◽  
Elderly Men ◽  
High Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Matched Study ◽  
Very High

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy (EBRT + BT), and EBRT alone among elderly men (aged 70 years and above) with very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PCa). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We identified elderly men diagnosed with VHR PCa between 2004 and 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The propensity score-matching method was adopted to balance the covariates and generate new cohorts. ­Kaplan-Meier and Cox analyses were conducted to build up survival curves and evaluate the overall survival (OS) and PCa-specific survival (PCSS) outcomes. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 9,818 patients were identified. Of them, 5,839 were in the EBRT group, 725 in the EBRT + BT group, and 3,254 in the RP group. The survival curves of the overall cohort showed that RP was associated with the best OS, followed by EBRT + BT and EBRT (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). As for the PCSS, RP shared similar outcomes with EBRT + BT (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.25 [0.93–1.69], <i>p</i> = 0.175). EBRT was associated with significantly worse PCSS than both RP (HR: 1.88, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] [1.64–2.15], <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) and EBRT + BT (HR: 1.48, 95% CI [1.19–1.85], <i>p</i> = 0.002). In the matched cohorts, RP presented better OS (HR: 1.41, 95% CI [1.07–1.86], <i>p</i> = 0.041) and similar PCSS with EBRT + BT (HR: 1.50, 95% CI [0.91–2.47], <i>p</i> = 0.12). RP was associated with significantly better OS and PCSS outcomes than EBRT alone (OS HR: 1.58, 95% CI [1.59–2.12], <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001; PCSS HR: 2.08 [1.60–2.72], <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). EBRT + BT also had significantly better OS and PCSS outcomes than EBRT alone (OS HR: 1.33, 95% CI [1.11–1.60], <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001; PCSS HR: 1.57 [1.13–2.19], <i>p</i> = 0.003). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> For patients above 70 years with VHR PCa, RP was associated with better OS and similar PCSS than EBRT + BT. Both RP and EBRT + BT have better OS and PCSS than EBRT alone.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document