Original Article
Radical Prostatectomy versus Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer
N Engl J Med 2012; 367:203-213July 19, 2012DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162
Comments
open through July 25, 2012
- Abstract
Background
The effectiveness of surgery versus observation for men with localized prostate cancer detected by means of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is not known.
Methods
From November 1994 through January 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer (mean age, 67 years; median PSA value, 7.8 ng per milliliter) to radical prostatectomy or observation and followed them through January 2010. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; the secondary outcome was prostate-cancer mortality.
Results
During the median follow-up of 10.0 years, 171 of 364 men (47.0%) assigned to radical prostatectomy died, as compared with 183 of 367 (49.9%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.08; P=0.22; absolute risk reduction, 2.9 percentage points). Among men assigned to radical prostatectomy, 21 (5.8%) died from prostate cancer or treatment, as compared with 31 men (8.4%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.09; P=0.09; absolute risk reduction, 2.6 percentage points). The effect of treatment on all-cause and prostate-cancer mortality did not differ according to age, race, coexisting conditions, self-reported performance status, or histologic features of the tumor. Radical prostatectomy was associated with reduced all-cause mortality among men with a PSA value greater than 10 ng per milliliter (P=0.04 for interaction) and possibly among those with intermediate-risk or high-risk tumors (P=0.07 for interaction). Adverse events within 30 days after surgery occurred in 21.4% of men, including one death.
Conclusions
Among men with localized prostate cancer detected during the early era of PSA testing, radical prostatectomy did not significantly reduce all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality, as compared with observation, through at least 12 years of follow-up. Absolute differences were less than 3 percentage points. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and others; PIVOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007644.)
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Study Enrollment and Treatment.Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier Plots of Mortality.Article Activity
- Article
The treatment of early-stage prostate cancer remains controversial, especially for tumors detected by means of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing.1 Systematic reviews have provided inadequate information for assessing the comparative effectiveness of treatments and any associated harms.2 Although the lifetime risk of receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer is about 17%, the risk of dying from the disease is approximately 3%, suggesting that conservative management may be appropriate for many men.3,4
Two randomized trials compared radical prostatectomy with observation but were conducted before PSA testing became widespread.5,6 One study failed to show a significant difference in overall mortality after more than 20 years.5 Another showed absolute differences in all-cause and prostate-cancer mortality at 15 years of 6.6 percentage points and 6.1 percentage points, respectively, in favor of surgery.6 Benefits were confined to men younger than 65 years of age. A randomized trial comparing external-beam radiotherapy with observation, also among men who received the diagnosis before PSA testing became widespread, showed no significant differences in mortality through at least 16 years.7 During the era of PSA testing, an observational study showed high 10-year survival rates among men treated conservatively.8 Despite excellent long-term, disease-specific survival with observation, this option is rarely used, in part because of a lack of evidence from randomized trials comparing observation with attempted curative treatment for prostate cancer detected since PSA testing became common practice. We conducted a randomized trial to compare radical prostatectomy with observation in 731 men who had received a diagnosis of clinically localized prostate cancer in the early era of PSA testing.
Methods
Study Design
We previously reported the baseline characteristics of the patients and the design of the Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT).9 Enrollment began in November 1994 and ended in January 2002, with follow-up through January 2010. We recruited men from 44 Department of Veterans Affairs sites and 8 National Cancer Institute sites.
The research protocol was approved by the institutional review board at each site. All patients provided written informed consent. Randomization was stratified according to site and implemented by means of a central interactive telephone system.
Patients had to be medically fit for radical prostatectomy and to have histologically confirmed, clinically localized prostate cancer (stage T1-T2NxM0 in the tumor–node–metastasis classification system according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer10) of any grade diagnosed within the previous 12 months. Patients also had to have a PSA value of less than 50 ng per milliliter, an age of 75 years or less, negative results on a bone scan for metastatic disease, and a life expectancy of at least 10 years from the time of randomization. The study sites assessed eligibility on the basis of locally obtained PSA values and biopsy readings. After randomization, a central pathologist reviewed the biopsy and radical-prostatectomy specimens, and a central laboratory measured PSA.
Treatment Protocol
The technique used for radical prostatectomy was at the surgeon's discretion. Additional interventions were determined by each participant and his physician. Men randomly assigned to the observation group were offered palliative therapy or chemotherapy for symptomatic or metastatic progression.
Follow-up and Clinical Outcomes
We scheduled study visits every 6 months for a minimum of 8 years and a maximum of 15 years or until the patient died. Bone scans were obtained at 5, 10, and 15 years or at the last visit for persons with less than 15 years of follow-up, with additional scans obtained at the clinician's discretion. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Our secondary outcome was prostate-cancer mortality, which was defined as death that was definitely or probably due to prostate cancer or definitely or probably due to prostate-cancer treatment by a three-member end-points committee that was unaware of the study assignments. Bone metastases were documented on the basis of positive results of bone scanning or skeletal radiography. We assessed 30-day perioperative harms and the prevalence of urinary incontinence and erectile and bowel dysfunction at 2 years, which was based on self-reported dysfunction that was at least moderate in severity.
Study Oversight
The authors are responsible for the study design and oversight and the analysis and reporting of the data. All authors vouch for the accuracy of the data and the fidelity of the study to the protocol. The site investigators and assistants collected and transmitted data to the coordinating center for analysis. An independent data and safety monitoring board monitored the trial for safety and scientific integrity. Interim analyses were stipulated in the protocol.
Statistical Analysis
We carried out analyses according to the intention-to-treat principle. Recruitment difficulties prevented the attainment of our original goal of enrolling 2000 men. We revised our sample on the basis of estimates that 740 men enrolled over a period of 7 years, with an additional 8 years of follow-up, would provide 91% power to detect a 25% relative reduction in all-cause mortality, assuming a median survival of 10 years. The data and safety monitoring board reviewed and approved this revision. For assessment of the secondary end point (death from prostate cancer or treatment), a survival analysis was performed in which the data from surviving patients were censored at the end of the study and the data from patients who died from causes other than prostate cancer were censored at the date of death from that other cause.11
We analyzed death from any cause, death from prostate cancer (with death from other causes treated as a competing risk), and bone metastases. Outcomes were analyzed with the use of a proportional-hazards model, which provided hazard ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Cumulative incidence and between-group differences were assessed at 4, 8, and 12 years and at the end of the study. P values of less than 0.05 (two-sided) were considered to indicate statistical significance.
Mortality and bone metastases were estimated for each study group with the Kaplan–Meier method. Seven subgroups defined according to baseline characteristics were prespecified for assessment of overall and prostate-cancer mortality and were specified post hoc for assessment of bone metastases: age (<65 years vs. ≥65 years), race (white, black, or other), coexisting conditions (Charlson comorbidity index score, 0 vs. ≥1),12 self-reported performance status (0 [fully active] vs. 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating poorer functional status), PSA level (≤10 vs. >10 ng per milliliter), score on the Gleason histologic scale (<7 vs. ≥7 on a scale of 2 to 10, with 10 indicating the most poorly differentiated tumors),10,13 and D'Amico tumor risk score (low, intermediate, or high), which was based on tumor stage, the histologic score assigned by the local study site, and the PSA level.14
To determine whether the treatment effect varied according to subgroup, we performed tests of interaction between group assignment and risk-factor category. Modification of the effect of radical prostatectomy according to subgroup was assessed by means of a Cox proportional-hazards model that included an interaction term between subgroup category and study group. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance, with no correction for multiple comparisons. We performed sensitivity analyses using centrally assessed histopathological findings and PSA values. We used SAS software, version 9.2 (SAS Institute), for all analyses.11 The protocol, including the statistical analysis plan, is available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
Results
Characteristics of the Participants
Among 13,022 men with prostate cancer (Figure 1Figure 1
Study Enrollment and Treatment.), 5023 were eligible for enrollment. A total of 731 men (14.6%) agreed to participate and underwent randomization to radical prostatectomy (364 men) or observation (367). The mean age was 67 years (see Table 1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org). Nearly one third of the patients were black; 85% reported full independence in activities of daily living. The median PSA value was 7.8 ng per milliliter (mean, 10.1). About 50% of the men had stage T1c disease (not palpable, detected by means of PSA testing), and about 25% had histologic scores of 7 or higher on the Gleason scale; 40% of the men had low-risk, 34% intermediate-risk, and 21% high-risk prostate cancer (about 5% had missing data). On the basis of central pathological review, 48% of the patients had histologic scores of 7 or higher on the Gleason scale, and 66% had tumors in the intermediate-risk or high-risk categories.Treatment Adherence
During follow-up, 287 of the 364 men (78.8%) who were randomly assigned to radical prostatectomy underwent an attempted radical prostatectomy (median time from randomization to surgery, 35 days; interquartile range, 24 to 50), and 311 (85.4%) received definitive therapy (median time from randomization to definitive therapy, 36 days; interquartile range, 24 to 59). Among men assigned to the observation group, 37 (10.1%) underwent an attempted radical prostatectomy (median time from randomization to surgery, 61 days; interquartile range, 30 to 624) (Figure 1), and 75 (20.4%) received definitive therapy (median time from randomization to initiation of treatment, 652 days; interquartile range, 61 to 1502). Median follow-up from randomization until death or the end of the study was 10.0 years (interquartile range, 7.3 to 12.6).
Surgical Technique and Pathological Findings
Of the 281 radical-prostatectomy procedures performed in men in the radical-prostatectomy group (Figure 1), nerve-sparing surgery was used in 108 (38.4%) (Table 2 in the Supplementary Appendix). On the basis of local pathological findings, the tumor was confined to the prostate in 150 men (53.4%), including 65.8% of those with low-risk prostate cancer (75 of 114 men) and 35.6% of those with high-risk disease (21 of 59). Capsular invasion was noted in 28 men (10.0%) and capsular penetration in 16 (5.7%). Surgical margins were positive for tumor in 64 men (22.8%).
All-Cause Mortality
By the end of the study, 354 men (48.4%) had died (Table 3 in the Supplementary Appendix). Among men in the radical-prostatectomy group, 171 (47.0%) died, as compared with 183 (49.9%) in the observation group (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.08; P=0.22; absolute risk reduction, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, −4.1 to 10.3) (Figure 2AFigure 2
Kaplan–Meier Plots of Mortality., and Table 4 in the Supplementary Appendix).Median survival was 13.0 years (95% CI, 12.2 to 13.7) in the radical-prostatectomy group and 12.4 years (95% CI, 11.4 to 13.1) in the observation group. At 12 years, 40.9% of men assigned to radical prostatectomy and 43.9% of those assigned to observation had died. The absolute reduction in mortality with radical prostatectomy was not significant at any interval and declined over time, from 4.6 percentage points (95% CI, −0.2 to 9.3) at 4 years to 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, −4.2 to 10.0) at 12 years.
Prostate-Cancer Mortality
Death attributed to prostate cancer or treatment occurred in 52 men (7.1%) (Table 3 in the Supplementary Appendix). In the radical-prostatectomy group, 21 of 364 men (5.8%) died from prostate cancer or treatment, as compared with 31 of 367 (8.4%) in the observation group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.09; P=0.09; absolute risk reduction, 2.6 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.1 to 6.5) (Figure 2B). Two thirds of the deaths due to prostate cancer (34 of 52 deaths, accounting for 4.7% of all patients) were considered to be definitely due to prostate cancer or treatment, with no significant difference between the groups: 16 men (4.4%) in the radical-prostatectomy group and 18 (4.9%) in the observation group. Prostate-cancer mortality was identical in the observation and radical-prostatectomy groups at 4 years. At 12 years, radical prostatectomy was associated with a nonsignificant absolute reduction in mortality of 3.0 percentage points, as compared with observation (4.4 vs. 7.4 percentage points; relative risk, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.09), declining slightly at the end of the study (Figure 2B, and Table 5 in the Supplementary Appendix).
Bone Metastases
Bone metastases occurred in 17 men assigned to radical prostatectomy (4.7%), as compared with 39 (10.6%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.70; P<0.001) (Fig. 1 and Table 6 in the Supplementary Appendix). Differences in the cumulative incidence between the radical-prostatectomy and observation groups changed little after 8 years of follow-up.
Subgroup and Sensitivity Analyses
All-Cause Mortality
The effect of radical prostatectomy, as compared with observation, on all-cause mortality did not differ significantly according to age, score on the Gleason histologic scale, race, self-reported performance status, or score on the Charlson comorbidity index. We identified a significant interaction between study group and baseline PSA value (P=0.04 for interaction) and a borderline interaction (P=0.07) for tumor risk category (Figure 3AFigure 3
Forest Plots for Primary and Secondary Outcomes., and Table 3 in the Supplementary Appendix). As compared with observation, surgery did not reduce all-cause mortality among men with a PSA value of 10 ng per milliliter or less (median, 6.0) (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.35). Among men with a PSA value greater than 10 ng per milliliter (median, 15.0), surgery reduced all-cause mortality by 13.2% (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.94) (Fig. 2A and 2B and Table 4 in the Supplementary Appendix).Among men with intermediate-risk tumors (as determined by a PSA value of 10.1 to 20.0 ng per milliliter, a score of 7 on the Gleason scale, or a stage T2b tumor), those who were randomly assigned to surgery had a 31% relative reduction in all-cause mortality, as compared with those assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.98; absolute risk reduction, 12.6 percentage points). Among men with high-risk tumors, surgery resulted in a nonsignificant absolute reduction in mortality of 6.7 percentage points, as compared with observation (P=0.16) (Fig. 2C, 2D, and 2E in the Supplementary Appendix). In contrast, among men with low-risk cancers (as determined by a PSA value ≤10 ng per milliliter, a score of 6 or less on the Gleason scale, and a stage T1a–c or T2a tumor), there was a 15% nonsignificant increase in mortality among men randomly assigned to radical prostatectomy, as compared with those assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.66). The absolute difference at 12 years was 5.4 percentage points, in favor of observation over surgery (37.2% vs. 31.8%). Sensitivity analyses performed with the use of central biopsy readings showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality between radical prostatectomy and observation according to scores on the Gleason scale or tumor risk categories (P>0.13 for all categories). When local histologic findings for men with intermediate-risk disease and those with high-risk disease were pooled, radical prostatectomy was associated with an absolute reduction in all-cause mortality of 10.5 percentage points (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.92; P=0.01). The reduction in mortality was smaller and was not significant when the pooled data were assessed on the basis of central pathological review (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.0; P=0.10; absolute risk reduction, 4.7 percentage points).
Prostate-Cancer Mortality
As compared with observation, the effect of radical prostatectomy on prostate-cancer mortality did not differ significantly according to age, race, score on the Charlson comorbidity index, or self-reported performance status (Figure 3B). We found some evidence of treatment interaction for subgroups defined by PSA value and tumor risk category (P=0.11 for interaction for both comparisons). Prostate-cancer mortality was lower in the radical-prostatectomy group than in the observation group among men with a PSA value of more than 10 ng per milliliter (5.6% vs. 12.8%, P=0.02) and among men with high-risk prostate cancer (9.1% vs. 17.5%, P=0.04). However, prostate-cancer mortality was not significantly lower in the radical-prostatectomy group among men with a PSA level of 10 ng per milliliter or less (P=0.82) or among those with low-risk tumors (P=0.54) or intermediate-risk tumors (P=0.12) (Fig. 3A through 3E and Table 5 in the Supplementary Appendix).
The results for prostate-cancer mortality were generally consistent when we substituted central for local PSA measures and histopathological findings. However, among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, the absolute risk difference of 4.6 percentage points in favor of radical prostatectomy on the basis of local histologic findings changed to 1.3 percentage points in favor of observation, on the basis of central histologic findings. Bone metastases were not reduced among men with PSA values of 10 ng per milliliter or less or among those with low-risk disease. Among men with PSA levels that were greater than 10 ng per milliliter or with intermediate-risk or high-risk disease, absolute reductions of approximately 9.0 to 11.0 percentage points occurred. Subgroup differences in cumulative incidence remained stable after about 8 years (Table 6 in the Supplementary Appendix).
Surgical Morbidity
Perioperative complications during the first 30 days after surgery occurred in 21.4% of men in the radical-prostatectomy group who underwent radical prostatectomy and included one death. The most common complication was wound infection, in 4.3% of the men (Table 1Table 1
Adverse Events Occurring within 30 Days after Surgery.). Complications occurring in more than 2% of the men included urinary tract infection, surgical repair, bleeding requiring transfusion, and urinary catheterization more than 30 days after surgery. At 2 years, patient-reported urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction, but not bowel dysfunction, were significantly more common among men who were randomly assigned to radical prostatectomy than among those randomly assigned to observation (Table 2Table 2
Patient-Reported Urinary, Erectile, and Bowel Dysfunction at 2 Years, According to Study Group.).Discussion
Among men with clinically localized prostate cancer that had been diagnosed after PSA testing came into practice, our study showed that radical prostatectomy did not reduce all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality, as compared with observation, through at least 12 years of follow-up. Confidence intervals for the effect size indicated that surgery did not reduce all-cause mortality by more than 10% and might have increased mortality by as much as 4%. Differences in all-cause mortality decreased over time, suggesting that longer follow-up would not alter these findings. Only 10% of patients were younger than 60 years of age. Longer follow-up may be important for the minority of men with prostate cancer who were younger than 60 years of age. However, the nonsignificant between-group difference in prostate-cancer mortality and the significant 6% reduction in bone metastases with radical prostatectomy remained fairly constant after 8 years. Our findings add to evidence supporting observation, and possibly active surveillance, for most men who receive a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer, especially those with a low PSA value or low-risk disease.2,3,6,8,15-24
Death due to prostate cancer or treatment occurred infrequently, in 7.1% of patients. Any differences in prostate-cancer mortality between surgery and observation occurred primarily among men whose death was judged as probably due to prostate cancer or treatment. Among men whose death was considered to be definitely due to prostate cancer or treatment, we found almost no difference between surgery and observation. Between-group differences in the time of death due to prostate cancer or treatment did not explain the differences in all-cause mortality in the entire cohort or the subgroups. These findings highlight the limitations of using prostate-cancer mortality as an outcome, even with the use of adjudication committees whose members are unaware of treatment assignments and who are following standardized protocols.25-27
The effect of radical prostatectomy on mortality did not vary according to age, race, self-reported performance status, or coexisting conditions, but our findings suggest that it may vary according to PSA value and possibly tumor risk. Positive results were from multiple subgroup comparisons; the tests of interaction typically approached but did not reach significance and may therefore be due to chance. Among men with PSA levels of 10 ng per milliliter or less, all-cause mortality was slightly lower at 12 years in the observation group than in the radical-prostatectomy group; prostate-cancer mortality in the observation group was 6%, with a nonsignificant absolute reduction of less than 1.0 percentage point in the radical-prostatectomy group. Among men with low-risk disease, observation was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in all-cause and prostate cancer mortality, with no significant between-group difference in bone metastases. Among men with a PSA value that was greater than 10 ng per milliliter and possibly among those with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer (as determined according to the PSA value, local histologic findings, and stage), absolute reductions in all-cause mortality with radical prostatectomy ranged from 6.7 to 13.2 percentage points. Reductions were smaller and not significant when central histopathological findings were used, and we found no significant reductions with radical prostatectomy in categories that were derived solely on the basis of higher scores on the Gleason histologic scale or tumor stage. Reductions in prostate-cancer mortality in the radical-prostatectomy group were limited to men with a PSA value that was greater than 10 ng per milliliter and to those with high-risk disease, with absolute reductions of 7.2 to 8.4 percentage points. Absolute reductions in bone metastases of 10.4 and 8.6 percentage points occurred, respectively, in men with a PSA value of 10 ng per milliliter or higher and in those with high-risk disease.
As compared with the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 (SPCG-4) trial of radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in men with prostate cancer detected before widespread PSA testing,6 PIVOT enrolled a higher percentage of men with nonpalpable tumors (stage T1c, 50% vs. 12%) and with PSA values of 10 ng per milliliter or lower. Treatment adherence was similar in the two trials.6,28 In contrast to the SPCG-4 trial, we did not find a significant reduction in all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality with radical prostatectomy. Our findings are particularly robust among men with a PSA value of 10 ng per milliliter or less, including men with a score of 7 or higher on the Gleason histologic scale, and low-risk tumor — categories that were underrepresented in the SPCG-4 trial. Unlike the SPCG-4 trial, our study did not show that the effect of surgery, as compared with observation, varied according to age. Although hazard ratios indicated that the relative effect of radical prostatectomy on prostate-cancer mortality was similar in PIVOT and the SPCG-4 trial (37% and 38% reduction, respectively), the relative reduction in all-cause mortality in our study was less than half that in the SPCG-4 trial (12% vs. 25%), as were the absolute reductions in all-cause mortality (2.9 percentage points vs. 6.6 percentage points) and prostate-cancer mortality (2.6 percentage points vs. 6.1 percentage points); the overall percentage of men who died from prostate cancer was also lower in our study (7.1% vs. 19.6%). The mortality reductions in our study were not significant and probably reflect the more favorable prognosis for patients with tumors detected by means of PSA testing.
Our study has strengths that enhance the clinical applicability of the findings. The age, health status, PSA value, and tumor-risk characteristics of the men enrolled in this study were similar to those of both men who were eligible but declined to undergo randomization9 and men in the general population who have received a diagnosis of prostate cancer.1-3,8,29 Perioperative morbidity and mortality were similar to those previously reported.28,30 The percentage of men with positive surgical margins was similar to that in earlier studies and lower than that in the SPCG-4 trial.27 The tumor volumes and PSA values in our study population, although higher than in some contemporary series,31-35 are probably representative of those in the general population of men who received a diagnosis of prostate cancer at the time the study was being conducted. Our choice of all-cause mortality as the primary outcome underscores the importance of improving life expectancy with cancer treatment and eliminates the possibility of biased cause-of-death ascertainment.25-27
Our study was conducted in the early era of PSA testing. The current practices of performing repeated PSA testing, using a lower PSA threshold for biopsy, obtaining more tissue-biopsy cores, and performing a repeat biopsy after initially negative findings increase the detection of smaller-volume indolent cancers.15,16 Along with systematically higher assignment of tumor grades (upgrading), these factors increase the likelihood of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.36-38 Among men with a current diagnosis of prostate cancer who undergo radical prostatectomy, the absolute reductions in the risks of metastasis and death will probably be smaller, and the time required to identify a reduction will probably be longer than reported in our study or in the SPCG-4 trial.
Our findings support observation for men with localized prostate cancer, especially those who have a low PSA value and those who have low-risk disease. Up to two thirds of men who have received a diagnosis of prostate cancer have a low PSA value or low-risk disease, but nearly 90% receive early intervention — typically surgery or radiotherapy.1,15,16,24 In contrast to observation, active surveillance initiates therapy with curative intent if disease progression is suspected on the basis of repeat PSA testing, digital rectal examinations, and prostate biopsies.3,24 Active surveillance is being compared with surgery or radiotherapy in a randomized trial.39 Informing men of the favorable long-term effects of observation on mortality, bone metastases, urinary and erectile function, and quality of life40-42 and increasing the use of observation may avert the harms of unnecessary biopsies43 and interventions2,3,6 while maintaining excellent long-term disease-specific survival.
In conclusion, our study showed that, as compared with observation, radical prostatectomy did not significantly reduce all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality through at least 12 years among men with clinically localized prostate cancer that had been diagnosed in the era of PSA testing. Absolute differences in mortality between the study groups were less than 3 percentage points. Subgroup analyses suggested that surgery might reduce mortality among men with higher PSA values and possibly among men with higher-risk tumors, but not among men with PSA levels of 10 ng per milliliter or less or among men with low-risk tumors.
Supported by grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program, the National Cancer Institute, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Dr. Barry reports being employed by and serving as a board member of the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making, which receives royalties from Health Dialog. Dr. Wei reports serving on the board for Envisioneering, receiving consulting fees and grant support from Sanofi-Aventis, providing expert testimony for Genprobe concerning prostate-cancer detection, and serving as proctor for benign prostatic hyperplasia laser surgery for American Medical Systems. Dr. Andriole reports receiving consulting fees, payment for the development of presentations, and payment for travel, accommodation, and meeting expenses from Amgen; consulting fees, stock options, and payment for travel, accommodation, and meeting expenses from Augmenix; consulting fees and payment for travel, accommodation, and meeting expenses from Bayer; consulting fees and payment for travel, accommodation, and meeting expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb; consulting fees, stock options, and payment for travel, accommodation, and meeting expenses from Cambridge Endo; consulting fees and payment for travel, accommodation, and meeting expenses from Caris; consulting fees and payment for travel, accommodation, and meeting expenses from GlaxoSmithKline; consulting fees and payment for travel, accommodation, and meeting expenses from Janssen Biotech; consulting fees and payment for travel, accommodation, and meeting expenses from Myriad Genetics; consulting fees and payment for travel, accommodation, and meeting expenses from Steba Biotech; consulting fees and payment for travel, accommodation, and meeting expenses from Ortho Clinical Diagnostics; consulting fees and stock options from Viking Medical; stock options from Envisioneering Medical; and grant support to his institution from Johnson & Johnson, Medivation, and Wilex; and being a member of an independent data monitoring committee for Amarex. Dr. Wheeler reports serving as a board member of Medscape; receiving consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline; providing expert testimony for various law firms regarding medical malpractice, product liability, and toxic tort; receiving royalties from Metabolon; and receiving stock options from Digipath. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
This article was updated on July 19, 2012, at NEJM.org.
Source Information
From the Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System, and Section of General Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis (T.J.W.); Urologic IDEA, Seattle (M.K.B.); the VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Perry Point (K.M.J.), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville (S.F.) — both in Maryland; the General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (M.J.B.); VA Medical Center, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles (W.J.A.), and VA Medical Center, Long Beach (P.I.) — both in California; Richmond VA Medical Center, Richmond, VA (B.M.G.); the Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh, and VA Pittsburgh Health Care System, Pittsburgh (J.R.G.); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (J.T.W.); the VA New Jersey Health Care System, East Orange (P.G.); VA Medical Center Syracuse, Syracuse (I.N.), Brooklyn VA Medical Center, Brooklyn (W.B.), and VA Western New York Health System, Buffalo (R.C.) — all in New York; Louis A. Johnson VA Medical Center, Clarksburg, WV (G.S.); the Department of Urology, Southwestern Medical Center, University of Texas Dallas, Dallas (C.R.), Temple VA Medical Center, Temple (P.P.), and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (T.W.) — all in Texas; Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago (R.S.); Washington University, St. Louis (G.L.A.); and the University of Oklahoma, Norman (D.C.).
Address reprint requests to tim.wilt@va.gov.
- References
References
1
Cooperberg MR ,Broering JM ,Carroll PR . Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1117-1123
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
Wilt TJ ,MacDonald R ,Rutks I ,Shamliyan TA ,Taylor BC ,Kane RL . Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:435-448[Erratum, Ann Intern Med 2008;148:888.]
Web of Science | Medline3
Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. Linthicum, MD: American Urological Association Education and Research, 2007 (http://www.auanet.org/content/clinical-practice-guidelines/clinical-guidelines/main-reports/proscan07/content.pdf).
4
SEER cancer statistics review 1975–2004. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2007 (http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004).
5
Iversen P ,Madsen PO ,Corle DK . Radical prostatectomy versus expectant treatment for early carcinoma of the prostate: twenty-three year follow-up of a prospective randomized study. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 1995;172:65-72
Medline6
Bill-Axelson A ,Holmberg L ,Ruutu M , et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1708-1717
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline7
Widmark A, Tomic R, Modig H, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing external beam radiotherapy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer (T1b-T2, pN0, grade 1-2, M0). Presented at the 53rd Annual ASTRO Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, October 2–6, 2011.
8
Lu-Yao GL ,Albertsen PC ,Moore DF , et al. Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA 2009;302:1202-1209
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Wilt TJ ,Brawer MK ,Barry MJ , et al. The Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program 407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials 2009;30:81-87
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Fleming ID, Cooper JS, Henson DE, et al., eds. AJCC cancer staging manual. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997.
11
Allison PD. Survival analysis using the SAS system: a practical guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1995:292.
12
Charlson ME ,Pompei P ,Ales K ,MacKenzie CR . A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373-383
CrossRef | Medline13
Gleason DF. The Veteran's Administration Cooperative Urologic Research Group: histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M, ed. Urologic pathology: the prostate. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1977:171-98.
14
D'Amico AV ,Whittington R ,Malkowicz SB , et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969-974
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Welch HG ,Albertsen P . Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1325-1329
CrossRef | Web of Science16
Thompson IM ,Klotz L . Active surveillance for prostate cancer. JAMA 2010;304:2411-2412
CrossRef | Web of Science17
Hayes JH ,Ollendorf DA ,Pearson SD , et al. Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. JAMA 2010;304:2373-2380[Erratum, JAMA 2011;305:1862.]
CrossRef | Web of Science18
Cooperberg MR ,Broering JM ,Kantoff PW ,Carroll PR . Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 2007;178:S14-S19
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Fleming C ,Wasson JH ,Albertsen PC ,Barry MJ ,Wennberg JE . A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1993;269:2650-2658
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Djulbegovic M ,Beyth RJ ,Neuberger MM , et al. Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and metaanalysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2010;341:c4543-c4543
CrossRef | Web of Science21
Andriole GL ,Crawford ED , Grubb RL 3rd, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:125-132
CrossRef | Web of Science22
Schroder F ,Hugosson J ,Roobol MJ , et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 2012;366:981-990
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline23
Coen JJ ,Feldman AS ,Smith MR ,Zietman AL . Watchful waiting for localized prostate cancer in the PSA era: what have been the triggers for intervention? BJU Int 2011;107:1582-1586
CrossRef | Web of Science24
Ganz PA ,Barry JM ,Burke W , et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:591-595
Web of Science25
Dubben HH . Trials of prostate-cancer screening are not worthwhile. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:294-298
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Schellhammer P ,Cockett A ,Boccon-Gibod L , et al. Assessment of endpoints for clinical trials for localized prostate cancer. Urology 1997;49:27-38
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Newschaffer CJ ,Otani K ,McDonald MK ,Penberthy LT . Causes of death in elderly prostate cancer patients and in a comparison nonprostate cancer cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:613-621
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
Bill-Axelson A ,Holmberg L ,Filen F , et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1144-1154
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline29
Shao Y-H ,Demissie K ,Shih W , et al. Contemporary risk profile of prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1280-1283
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline30
Wilt TJ, Shamliyan T, Taylor B, et al. Comparative effectiveness of therapies for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparative effectiveness review number 13. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, February 2008 (http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/2008_0204ProstateCancerFinal.pdf).
31
Eastham JA ,Kattan MW ,Riedel E , et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2003;170:2292-2295
CrossRef | Web of Science32
Obek C ,Sadek S ,Lai S ,Civantos F ,Rubinowicz D ,Soloway MS . Positive surgical margins with radical retropubic prostatectomy: anatomic site-specific pathologic analysis and impact on prognosis. Urology 1999;54:682-688
CrossRef | Web of Science33
Ohori M ,Wheeler TM ,Kattan MW ,Goto Y ,Scardino PT . Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1995;154:1818-1824
CrossRef | Web of Science34
Swindle P ,Eastham JA ,Ohori M , et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2005;174:903-907
CrossRef | Web of Science35
Vis AN ,Schroder FH ,van der Kwast TH . The actual value of the surgical margin status as a predictor of disease progression in men with early prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006;50:258-265
CrossRef | Web of Science36
Albertsen PC ,Hanley JA ,Barrows GH , et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1248-1253
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline37
Ghani KR ,Grigor K ,Tulloch DN ,Bollina PR ,McNeill SA . Trends in reporting Gleason score 1991 to 2001: changes in the pathologist's practice. Eur Urol 2005;47:196-201
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline38
Stamey TA ,Johnstone IM ,McNeal JE ,Lu AY ,Yemoto CM . Preoperative serum prostate specific antigen levels between 2 and 22 ng/ml correlate poorly with post-radical prostatectomy cancer morphology: prostate-specific antigen cure rates appear constant between 2 and 9 ng/ml. J Urol 2002;167:103-111
CrossRef | Web of Science39
Donovan J ,Mills N ,Smith M , et al. Improving design and conduct of randomized trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. BMJ 2002;325:766-770
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline40
Sanda MG ,Dunn RL ,Michalski J , et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1250-1261
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline41
Johansson E ,Steineck G ,Holmberg L , et al. Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:891-899
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline42
Fransson P ,Damber JE ,Tomic R , et al. Quality of life and symptoms in a randomized trial of radiotherapy versus deferred treatment of localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2001;92:3111-3119
CrossRef | Web of Science43
Rosario DJ ,Lane JA ,Metcalfe C , et al. Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ 2012;344:d7894-d7894
CrossRef | Web of Science
- Citing Articles (98)
Citing Articles
1
Sanoj Punnen, Matthew R. Cooperberg. (2013) The epidemiology of high-risk prostate cancer. Current Opinion in Urology 23:4, 331-336
2
Steven Joniau, Lorenzo Tosco, Alberto Briganti, Thomas Vanden Broeck, Paolo Gontero, R. Jeffrey Karnes, Martin Spahn, Hein Van Poppel. (2013) Results of surgery for high-risk prostate cancer. Current Opinion in Urology 23:4, 342-348
3
Juanita Crook, Ana Fernandez Ots. (2013) Prognostic Factors for Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer and Their Role in Treatment Selection. Seminars in Radiation Oncology 23:3, 165-172
4
Ayal A. Aizer, Jonathan J. Paly, Jason A. Efstathiou. (2013) Multidisciplinary Care and Management Selection in Prostate Cancer. Seminars in Radiation Oncology 23:3, 157-164
5
Tsz Kin Lee, Rodney Henry Breau, Libni Eapen. (2013) Pilot Study on Quality of Life and Sexual Function in Men-Who-Have-Sex-with-Men Treated for Prostate Cancer. The Journal of Sexual Medicinen/a-n/a
6
F Fontes, M Severo, C Castro, S Lourenço, S Gomes, F Botelho, C La Vecchia, N Lunet. (2013) Model-based patterns in prostate cancer mortality worldwide. British Journal of Cancer 108:11, 2354-2366
7
Laurence Klotz. (2013) Prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes and Obesity 20:3, 204-209
8
Graham Sommer, Kim Butts Pauly, Andrew Holbrook, Juan Plata, Bruce Daniel, Donna Bouley, Harcharan Gill, Punit Prakash, Vasant Salgaonkar, Peter Jones, Chris Diederich. (2013) Applicators for Magnetic Resonance–Guided Ultrasonic Ablation of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Investigative Radiology 48:6, 387-394
9
Hashim U. Ahmed. (2013) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU International 111:7, 1011-1013
10
Teemu J. Murtola, Paula M. Kujala, Teuvo L.J. Tammela. (2013) High-grade prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy among men using 5α-reductase inhibitors and alpha-blockers. The Prostate 73:9, 923-931
11
Osamu Ukimura, Andre Luis de Castro Abreu, Inderbir S. Gill, Sunao Shoji, Andrew J. Hung, Duke Bahn. (2013) Image visibility of cancer to enhance targeting precision and spatial mapping biopsy for focal therapy of prostate cancer. BJU International 111:8, E354-E364
12
Iryna Makovey, Andrew J. Stephenson, Samuel Haywood. (2013) Response to the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force Decision on Prostate Cancer Screening. Current Urology Reports 14:3, 168-173
13
Kuo-How Huang, Stacey C. Carter, Jim C. Hu. (2013) Does Robotic Prostatectomy Meet Its Promise in the Management of Prostate Cancer?. Current Urology Reports 14:3, 184-191
14
Al B. Barqawi. (2013) Editorial Comment. Urology 81:6, 1296
15
L.M. Wong, G. Trottier, A. Toi, N. Lawrentschuk, T.H. Van der Kwast, A. Zlotta, G. Kulkarni, R. Hamilton, J. Trachtenberg, A. Evans, N. Timilshina, N.E. Fleshner, A. Finelli. (2013) Should Follow-up Biopsies for Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Be Restricted to Limited Templates?. Urology
16
V. Kasivisvanathan, M. Emberton, H.U. Ahmed. (2013) Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Rationale and Treatment Opportunities. Clinical Oncology
17
Stephen J. Freedland, Leah Gerber, Julia Reid, William Welbourn, Eliso Tikishvili, Jimmy Park, Adib Younus, Alexander Gutin, Zaina Sangale, Jerry S. Lanchbury, Joseph K. Salama, Steven Stone. (2013) Prognostic Utility of Cell Cycle Progression Score in Men With Prostate Cancer After Primary External Beam Radiation Therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
18
J. Verdú Solans, I. Roig Grau, C. Almirall Banqué. (2013) Fractura osteoporótica en paciente varón, secundaria a hipogonadismo por deprivación androgénica para tratamiento de adenocarcinoma prostático. SEMERGEN - Medicina de Familia
19
L. Dickinson, H.U. Ahmed, A. Kirkham, C. Allen, A. Freeman, J. Barber, R. Hindley, T. Leslie, C. Ogden, R. Persad, M.H. Winkler, M. Emberton. (2013) A Multi-Centre Prospective Development Study Evaluating Focal Therapy using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Localised Prostate Cancer: The INDEX Study. Contemporary Clinical Trials
20
Massimo Valerio, Hashim U. Ahmed, Mark Emberton, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Massimo Lazzeri, Rodolfo Montironi, Paul L. Nguyen, John Trachtenberg, Thomas J. Polascik. (2013) The Role of Focal Therapy in the Management of Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. European Urology
21
K. Mitsuzuka, T. Koie, S. Narita, Y. Kaiho, T. Yoneyama, N. Tsuchiya, N. Kakoi, S. Kawamura, T. Tochigi, C. Ohyama, T. Habuchi, T. Yamaguchi, Y. Arai. (2013) Changes in Indications and Oncological Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy After 2000--Data From 1268 Japanese Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy Between 2000 and 2009. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology
22
M de Camargo Cancela, H Comber, L Sharp. (2013) Age remains the major predictor of curative treatment non-receipt for localised prostate cancer: a population-based study. British Journal of Cancer
23
F. Recker, D. Seiler, B. Seifert, M. Randazzo, M. Kwiatkowski. (2013) PSA-Screening 2013. Der Urologe
24
H. Akaza, S. Hinotsu, M. R. Cooperberg, B.-H. Chung, J. Youl Lee, R. Umbas, T. Tsukamoto, M. Namiki, P. Carroll. (2013) Sixth Joint Meeting of J-CaP and CaPSURE--A Multinational Perspective on Prostate Cancer Management and Patient Outcomes. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology
25
Theo H. Van der Kwast, Monique J. Roobol. (2013) Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nature Reviews Urology
26
R. M. Hoffman, T. Koyama, K.-H. Fan, P. C. Albertsen, M. J. Barry, M. Goodman, A. S. Hamilton, A. L. Potosky, J. L. Stanford, A. M. Stroup, D. F. Penson. (2013) Mortality After Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 105:10, 711-718
27
Gurdarshan S. Sandhu, Gerald L. Andriole. (2013) Prostate cancer: Improvements in risk stratification of prostate cancer. Nature Reviews Urology
28
A. Horwich, J. Hugosson, T. de Reijke, T. Wiegel, K. Fizazi, V. Kataja, , C. Parker, J. Bellmunt, D. Berthold, A. Bill-Axelson, S. Carlsson, G. Daugaard, G. De Meerleer, T. de Reijke, D. Dearnaley, K. Fizazi, V. Fonteyne, S. Gillessen, D. Heinrich, A. Horwich, J. Hugosson, V. Kataja, M. Kwiatkowski, S. Nilsson, A. Padhani, C. Papandreou, C. Parker, M. Roobol, A. Sella, R. Valdagni, T. Van der Kwast, P. Verhagen, T. Wiegel. (2013) Prostate cancer: ESMO Consensus Conference Guidelines 2012. Annals of Oncology 24:5, 1141-1162
29
Kuo-How Huang, Stacey C Carter, Ya-Chen Tina Shih, Jim C Hu. (2013) Robotic and standard open radical prostatectomy: oncological and quality-of-life outcomes. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research 2:3, 293-299
30
Mari Nakabayashi, Julia Hayes, Mary-Ellen Taplin, Patrick Lefebvre, Marie-Helene Lafeuille, Mark Pomerantz, Christopher Sweeney, Mei Sheng Duh, Philip W. Kantoff. (2013) Clinical predictors of survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Cancern/a-n/a
31
Manfred P. Wirth, Michael Froehner. (2013) Predictive Significance of Confirmation Biopsies in Patients on Active Surveillance. European Urology
32
Maria C. Elkjær, Michael Borre. (2013) Oncological outcome after primary prostate cryoablation compared with radical prostatectomy: A single-centre experience. Scandinavian Journal of Urology1-7
33
J. Xia, R. Gulati, M. Au, J. L. Gore, D. W. Lin, R. Etzioni. (2013) Effects of Screening on Radical Prostatectomy Efficacy: The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 105:8, 546-550
34
Michael Froehner. (2013) Screening and efficacy of radical prostatectomy. Asian Journal of Andrology
35
Eric Barret, Youness Ahallal, Rafael Sanchez-Salas, Marc Galiano, Jean-Marc Cosset, Pierre Validire, Petr Macek, Matthieu Durand, Dominique Prapotnich, François Rozet, Xavier Cathelineau. (2013) Morbidity of Focal Therapy in the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer. European Urology 63:4, 618-622
36
Ben J. Challacombe, Declan G. Murphy. (2013) Focal Therapy in the Treatment of Localised Prostate Cancer: Primum Non Nocere. European Urology 63:4, 623-624
37
Vincent J. Gnanapragasam. (2013) To treat or not to treat: is the way forward clearer in low-risk prostate cancer?. BJU Internationaln/a-n/a
38
Ayal A. Aizer, Ming-Hui Chen, Jona Hattangadi, Anthony V. D'Amico. (2013) Initial management of prostate-specific antigen-detected, low-risk prostate cancer and the risk of death from prostate cancer. BJU Internationaln/a-n/a
39
Martin Andreas Røder, Klaus Brasso, Ib Jarle Christensen, Jørgen Johansen, Niels Christian Langkilde, Helle Hvarness, Steen Carlsson, Henrik Jakobsen, Michael Borre, Peter Iversen. (2013) Survival after radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer: a population-based study. BJU Internationaln/a-n/a
40
Sue M. Evans, Jeremy L. Millar, Julie M. Wood, Ian D. Davis, Damien Bolton, Graham G. Giles, Mark Frydenberg, Albert Frauman, Antony Costello, John J. McNeil. (2013) The Prostate Cancer Registry: monitoring patterns and quality of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. BJU International 111:4b, E158-E166
41
F. Gomez-Veiga, S. Pertega Diaz, S. Martinez Breijo. (2013) Cáncer de póstata: ¿tratar o no tratar?. Actas Urológicas Españolas
42
Roderick C.N. van den Bergh, Henk G. van der Poel. (2013) Reply from Authors re: Stacy Loeb. Does Delaying Prostate Cancer Treatment Miss the Window of Curability? Eur Urol. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.051. European Urology
43
T. Wiegel, P. Albers, R. Bussar-Maatz, A. Gottberg, M. Härter, M. Kieser, G. Kristiansen, G. Nettekoven, P. Martus, H. Schmidberger, S. Wellek, M. Stöckle. (2013) PREFERE – die Deutsche Prostatakrebsstudie. Der Urologe 52:4, 576-579
44
Hideki Takeshita, Noboru Numao, Toshiki Kijima, Minato Yokoyama, Junichiro Ishioka, Yoh Matsuoka, Fumitaka Koga, Kazutaka Saito, Hitoshi Masuda, Satoru Kawakami, Shinya Yamamoto, Junji Yonese, Yasuhisa Fujii, Kazunori Kihara. (2013) Diagnostic performance of initial transperineal 14-core prostate biopsy to detect significant cancer. International Urology and Nephrology
45
Alberto Briganti, Nazareno Suardi, Andrea Gallina, Firas Abdollah, Francesco Montorsi. (2013) Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Prostate Cancer: The Mystery Is Taking Shape. European Urology 63:3, 459-461
46
P. J. Barrow, S. Ingham, C. O’Hara, K. Green, I. McIntyre, F. Lalloo, J. Hill, D. G. Evans. (2013) The spectrum of urological malignancy in Lynch syndrome. Familial Cancer 12:1, 57-63
47
Emil Scosyrev, Edward M. Messing. (2013) Reply to prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer and the risk of overt metastatic disease at presentation. Cancer 119:5, 1113-1114
48
Ian E. Haines. (2013) Prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer and the risk of overt metastatic disease at presentation. Cancer 119:5, 1113-1113
49
Jay P. Ciezki. (2013) Oncology Scan—Genitourinary Cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 85:4, 891-893
50
Robert A. Smith, Durado Brooks, Vilma Cokkinides, Debbie Saslow, Otis W. Brawley. (2013) Cancer screening in the United States, 2013. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 63:2, 87-105
51
Zachary S. Zumsteg, Daniel E. Spratt, Isaac Pei, Zhigang Zhang, Yoshiya Yamada, Marisa Kollmeier, Michael J. Zelefsky. (2013) A New Risk Classification System for Therapeutic Decision Making with Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Dose-escalated External-beam Radiation Therapy. European Urology
52
Ian Haines. (2013) Postoperative radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. The Lancet 381:9872, 1093
53
Behfar Ehdaie, James A. Eastham. (2013) Effective Management of Localized Prostate Cancer: First, Do No Harm. European Urology
54
Joseph Ischia, Martin Gleave. (2013) Radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer. International Journal of Urology 20:3, 290-300
55
D.M. Somford, J.P. Basten. (2013) Radicale prostatectomie in Nederland. Tijdschrift voor Urologie 3:2, 47-51
56
Linda A. Bradley, Glenn E. Palomaki, Steven Gutman, David Samson, Naomi Aronson. (2013) Comparative Effectiveness Review: Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 (PCA3) Testing For the Diagnosis and Management of Prostate Cancer. The Journal of Urology
57
Jens Hansen, Felix K.-H. Chun. (2013) Reply from Authors re: Michael R. Abern, Stephen J. Freedland. Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 to Select Men for Prostate Biopsy: Stop, Go, or Proceed with Caution? Eur Urol 2013;63:210–1. European Urology 63:2, 212-213
58
John W. Davis, Prokar Dasgupta. (2013) A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons. BJU International 111:2, 184-185
59
Roderick C.N. van den Bergh, Peter C. Albertsen, Chris H. Bangma, Stephen J. Freedland, Markus Graefen, Andrew Vickers, Henk G. van der Poel. (2013) Timing of Curative Treatment for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. European Urology
60
Anna Bill-Axelson, Hans Garmo, Lars Holmberg, Jan-Erik Johansson, Hans-Olov Adami, Gunnar Steineck, Eva Johansson, Jennifer R. Rider. (2013) Long-term Distress After Radical Prostatectomy Versus Watchful Waiting in Prostate Cancer: A Longitudinal Study from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 Randomized Clinical Trial. European Urology
61
Elizabeth D. Selvadurai, Mausam Singhera, Karen Thomas, Kabir Mohammed, Ruth Woode-Amissah, Alan Horwich, Robert A. Huddart, David P. Dearnaley, Chris C. Parker. (2013) Medium-term Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Localised Prostate Cancer. European Urology
62
Stefan Thüroff, Christian Chaussy. (2013) Evolution and Outcomes of 3 MHz High Intensity Focused Ultrasound Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer During 15 Years. The Journal of Urology
63
Dragan Ilic, Molly M Neuberger, Mia Djulbegovic, Philipp Dahm, Dragan Ilic. Screening for prostate cancer. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2013.
64
Nathan A. Hoag, S. Larry Goldenberg. (2013) Prostate cancer in 2012: Paradigm shifts in prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Nature Reviews Urology 10:2, 69-70
65
Sarah Hawley, Ladan Fazli, Jesse K. McKenney, Jeff Simko, Dean Troyer, Marlo Nicolas, Lisa F. Newcomb, Janet E. Cowan, Luis Crouch, Michelle Ferrari, Javier Hernandez, Antonio Hurtado-Coll, Kyle Kuchinsky, Janet Liew, Rosario Mendez-Meza, Elizabeth Smith, Imelda Tenggara, Xiaotun Zhang, Peter R. Carroll, June M. Chan, Martin Gleave, Raymond Lance, Daniel W. Lin, Peter S. Nelson, Ian M. Thompson, Ziding Feng, Lawrence D. True, James D. Brooks. (2013) A Model for the Design and Construction of a Resource for the Validation of Prognostic Prostate Cancer Biomarkers. Advances In Anatomic Pathology 20:1, 39-44
66
M. Bretthauer, M. Kalager. (2013) Principles, effectiveness and caveats in screening for cancer. British Journal of Surgery 100:1, 55-65
67
Laurence Klotz. (2013) Strengthening evidence for active surveillance for prostate cancer. European Urology 63:1, 108-110
68
Mark Garzotto, Arthur Y. Hung. (2013) Advances in the Multimodality Management of High-risk Prostate Cancer. Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America
69
Zachary Hale, Makito Miyake, Diego Aguilar Palacios, Charles J Rosser. (2013) Focal cryosurgical ablation of the prostate: a single institute’s perspective. BMC Urology 13:1, 2
70
Matthew R. Cooperberg, Naren R. Ramakrishna, Steven B. Duff, Kathleen E. Hughes, Sara Sadownik, Joseph A. Smith, Ashutosh K. Tewari. (2013) Primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis. BJU Internationaln/a-n/a
71
Ruth Etzioni, Roman Gulati, Matt R. Cooperberg, David M. Penson, Noel S. Weiss, Ian M. Thompson. (2013) Limitations of Basing Screening Policies on Screening Trials. Medical Care1
72
Firas Abdollah, Alberto Briganti, Francesco Montorsi, Pierre I Karakiewicz, Maxine Sun. (2013) Response to Re: Comparison of mortality outcomes after radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer: A population-based analysis. International Journal of Urologyno-no
73
Robert ‘Frank’ A. Gardiner, John Yaxley, Peter D. Baade. (2012) Integrating disparate snippets of information in an approach to PSA testing in Australia and New Zealand. BJU International 110, 35-37
74
Stacy Loeb, Xiaoye Zhu, Fritz H. Schroder, Monique J. Roobol. (2012) Long-term radical prostatectomy outcomes among participants from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Rotterdam. BJU International 110:11, 1678-1683
75
Meelan Bul, Roderick C. N. van den Bergh, Xiaoye Zhu, Antti Rannikko, Hanna Vasarainen, Chris H. Bangma, Fritz H. Schröder, Monique J. Roobol. (2012) Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU International 110:11, 1672-1677
76
M. Bremer. (2012) Radikale Prostatektomie versus Zuwarten beim lokalisierten Prostatakarzinom. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 188:12, 1159-1160
77
Giuseppe Lippi, Rosalia Aloe, Camilla Mattiuzzi. (2012) Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA in prostate cancer screening: systematic review of current evidence and further perspectives. La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio - Italian Journal of Laboratory Medicine 8:4, 231-238
78
Christina Berndt, Jörg Zimmermann. (2012) Hat die Radikaloperation als Methode versagt?. Im Focus Onkologie 15:12, 32-32
79
Carrie Printz. (2012) Surgery no better than observation for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 118:22, 5452-5453
80
Giacomo Novara, Vincenzo Ficarra. (2012) Prostate cancer: Epidemiologic studies and changing clinical practice. Nature Reviews Urology 9:12, 676-677
81
Hashim U. Ahmed. (2012) Prostate cancer: Time for active surveillance of intermediate-risk disease?. Nature Reviews Urology 10:1, 6-8
82
(2012) Quality-of-Life Effects of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening. New England Journal of Medicine 367:19, 1861-1862
Free Full Text83
Oliver Sartor. (2012) Implications of the prostate intervention versus observation trial (PIVOT). Asian Journal of Andrology 14:6, 803-804
84
Timothy J Wilt. (2012) Implications of the prostate intervention versus observation trial (PIVOT). Asian Journal of Andrology 14:6, 815-815
85
Feng Xie. (2012) Cost Effectiveness of Treatment Options for Early Prostate Cancer: Can We Put the Puzzle Pieces Together?. European Urology
86
Drew Moghanaki, Stephen J Freedland, Mitchell Anscher. (2012) Re: Comparison of mortality outcomes after radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer: A population-based analysis. International Journal of Urologyn/a-n/a
87
Hashim Uddin Ahmed, Manit Arya, Alex Freeman, Mark Emberton. (2012) Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy?. The Lancet Oncology 13:11, e509-e517
88
Julian Mauermann, Vincent Fradet, Yves Fradet. (2012) Reply from Authors re: Martin Spahn, Steven Joniau. Positive Surgical Margin at Radical Prostatectomy: Futile or Surgeon-dependent Predictor of Prostate Cancer Death? Eur Urol. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.063. European Urology
89
L-M Wong, D E Neal, R B Johnston, N Shah, N Sharma, A Y Warren, C M Hovens, S Larry Goldenberg, M E Gleave, A J Costello, N M Corcoran. (2012) International multicentre study examining selection criteria for active surveillance in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. British Journal of Cancer 107:9, 1467-1473
90
(2012) Radical Prostatectomy versus Observation for Prostate Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 367:15, 1467-1469
Free Full Text91
Jesse D. Sammon, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Maxine Sun, Shyam Sukumar, Praful Ravi, Khurshid R. Ghani, Marco Bianchi, James O. Peabody, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Paul Perrotte, Jim C. Hu, Mani Menon, Quoc-Dien Trinh. (2012) Robot-Assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy: The Differential Effect of Regionalization, Procedure Volume and Operative Approach. The Journal of Urology
92
R. M. Hoffman. (2012) Improving the Communication of Benefits and Harms of Treatment Strategies: Decision Aids for Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions. JNCI Monographs 2012:45, 197-201
93
Martin Spahn, Steven Joniau. (2012) Positive Surgical Margin at Radical Prostatectomy: Futile or Surgeon-dependent Predictor of Prostate Cancer Death?. European Urology
94
(2012) Screening for Prostate Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 367:7,
Free Full Text95
Benjamin J. Davies. (2012) Prostate cancer: Lessons from PIVOT lost in media hype. Nature Reviews Urology 9:10, 548-549
96
Lisa Hutchinson. (2012) Urological cancer: Radical lessons learnt from the prostate cancer PIVOT trial. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 9:9, 489-489
97
Thompson , Ian M. Jr. , Tangen , Catherine M. , . (2012) Prostate Cancer — Uncertainty and a Way Forward. New England Journal of Medicine 367:3, 270-271
Full Text98
Alan Katz, Montserrat Ferrer, José Suárez, . (2012) Comparison of quality of life after stereotactic body radiotherapy and surgery for early-stage prostate cancer. Radiation Oncology 7:1, 194
- Comments (1)
- Letters
Include the excluded
Much data was obtained from the much larger number of men who did not volunteer but whose deaths must be on record. Comparison with the other two groups might be interesting.