A comparative study of radical prostatectomy and permanent seed brachytherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer

Authors

  • Daniel Taussky Département de Radio-Oncologie, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM) - Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montréal, Québec, Canada
  • Véronique Ouellet Research Center Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montréal, Canada
  • Guila Delouya Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montréal, Canada
  • Fred Saad Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Hôpital Saint-Luc, Montréal, Canada

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3537

Abstract

Introduction: We sought to compare the outcomes between radical prostatectomy (RP) and permanent seed prostate brachytherapy (PB) in patients with low- and low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer from a single tertiary care centre.

Methods: Patients were selected from our institute’s internal database based on preoperative selection criteria from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (2015) for low- and intermediate-risk patients. No patient had received any neo-adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy. The endpoint was biochemical recurrence (BCR) or any salvage treatment for both RP and PB at 48 ± 4 months after treatment. The biochemical relapse threshold was set at prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥0.5 ng/mL for PB and two PSA values of ≥0.2 ng/mL for RP. Patients from both treatment groups were compared using non-parametric tests. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine an association of treatment and pretreatment factors with a BCR at 48 months.

Results: A total of 575 patients were included in this study; 254 were treated with RP and 321 with PB. BCR was not different between both groups (p=0.84, Chi-square test), and occurred in 21.2% of patients treated with RP and in 20.6% with PB. Based on univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, younger age, higher percentage of positive biopsies, and initial PSA were predictive of BCR. Treatment modality was not predictive in either univariate (odds ratio [OR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64‒1.44; p=0.84) or multivariate (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.89‒2.30; p=0.14) analyses.

Conclusions: Using closely related cutoff values for BCR, both RP and PB did not have significantly different outcomes at four years post-treatment. A longer followup may be necessary to detect a difference between treatments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2016-08-16

How to Cite

Taussky, D., Ouellet, V., Delouya, G., & Saad, F. (2016). A comparative study of radical prostatectomy and permanent seed brachytherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 10(7-8), 246–50. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3537

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 7-8 (2016): CUAJ August

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.