Lu Yu, Ruping Yan, Deling Yang, Chengxing Xia, Zhixian Zhang
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer.","authors":"Lu Yu, Ruping Yan, Deling Yang, Chengxing Xia, Zhixian Zhang","doi":"10.3233/THC-240910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Both radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy are effective in controlling the condition of patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer (HRPCa). However, there is limited research on the prognosis and quality of life of HRPCa patients after different treatment modalities.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT), when treating high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Overall 103 HRPCa patients were included and were divided into RP group and RT group according to different treatment methods. The propensity score matching method (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data of the two groups and match 34 patients in each group. The prognosis, quality of life, and basic efficacy of patients were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After intervention, the disease-free survival rate of the RT group was higher than that of the RP group (79.41% vs. 55.88%, p= 0.038). Quality of life scores between the two treatment methods had no difference before intervention (p> 0.05), but higher in RT group than that of the RP group after intervention (p< 0.05). After treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in total effective rate of treatment between two groups (44.12% vs. 58.82%, p> 0.05), but the disease control rate was significantly higher in RT group (94.12% vs. 76.47%, p= 0.040).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Radical radiotherapy is effective in the clinical treatment of HRPCa patients, with a higher disease-free survival rate and improved quality of life after treatment, and is worth promoting.</p>","PeriodicalId":48978,"journal":{"name":"Technology and Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology and Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-240910","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Both radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy are effective in controlling the condition of patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer (HRPCa). However, there is limited research on the prognosis and quality of life of HRPCa patients after different treatment modalities.
Objective: To explore the efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT), when treating high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa).
Methods: Overall 103 HRPCa patients were included and were divided into RP group and RT group according to different treatment methods. The propensity score matching method (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data of the two groups and match 34 patients in each group. The prognosis, quality of life, and basic efficacy of patients were compared.
Results: After intervention, the disease-free survival rate of the RT group was higher than that of the RP group (79.41% vs. 55.88%, p= 0.038). Quality of life scores between the two treatment methods had no difference before intervention (p> 0.05), but higher in RT group than that of the RP group after intervention (p< 0.05). After treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in total effective rate of treatment between two groups (44.12% vs. 58.82%, p> 0.05), but the disease control rate was significantly higher in RT group (94.12% vs. 76.47%, p= 0.040).
Conclusion: Radical radiotherapy is effective in the clinical treatment of HRPCa patients, with a higher disease-free survival rate and improved quality of life after treatment, and is worth promoting.
期刊介绍:
Technology and Health Care is intended to serve as a forum for the presentation of original articles and technical notes, observing rigorous scientific standards. Furthermore, upon invitation, reviews, tutorials, discussion papers and minisymposia are featured. The main focus of THC is related to the overlapping areas of engineering and medicine. The following types of contributions are considered:
1.Original articles: New concepts, procedures and devices associated with the use of technology in medical research and clinical practice are presented to a readership with a widespread background in engineering and/or medicine. In particular, the clinical benefit deriving from the application of engineering methods and devices in clinical medicine should be demonstrated. Typically, full length original contributions have a length of 4000 words, thereby taking duly into account figures and tables.
2.Technical Notes and Short Communications: Technical Notes relate to novel technical developments with relevance for clinical medicine. In Short Communications, clinical applications are shortly described. 3.Both Technical Notes and Short Communications typically have a length of 1500 words.
Reviews and Tutorials (upon invitation only): Tutorial and educational articles for persons with a primarily medical background on principles of engineering with particular significance for biomedical applications and vice versa are presented. The Editorial Board is responsible for the selection of topics.
4.Minisymposia (upon invitation only): Under the leadership of a Special Editor, controversial or important issues relating to health care are highlighted and discussed by various authors.
5.Letters to the Editors: Discussions or short statements (not indexed).