Alec Zhu , Mary O. Strasser , Timothy D. McClure , Sofia Gereta , Emily Cheng , Kshitij Pandit , Jim C. Hu
{"title":"部分腺体冷冻消融术与机器人根治性前列腺切除术的癌症控制效果比较。","authors":"Alec Zhu , Mary O. Strasser , Timothy D. McClure , Sofia Gereta , Emily Cheng , Kshitij Pandit , Jim C. Hu","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2024.04.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>There is an absence of high-level evidence comparing oncologic endpoints for partial gland ablation, and most series use prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rather than biopsy endpoints. Our aim was to compare oncologic outcomes between partial gland cryoablation (PGC) and radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a retrospective, single-center analysis of subjects treated with PGC (<em>n</em> = 98) or RP (<em>n</em> = 536) between January 2017 and December 2022 as primary treatment for intermediate-risk (Gleason grade group [GG] 2–3) prostate cancer. Oncologic endpoints included surveillance biopsies per protocol after PGC in comparison to serial PSA testing after RP. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as a need for any salvage treatment or development of metastatic disease. Treatment failure and survival analyses were conducted using Cox proportional-hazard regression and Kaplan Meier survival curves.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>After applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the PGC (<em>n</em> = 75) and RP (<em>n</em> = 298) groups were compared. PGC patients were significantly older (71 vs 64 yr; <em>p</em> < 0.001), but there were no differences in PSA, biopsy GG, or treatment year between the groups. The PGC group had higher rates of treatment failures at 24 mo (33% vs 11%; <em>p</em> < 0.001) and 48 mo (43% vs 14%; <em>p</em> < 0.001). One PGC patient (2.1%) and one RP patient (0.7%) developed metastases by 48-mo follow-up (<em>p</em> = 0.4). On adjusted analysis, PGC was associated with a higher risk of treatment failure (hazard ratio 4.6, 95% confidence interval 2.7–7.9; <em>p</em> < 0.001). Limitations include observational biases associated with the retrospective study design.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This is the first comparative effectiveness study of cancer control outcomes for PGC versus RP. The results demonstrate an almost fivefold higher risk of treatment failure with PGC during short-term follow-up.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>We compared cancer control outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with partial gland cryoablation versus radical prostatectomy. We found that partial gland cryoablation had an almost fivefold higher risk of treatment failure. Men with prostate cancer should be counseled regarding this difference in treatment failure.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":"10 5","pages":"Pages 843-850"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Effectiveness of Partial Gland Cryoablation Versus Robotic Radical Prostatectomy for Cancer Control\",\"authors\":\"Alec Zhu , Mary O. Strasser , Timothy D. McClure , Sofia Gereta , Emily Cheng , Kshitij Pandit , Jim C. Hu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.euf.2024.04.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>There is an absence of high-level evidence comparing oncologic endpoints for partial gland ablation, and most series use prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rather than biopsy endpoints. Our aim was to compare oncologic outcomes between partial gland cryoablation (PGC) and radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a retrospective, single-center analysis of subjects treated with PGC (<em>n</em> = 98) or RP (<em>n</em> = 536) between January 2017 and December 2022 as primary treatment for intermediate-risk (Gleason grade group [GG] 2–3) prostate cancer. Oncologic endpoints included surveillance biopsies per protocol after PGC in comparison to serial PSA testing after RP. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as a need for any salvage treatment or development of metastatic disease. Treatment failure and survival analyses were conducted using Cox proportional-hazard regression and Kaplan Meier survival curves.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>After applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the PGC (<em>n</em> = 75) and RP (<em>n</em> = 298) groups were compared. PGC patients were significantly older (71 vs 64 yr; <em>p</em> < 0.001), but there were no differences in PSA, biopsy GG, or treatment year between the groups. The PGC group had higher rates of treatment failures at 24 mo (33% vs 11%; <em>p</em> < 0.001) and 48 mo (43% vs 14%; <em>p</em> < 0.001). One PGC patient (2.1%) and one RP patient (0.7%) developed metastases by 48-mo follow-up (<em>p</em> = 0.4). On adjusted analysis, PGC was associated with a higher risk of treatment failure (hazard ratio 4.6, 95% confidence interval 2.7–7.9; <em>p</em> < 0.001). Limitations include observational biases associated with the retrospective study design.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This is the first comparative effectiveness study of cancer control outcomes for PGC versus RP. The results demonstrate an almost fivefold higher risk of treatment failure with PGC during short-term follow-up.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>We compared cancer control outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with partial gland cryoablation versus radical prostatectomy. We found that partial gland cryoablation had an almost fivefold higher risk of treatment failure. Men with prostate cancer should be counseled regarding this difference in treatment failure.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European urology focus\",\"volume\":\"10 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 843-850\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European urology focus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405456924000609\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European urology focus","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405456924000609","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景和目的:目前还没有高水平的证据对部分腺体消融术的肿瘤学终点进行比较,大多数系列研究使用前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)而非活检终点。我们的目的是比较前列腺癌部分腺体冷冻消融术(PGC)和根治性前列腺切除术(RP)的肿瘤学结果:这是一项回顾性单中心分析,研究对象为2017年1月至2022年12月期间接受PGC(n = 98)或RP(n = 536)治疗的中危(格里森等级组[GG] 2-3)前列腺癌初治患者。肿瘤学终点包括 PGC 后按方案进行的监测活检与 RP 后进行的连续 PSA 检测的比较。主要结果是治疗失败,即需要任何挽救治疗或出现转移性疾病。治疗失败和生存分析采用 Cox 比例危险回归和 Kaplan Meier 生存曲线进行:在应用纳入/排除标准后,对 PGC 组(n = 75)和 RP 组(n = 298)进行了比较。PGC患者的年龄明显偏大(71岁对64岁;P 结论:这是第一项比较有效性研究:这是首次对 PGC 与 RP 的癌症控制效果进行比较研究。患者总结:我们比较了中危前列腺癌患者接受部分腺体冷冻消融术和根治性前列腺切除术治疗后的癌症控制效果。我们发现部分腺体冷冻消融术治疗失败的风险几乎高出五倍。应就治疗失败的这种差异向男性前列腺癌患者提供咨询。
Comparative Effectiveness of Partial Gland Cryoablation Versus Robotic Radical Prostatectomy for Cancer Control
Background and objective
There is an absence of high-level evidence comparing oncologic endpoints for partial gland ablation, and most series use prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rather than biopsy endpoints. Our aim was to compare oncologic outcomes between partial gland cryoablation (PGC) and radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer.
Methods
This was a retrospective, single-center analysis of subjects treated with PGC (n = 98) or RP (n = 536) between January 2017 and December 2022 as primary treatment for intermediate-risk (Gleason grade group [GG] 2–3) prostate cancer. Oncologic endpoints included surveillance biopsies per protocol after PGC in comparison to serial PSA testing after RP. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as a need for any salvage treatment or development of metastatic disease. Treatment failure and survival analyses were conducted using Cox proportional-hazard regression and Kaplan Meier survival curves.
Key findings and limitations
After applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the PGC (n = 75) and RP (n = 298) groups were compared. PGC patients were significantly older (71 vs 64 yr; p < 0.001), but there were no differences in PSA, biopsy GG, or treatment year between the groups. The PGC group had higher rates of treatment failures at 24 mo (33% vs 11%; p < 0.001) and 48 mo (43% vs 14%; p < 0.001). One PGC patient (2.1%) and one RP patient (0.7%) developed metastases by 48-mo follow-up (p = 0.4). On adjusted analysis, PGC was associated with a higher risk of treatment failure (hazard ratio 4.6, 95% confidence interval 2.7–7.9; p < 0.001). Limitations include observational biases associated with the retrospective study design.
Conclusions
This is the first comparative effectiveness study of cancer control outcomes for PGC versus RP. The results demonstrate an almost fivefold higher risk of treatment failure with PGC during short-term follow-up.
Patient summary
We compared cancer control outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with partial gland cryoablation versus radical prostatectomy. We found that partial gland cryoablation had an almost fivefold higher risk of treatment failure. Men with prostate cancer should be counseled regarding this difference in treatment failure.
期刊介绍:
European Urology Focus is a new sister journal to European Urology and an official publication of the European Association of Urology (EAU).
EU Focus will publish original articles, opinion piece editorials and topical reviews on a wide range of urological issues such as oncology, functional urology, reconstructive urology, laparoscopy, robotic surgery, endourology, female urology, andrology, paediatric urology and sexual medicine. The editorial team welcome basic and translational research articles in the field of urological diseases. Authors may be solicited by the Editor directly. All submitted manuscripts will be peer-reviewed by a panel of experts before being considered for publication.