TREATMENT OF LOCALIZED AND LOCALLY ADVANCED PROSTATE CANCER FROM A UROLOGIST‘S AND RADIATION ONCOLOGIST’S POINT OF VIEW.
Authors:
Gabriel Varga 1; Pavel Krupa 2; Pavel Šlampa 2; Dalibor Pacík 1
Authors place of work:
Urologická klinika LF MU a FN Brno
1; Klinika radiační onkologie LF MU a MOÚ, Brno
2
Published in the journal:
Ces Urol 2015; 19(4): 256-269
Category:
Review article
Summary
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer, which affects male Europeans. The disease currently represents a serious health problem, especially in developed countries with an increasing proportion of older men in the general population (1). When a patient is diagnosed with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa), the patient gets into a situation where they have to choose one treatment method over another. In this process, awareness and patient education are very important. This places great responsibility on us physicians, to act fully in accordance with the principles of ethics and morality, and in full conviction that we provide the patient with the best care based on the available evidence. We must consider the fact that every innovation in treatment is associated with high economic costs, which are also reflected in their introduction into regular practice through marketing processes and this can affect our treatment decision despite the absence of evidence supporting its potential benefit. However, the gold standard of surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer remains radical prostatectomy.
KEY WORDS:
Localized and locally advanced prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy.
Zdroje
1. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014; 65(1): 124–137.
2. Nilsson S, Norlen BJ, Widmark A. A systematic overview of radiation therapy effects in prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 2004; 43(4): 316–381.
3. N Mottet NBJ, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh RCN, et al. Guidelines pro léčbu karcinomu prostaty 2. část. Urol List 2014; 12(3): 44–76.
4. Kuban DA, Levy LB, Cheung MR, et al. Long-term failure patterns and survival in a randomized dose- escalation trial for prostate cancer. Who dies of disease? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. United States: 2011 Elsevier Inc; 2011. p. 1310–1317.
5. http://www.uroweb.cz/index.php?pg=dg--nadory-prostaty--projekty--analyzydostupnychpopulacnichdat- a-predikce-pro-obdobi-let-2011–2015-zhoubny-nador-prostaty--vysledky-analyzpopulacnichdat- pro-karcinom-prostaty. Accesed May 25th, 2015.
6. Mottet N BJ, Briers E, Briers E, et al. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Arnhem, The Netherlands. Edition presented at the EAU Annual Congress Madrid 2015.
7. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014; 65(2): 467–479.
8. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 2011; 3669–3676.
9. Vickers A BC, Steineck G, et al. Individualized estimation of the benefit of radical prostatectomy from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group randomized trial. Eur Urol 2012; 62(2): 204–209.
10. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol; 2009. 1–8.
11. Porter CR, Gallina A, Kodama K, et al. Prostate cancer-specific survival in men treated with hormonal therapy after failure of radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007; 446–452.
12. Albertsen PC, Moore DF, Shih W, Lin Y, Li H, Lu-Yao GL. Impact of comorbidity on survival among men with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29(10): 1335–1341.
13. Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Steineck G, et al. Results from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Trial Number 4: a randomized controlled trial of radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012 Dec; 2012(45): 230–233.
14. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(3): 203–213.
15. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al. Updated Nomogram Predicting Lymph Node Invasion in Patients with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: The Essential Importance of Percentage of Positive Cores. Eur Urol 2012; 61(3): 480–487.
16. Joniau S, Spahn M, Briganti A, et al. Pretreatment Tables Predicting Pathologic Stage of Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2015; 67(2): 319–325.
17. Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, et al. Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7(6): 472–479.
18. Engel J, Bastian PJ, Baur H, et al. Survival benefit of radical prostatectomy in lymph node-positive patients with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010; 57(5): 754–761.
19. Seiler R, Studer UE, Tschan K, et al. Removal of limited nodal disease in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: long-term results confirm a chance for cure. J Urol 2014; 191(5): 1280–1285.
20. Gandaglia G, Sammon JD, Chang SL, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted and Open Radical Prostatectomy in the Postdissemination Era. J Clin Oncol 2014; doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5096.
21. Kang DC, Hardee MJ, Fesperman SF, et al. Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature. Eur Urol 2010; 57(6): 930–937.
22. Sammon JD, Abdollah F, Klett DE, et al. The diminishing returns of robotic diffusion: complications following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2015; Mar 6.
23. Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC, et al. Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol 2012; 62(3): 368–381.
24. Barry MJ, Gallagher PM, Skinner JS, et al. Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicare-age men. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(5): 513–518.
25. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. Jama 2009; 302(14): 1557–1564.
26. Nguyen PL, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29(12): 1517–1524.
27. Schroeck FR, Krupski TL, Sun L, et al. Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008; 54(4): 785–793.
28. Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2012; 16(41): 1–313.
29. Djavan B, Eckersberger E, Finkelstein J, et al. Oncologic, functional, and cost analysis of open, laparoscopic, and robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Suppl 2010; 9(3): 371–378.
30. Hara I, Kawabata G, Miyake H, et al. Comparison of quality of life following laparoscopic and open prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2003; 169(6): 2045–2048.
31. Sammon JD, Karakiewicz PI, Sun M, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: the differential effect of regionalization, procedure volume and operative approach. J Urol 2013; 189(4): 1289–1294.
32. Bivalacqua TJ, Pierorazio PM, Su LM. Open, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: optimizing the surgical approach. Surg Oncol 2009; 18(3): 233–241.
33. Rosoff JS, Savage SJ, Prasad SM. Salvage radical prostatectomy as management of locally recurrent prostate cancer: outcomes and complications. W J Urol 2013; 31(6): 1347–1352.
34. Kimura M, Mouraviev V, Tsivian M, et al. Current salvage methods for recurrent prostate cancer after failure of primary radiotherapy. BJU Int 2010; 105(2): 191–201.
35. Chade DC, Eastham J, Graefen M, et al. Cancer control and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012; 61(5): 961–71.
36. Ismail M, Ahmed S, Kastner C, Davies J. Salvage cryotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radiation failure: a prospective case series of the first 100 patients. BJU Int 2007; 100(4): 760–764.
37. Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Sumo G, et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated highdose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary safety results from the CHHiP randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13(1): 43–54.
38. Peeters ST, Heemsbergen WD, Koper PC, et al. Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24(13): 1990–1996.
39. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Smith LG, et al. Preliminary results of a randomized radiotherapy dose-escalation study comparing 70 Gy with 78 Gy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18(23): 3904–3911.
40. Zelefsky MJ, Leibel SA, Gaudin PB, et al. Dose escalation with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy affects the outcome in prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 41(3): 491–500.
41. Zietman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD, et al. Comparison of conventional-dose vs highdose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 2005; 294(10): 1233–1239.
42. Boehmer D, Maingon P, Poortmans P, et al. Guidelines for primary radiotherapy of patients with prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2006; 79(3): 259–69.
43. Poortmans P, et al. Guidelines for target volume definition in post-operative radiotherapy for prostate cancer, on behalf of the EORTC Radiation Oncology Group. Radiother Oncol 2007; 84(2): 121–127.
44. Michalski JM, et al. Development of RTOG Consensus Guidelines for the Definition of the Clinical Target Volume for Postoperative Conformal Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76(2): 361–368.
45. Pommier P, Chabaud S, Lagrange JL, et al. Is there a role for pelvic irradiation in localized prostate adenocarcinoma? Preliminary results of GETUG-01. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(34): 5366–5373.
46. Lawton CA, DeSilvio M, Roach M, 3rd, et al. An update of the phase III trial comparing whole pelvic to prostate only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant to adjuvant total androgen suppression: updated analysis of RTOG 94–13, with emphasis on unexpected hormone/radiation interactions. Int J Radiat Oncol 2007; 69(3): 646–655.
47. Allen AM, Pawlicki T, Dong L, et al. An evidence based review of proton beam therapy: the report of ASTRO’s emerging technology committee. Radiother Oncol 2012; 103(1): 8–11.
48. SROBF. Vyjádření výboru SROBF ČLS JEP ke komuniké z odborného semináře Výboru pro zdravotnictví o protonové léčbě. Accessed 9. 7. 2015.
49. Soumarová R, Perková H, Homola L. Moderní radioterapie lokalizovaného karcinomu prostaty. Ces Urol 2013; 17(3): 154–165.50.
50. Penson DF, McLerran D, Feng Z, et al. 5-year urinary and sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Urol 2005; 173(5): 1701–1705.
Štítky
Paediatric urologist Nephrology UrologyČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Czech Urology
2015 Číslo 4
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- SEVEN YEARS EXPERIENCES WITH APLICATION OF SHOCK WAVES TO MEN WITH PEYRONIE‘S DISEASE
- SYNCHRONOUS BILATERAL TESTICULAR SEMINOMA
- INFECTED CYST CAUSING A MECHANICAL SYNDROME AS A COMPLICATION OF A RENAL CELL CARCINOMA
- TREATMENT OF LOCALIZED AND LOCALLY ADVANCED PROSTATE CANCER FROM A UROLOGIST‘S AND RADIATION ONCOLOGIST’S POINT OF VIEW.